# It’s LAUNCH DAY For The Pathfinder 2 Playtest!



## SMHWorlds (Aug 2, 2018)

Lots of people going to be looking this over (myself included). Should be an interesting few days.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 2, 2018)

All the PDFs are signed. I guess that's just SOP for the Paizo "shop".


----------



## Raunalyn (Aug 2, 2018)

The download is slow...just to warn you.

I'm questioning some of their design choices, but reserving judgement until I've completed perusing the content.


----------



## unnatural 20 (Aug 2, 2018)

Raunalyn said:


> The download is slow...just to warn you.
> 
> I'm questioning some of their design choices, but reserving judgement until I've completed perusing the content.




I hope you'll be up for a mini-review!


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 2, 2018)

Can we have the previous thread merged into this one please? 
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?652247-The-playtest-is-here!!


----------



## neobolts (Aug 2, 2018)

"In theory, goblins could live 50 years or more" is my favorite line so far.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 2, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Can we have the previous thread merged into this one please?
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?652247-The-playtest-is-here!!




No, this one is attached to the front page article. That one is an older thread whose title has been edited. I definitely prefer my version for the front page.


----------



## The White Sorcerer (Aug 2, 2018)

Would it really have killed them to make the character sheet and tracking sheets printer friendly?


----------



## crazy_cat (Aug 2, 2018)

I'm in the UK and preordered the hardcopy 2e playtest from Leisure Games - my order is now showing as fulfilled which i think means it shipped today. Yay!!


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Aug 2, 2018)

The book looks fun!


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 2, 2018)

Insane amount of free material. I haven't started reading it yet, much......I never played PF, but really liked the tactical parts of 3.x and 4.0....but man, there are a lot of numbers on the monsters!


----------



## Raunalyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Initial impressions:

3 actions and one reaction per turn. Attacking is an action...casting a spell, walking, jumping up and down. All actions. Everyone gets them. So, if you stay still, do you get three attacks? Looking deeper to see if I can get some clarity here...
I'm not sure about using the Ancestry (i.e. Dwarf, elf, Human, etc.) to determine starting hit points...not really sure if I like it.
The system is very feat heavy. For example, you get feats for ancestry, for class, etc. I kind of like this as it allows you to really customize your character, though I do wonder about potential broken combos.
The number of skills you get is based of your Intelligence. YES!!
Clerics and their channel energy...holy chit!!! They can cast a maximized a Heal or Harm spell 3 times a day? I haven't gotten to the spell list yet, so I'm really hoping those spells have been modified...
The character creation is interesting. You get attribute boosts for your ancestry, for your background, for your class, and then 4 free ones. All stats start at 10.
Backgrounds appear to have a significant impact on your character. This is a good thing, IMO.

Ok...those are just first impressions. Still reading.


----------



## DCRWrites (Aug 2, 2018)

I'm not very far into it, but it's fascinating to see what they're doing.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 2, 2018)

As someone who hasn't played Pathfinder or followed 2e's development but is still curious, what is comparison of P2 to P1, relative to D&D editions? Is it more of a smaller organizational change like AD&D 1E to 2E or 3E to 3.5 a massive change like 2E to 3E, 3.5 to 4E or 4E to 5E?


----------



## Schmoe (Aug 2, 2018)

[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], my impression (from following previews) is that this change is more analogous to the shift from D&D 2E -> 3E.


----------



## LostWormOnItsWayHome (Aug 2, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> As someone who hasn't played Pathfinder or followed 2e's development but is still curious, what is comparison of P2 to P1, relative to D&D editions? Is it more of a smaller organizational change like AD&D 1E to 2E or 3E to 3.5 a massive change like 2E to 3E, 3.5 to 4E or 4E to 5E?




Based on paying attention to the previews and skimming through the playtest document, it's probably akin to a change from 2e to 3e.


----------



## ruemere (Aug 2, 2018)

[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], PFRPG2 to PFRPG1 is like 3.5 to 3.0. Same base system, new mechanics. The changes are _nowhere_ near jump from 2E to 3E.


----------



## thekittenhugs (Aug 2, 2018)

The real comparison here should be from 3.5e to 4e. Everything is far more compartmentalized and modularized, with weird changes to prices and an obsession with giving everything (equipment, check DCs, monsters) "level" markers. The similarities between 4e power, item, and monster cards and the way PF2e's playtests lays out pretty much everything is striking. An odd choice, since PF's success hinged on 4e's lack thereof.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 2, 2018)

We’ve had votes for 2E-3E, 3.5-3.0(?!), and 3.5-4E. Running out of options, but I’m gonna grab 1E-2E before it goes! I think that only leaves 4E-5E.


----------



## LrdApoc (Aug 2, 2018)

I guess I was one of the lucky 3. I got both copies I pre-ordered through Amazon today.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 2, 2018)

Haha, four responses and three very different answers. But thanks! Interesting stuff. The play test looks really nice and my first impression is that I can see what [MENTION=6951223]thekittenhugs[/MENTION] means, although it seems the “4edification” is relatively surface level.

In that sense, I see similarities between 1e and 2e: taking the same basic game but cleaning it up and organizing it a bit. 

What makes folks say 2e to 3e? That’s a pretty big jump.

Also, I’m sure this has been discussed but it seems formatted for digest size.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 2, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> As someone who hasn't played Pathfinder or followed 2e's development but is still curious, what is comparison of P2 to P1, relative to D&D editions? Is it more of a smaller organizational change like AD&D 1E to 2E or 3E to 3.5 a massive change like 2E to 3E, 3.5 to 4E or 4E to 5E?



I think the fact that PF1e is just a slight evolution from 3.5 makes the 3.5->4e comparison kind of unavoidable.  PF2e has a lot of modular options on a more structured base chassis, and simply looks more "designed" than 3.5/PF, which also makes the 4e comparisons easier.     

The real big design iteration for PF2e is the degrees of success built into attacks and spells, where getting a crit success(which is a nat 20 or success by 10 or more) gives a bonus effect, and getting a crit failure (a nat 1 or failure by 10 or more) has a stiff penalty.


----------



## TrickyUK (Aug 2, 2018)

crazy_cat said:


> I'm in the UK and preordered the hardcopy 2e playtest from Leisure Games - my order is now showing as fulfilled which i think means it shipped today. Yay!!




I ordered from Games Lore. They say that the Hard Cover Rulebook arrived, but not the adventure. As I ordered both, I am waiting on the latter to arrive before both are shipped. Seems odd that all playtest products didn't arrive together.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 2, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> As someone who hasn't played Pathfinder or followed 2e's development but is still curious, what is comparison of P2 to P1, relative to D&D editions? Is it more of a smaller organizational change like AD&D 1E to 2E or 3E to 3.5 a massive change like 2E to 3E, 3.5 to 4E or 4E to 5E?



It’s a pretty big change.

Glancing and skimming through the PDF I have no idea how a lot of things work. Such as attack bonuses, what certain feats do, and the like. There’s a lot of unfamiliar jargon that I cannot parse yet. I’m pretty adept at Pathfinder 1 and didn’t have many problems with Starfinder, but this is a step beyond.

It’s like reading an entirely unfamiliar rules system. And a crunchy one at that. 

I’d likely compare it most to 3e to 4e. I imagine the base rules and play is similar, but how classes work has radically changed. 
Monsters seem mostly unaffected, although there’s some minor changes to formatting and feats have been removed. But it looks like they’ve largely retained the math.


----------



## thullgrim (Aug 3, 2018)

3e to 4 e for me but I like 4e so it isn’t a problem.


----------



## ronaldsf (Aug 3, 2018)

Pathfinder GM here. To add some perspective, there are people on the Paizo boards complaining that "if they wanted to play 5th edition D&D, they would've play 5th edition D&D." Ha!

I would say that the jump from 2E to 3E of adding order to a bunch of ad hoc systems and the uniform d20 mechanic, is more extreme than the shift from PF1 to PF2.

The jump from 3.5E to 4th Edition would be more drastic than this; 4th Edition seemed to start from scratch, and get its inspiration/roots from places outside D&D.

I would say it's similar to 5th Edition, in that it draws inspiration from all editions. There is some math-flattening and power-flattening and some reining in of the casters and buffing of martials, like 5th edition. But the end design goal is to preserve character customization, while the design goal of 5th edition seemed to be more ease of play / ease of DMing. And there is some shifting toward the "powers" of 4E and streamlining with keywords to make it run more smoothly.


----------



## R_Chance (Aug 3, 2018)

LrdApoc said:


> I guess I was one of the lucky 3. I got both copies I pre-ordered through Amazon today.




That makes two of us. Lucky that is. My Amazon pre-order Hardback shipped yesterday, is in route, and scheduled for delivery Friday. ​


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Aug 3, 2018)

ruemere said:


> [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], PFRPG2 to PFRPG1 is like 3.5 to 3.0. Same base system, new mechanics. The changes are _nowhere_ near jump from 2E to 3E.




To me the changes are much bigger than a simple revision that was 3.5 to 3.0.

These are pretty big, when taken as a whole. I'm in agreement with others who see it as a 2e to 3e jump. 

PF2 is now looking a lot like Radiance and 5e, where everything is split into different categories of Feats and Proficiency levels and an increased level of Tactical simulation. 

This game looks like a true evolution on the d20 fantasy system that 4e wasn't able to be.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 3, 2018)

3.0 to 3.5 was some rebalancing and a few new abilities.

2e to 3e kept the same flavor but fixed a bunch of math and made mechanics more consistent and logical, instead of ad hoc.

3.5 to 4e was designed to make the game playable on a digital platform, and often felt mechanics-first, flavor-second.

5e really felt more like starting with 2e, and then using 15 years of game design experience to do what 3e _wanted_ without requiring as much cognitive load to run the game.

...

PF1 to PF2 is its own unique change, but if I had to pick one other edition switch to compare it to, I'd say *2e to 3e*. It wants the game to feel the same, but have more finely-engineered mechanics.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 3, 2018)

Morrus said:


> We’ve had votes for 2E-3E, 3.5-3.0(?!), and 3.5-4E. Running out of options, but I’m gonna grab 1E-2E before it goes! I think that only leaves 4E-5E.




Personally, I think the difference between PF1 and PF2 is most like the difference between the original white box D&D and the Holmes 77 D&D basic set.

EDIT: The above is me being silly, of course. But an apt comparison does come to mind! Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds 1E superhero game was very much like D&D 3E, just like PF1, as both are derived from the 3E OGL. M&M moved further and further away from D&D each time it got an edition upgrade (it's on its 3rd Edition right now). The same seems to be happening to Pathfinder, although perhaps to a lesser extent.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 3, 2018)

It does seem like there's a diversity of views, but that the consensus--or at least the median--is something like "more than a little, but not enormous."

Anyhow, the discussion and a skimming of the playtest has gotten me interested in trying PF2 at some point. 

One more question: How is it crunch-wise, relative to PF1 (very rules heavy) and, say, 5E (rules medium plus)? It seems a bit less rules-heavy than PF1...or maybe it has just been tightened up and streamlined a bit, sort of like the change from AD&D 1E to 2E.


----------



## Tumorseal (Aug 3, 2018)

I think it is long past time for a Pathfinder only section of the forum.


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 3, 2018)

I would say, very rules heavy.


----------



## Henry (Aug 3, 2018)

ruemere said:


> [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], PFRPG2 to PFRPG1 is like 3.5 to 3.0. Same base system, new mechanics. The changes are _nowhere_ near jump from 2E to 3E.




I really have to disagree. Between the “spell grooves” system similar to 5th edition, and the de-emphasis of odd numbered stats, and the MUCH tighter math between two characters of equal level, and the removal of 3e style multiclassing, it’s more like going from 3e D&D to 5e D&D. Personally, I like it, but the reaction on the forums seems quite mixed.



Mercurius said:


> One more question: How is it crunch-wise, relative to PF1 (very rules heavy) and, say, 5E (rules medium plus)? It seems a bit less rules-heavy than PF1...or maybe it has just been tightened up and streamlined a bit, sort of like the change from AD&D 1E to 2E.




I’d say the crunch is definitely still there, but moved around. Skills simplified, weapons complexity added. Class features simplified, but the level of choice in your class diversity greatly expanded via class feats and skill feats.


----------



## Henry (Aug 3, 2018)

R_Chance said:


> That makes two of us. Lucky that is. My Amazon pre-order Hardback shipped yesterday, is in route, and scheduled for delivery Friday. ​




I ordered through Amazon and had no problem, it arrived today at exactly the time specified. It seems the problem was mainly with Paizo orders to Amazon’s fulfillment services - Amazon (intentionally or not) really screwed Paizo on this deal. By contrast, the playtest download that was contracted to via Amazon Web Services went super-smoothly from what I could tell. I checked around 1PM EDT and had my bundle by 1:02.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 3, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> One more question: How is it crunch-wise, relative to PF1 (very rules heavy) and, say, 5E (rules medium plus)? It seems a bit less rules-heavy than PF1...or maybe it has just been tightened up and streamlined a bit, sort of like the change from AD&D 1E to 2E.




It is very crunchy, closer to PF1 than it is to 5e, but I would argue that is crunch is put to better use than PF1. PF1 often feels needlessly complex to me, where PF2 feels like its complexity is always being put to very specific purpose.

I think this system is unfortunately going to require a lot of overhead to learn. As I’m reading, I’m frequently having to hop back and forth between different sections to understand everything. A Class Feat might let me use a certain basic skill action in a different way, so I need to hop to the skills section to see what that action does, but it turns out that action gives the subject certain Condition on a success, and another Condition on a critical success, so then I have to jump over to the Condition section to see what they do... It’s a lot of work right now, but I imagine once I’m used to it, it’ll make things very easy to quickly use and reference. That’s one of the ways it’s similar to 4e - lots of technical jargon and keywording, which means it will be highly user-friendly for those who take the time to become literate with it, but it may be alienating for more casual users.


----------



## mewzard (Aug 3, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It is very crunchy, closer to PF1 than it is to 5e, but I would argue that is crunch is put to better use than PF1. PF1 often feels needlessly complex to me, where PF2 feels like its complexity is always being put to very specific purpose.
> 
> I think this system is unfortunately going to require a lot of overhead to learn. As I’m reading, I’m frequently having to hop back and forth between different sections to understand everything. A Class Feat might let me use a certain basic skill action in a different way, so I need to hop to the skills section to see what that action does, but it turns out that action gives the subject certain Condition on a success, and another Condition on a critical success, so then I have to jump over to the Condition section to see what they do... It’s a lot of work right now, but I imagine once I’m used to it, it’ll make things very easy to quickly use and reference. That’s one of the ways it’s similar to 4e - lots of technical jargon and keywording, which means it will be highly user-friendly for those who take the time to become literate with it, but it may be alienating for more casual users.




I feel like once an SRD is up and running and this stuff is a quick search and decently organized with links and what have you, it'll make it all the easier to pick up. Still in my first read through, finally at skills.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 3, 2018)

I would say that the crunch is far more transparent in PF2 than PF1, though the "natural language" of PF1 obscured the complexity of the crunch. I could see how that transparent high crunch level of PF2 could be highly intimidating for a new player to RPGs. The game, at least according to most live play groups, was easy to run. So it's possible that PF2 has a higher entry point but a more leveled-off play point in terms of its crunch, complexity, and easy-of-play. Sadly, I have so many systems that I want to try - and so many players in my group who want to keep us to a small subset of systems (3-5) - that I may likely not get a chance to playtest this properly.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 3, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It is very crunchy, closer to PF1 than it is to 5e, but I would argue that is crunch is put to better use than PF1. PF1 often feels needlessly complex to me, where PF2 feels like its complexity is always being put to very specific purpose.



I would hope so. PF1 is definitely too complex for my taste (these days). While I can still handle the complexity with some effort (and precious time), neither my DM nor my fellow players are up to it. And that's a really bad thing.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Morrus said:


> We’ve had votes for 2E-3E, 3.5-3.0(?!), and 3.5-4E. Running out of options, but I’m gonna grab 1E-2E before it goes! I think that only leaves 4E-5E.



I vote 4E to OD&D!


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Several people compare it to "anything to 4E"

Hope you mean in complexity and with no actual implication it'll be anything like the actual 4E.

Either in implementation, gameplay or (lack of) commercial success.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> It does seem like there's a diversity of views, but that the consensus--or at least the median--is something like "more than a little, but not enormous."
> 
> Anyhow, the discussion and a skimming of the playtest has gotten me interested in trying PF2 at some point.
> 
> One more question: How is it crunch-wise, relative to PF1 (very rules heavy) and, say, 5E (rules medium plus)? It seems a bit less rules-heavy than PF1...or maybe it has just been tightened up and streamlined a bit, sort of like the change from AD&D 1E to 2E.



I would be very surprised if the answer isn't "bone-crunchingly rules-heavy"

5E is a HUGE improvement over d20 as in "running NPCs in 3E is mind-numbingly dull and killed my interest in ever DMing that edition ever again"

5E single-handedly rescued my ability to DM Dungeons & Dragons in that regard.

Pathfinder is off the charts in this regard. 5E is positively rules light in comparison.

PS: not trying to edition-war. Read my later post below where I confess I would love to play Pathfinder.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

The Human Target said:


> I would say, very rules heavy.



Yes. Oh yes.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> I would hope so. PF1 is definitely too complex for my taste (these days). While I can still handle the complexity with some effort (and precious time), neither my DM nor my fellow players are up to it. And that's a really bad thing.



My players would LOVE the super-crunch of Pathfinder. 

And to be honest, so would I.

As a player. As the DM, simplified monster/NPC stats that give up any notion of following the same rules as PCs is a must.

Any game where it takes longer to create a NPC than for the player characters to kill it is right out. 

So 5E is a compromise. Which is more important: getting to play that lovely crunchy (and minmaxed to oblivion) character? Or playing at all (at least with me as the gamesmaster)...?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Head on over to Paizo.com to download it for free.



It wasn't free - they wanted me to sign in and accept marketing emails. 

That's not free. If I'm the product it isn't free.

_Edit:_ They even watermark the playtest! Luckily I used maildrop.cc to create a burner email with no connection to my real personal details I will never read or use again.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It wasn't free - they wanted me to sign in and accept marketing emails.
> 
> That's not free. If I'm the product it isn't free.




OK.


----------



## zztong (Aug 3, 2018)

Schmoe said:


> [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], my impression (from following previews) is that this change is more analogous to the shift from D&D 2E -> 3E.




Everyone's got their own perspectives. Admittedly, I've only been kicking the tires for about 2 hours, but so far it feels like D&D 3.5 => D&D 4.0 to me. My first attempt to make a character resulted in a Ranger that didn't feel like a Ranger. Part of that may be that I'm angling it into some multiclassing. But part of it appears to be that I spend a lot of time agonizing over 4 class feats hoping that if I just kept rereading them that 1 of them would somehow become relevant to my conception.


----------



## Raunalyn (Aug 3, 2018)

zztong said:


> Everyone's got their own perspectives. Admittedly, I've only been kicking the tires for about 2 hours, but so far it feels like D&D 3.5 => D&D 4.0 to me. My first attempt to make a character resulted in a Ranger that didn't feel like a Ranger. Part of that may be that I'm angling it into some multiclassing. But part of it appears to be that I spend a lot of time agonizing over 4 class feats hoping that if I just kept rereading them that 1 of them would somehow become relevant to my conception.




I will agree with this as well...it feels closer to the 3.5 to 4e changes. Everything seems to be kind of baked into the classes (which I like), except here, they are class feats. Adds for a lot of customizabilty...which could present its own problems.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 3, 2018)

My 2...

I think there are some great ideas in there. But the implementation...In that respect it seems very "4e" ish to me. The way statblocks are arranged,  the vast # of player facing character choices and massive character sheets, assigning everything keywords and descriptors so that everything fits in neat little boxes. 

The difference is 4e skewed too far from "classic" D&D in some ways , whereas PF2' is staying too true to "classic" PF.   I just don't have the mental endurance or patience to read through Paizo's college textbooks anymore. 

Hopefully their PF 2 adventures will still be worth a look.


----------



## Schmoe (Aug 3, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> Haha, four responses and three very different answers. But thanks! Interesting stuff. The play test looks really nice and my first impression is that I can see what [MENTION=6951223]thekittenhugs[/MENTION] means, although it seems the “4edification” is relatively surface level.
> 
> In that sense, I see similarities between 1e and 2e: taking the same basic game but cleaning it up and organizing it a bit.
> 
> ...




I'd like to preface this by saying that I don't have extensive experience with PF.  I only played a bit, though I own a number of the books and have read a bunch of adventures.  I also haven't made a character or played PF2 yet, either.  So take what I say with a grain of salt.

As someone who lived through all of those changes (except 4e->5e, because I never switched to 4e), I thought the 2e->3e shift was the best analogy for a few reasons.  First, 3e was a big shift from 2e.  Wide collections of random sub-systems were largely consolidated into just a few, vague rules omissions or voids were codified and standardized.  It introduced a new class (the sorcerer) and made some big changes to others.  On the other hand, it still felt very much like 2e D&D.  In a large sense, it felt like 2e but just bigger and bolder.  3e either took existing subsystems and unified them, or took part of the game and evolved it and fleshed it out.  The rule-set was a larger-than-life 2e rule-set.

By contrast, the 1e->2e shift was, as you say, more of a slight re-organization and tidying up of the rules.  It made proficiencies official, which was neat, but most everything else looked like 1e with a small facelift.

3e->3.5e was even less of a change than 1e->2e.

As for 3.5e->4e, that was another thing entirely.  4e felt like a completely different game.  It no longer supported TotM.  All classes were just different collections of powers.  Monsters, equipment, and powers all conspired together to make the math the same across all tiers, just with bigger numbers.  I loved some of the innovations in 4e (minions in particular), but it was so much more gamist than previous editions that it felt like it sprang from an entirely different family of games.  It was decidedly NOT the D&D I was familiar with.  With 1e through 3.5e, I could play in my simulationist fantasy worlds and find a way for the rules to provide some sort of internal consistency to the game.  With 4e, I just couldn't do it.  It was unabashedly a game, not a toolset for creating adventures, and it wouldn't let me forget it.

So when I look at PF1->PF2, I get the impression that it is significantly expanding the design space in some of the areas that were introduced in PF1.  It is also consolidating some disparate systems into a more unified set of mechanics.  But at the end of the day, it still feels like Pathfinder.  There are some big innovations, for sure, but I can see the ties between the two systems.  PF2 feels like a bigger and bolder PF1, where they have doubled-down on what PF1 was all about.  It's not a radical departure from what PF1 was at its core.

Does that help?


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> My players would LOVE the super-crunch of Pathfinder.
> 
> And to be honest, so would I.
> 
> As a player. As the DM, simplified monster/NPC stats that give up any notion of following the same rules as PCs is a must.




...NPCs don’t follow the same rules as PCs in PF2 though.


----------



## qstor (Aug 3, 2018)

I think it's more like 3.5e to 5e. After a quick glance, PF2 seems a lot more simpler in some respects. It's toned down a lot of the power options. There's comments on the Paizo boards like "I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design trends. "

I can see a lot of PF1e fans won't like it. I have friends that are big power gamers and a lot of the "candy store" is closed in that regards. We'll see if more builder books for PF2 come out or if Paizo follows WotC lead and slows production of material.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 3, 2018)

I don't doubt you that PF1 fans of the power level may be wailing and gnashing their teeth, but this PF1 player is really digging what he's seeing thus far.


----------



## Shadow Demon (Aug 3, 2018)

One cool thing is that conversion of Paizo adventure paths to 5e is going to be easier with PF2 than with PF1. In particular, there is less extraneous feats and skills with monsters and NPCs. Although I still don't understand how the monster math actually works...


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> ...NPCs don’t follow the same rules as PCs in PF2 though.



True.

But when I heard them boast (somewhere) "Now you can create a NPC in half the time" I realized I needed to let go of the hope. Half of way too long is still... way too long.

As a contrast, I'd say a high-level NPC in 5th edition takes 5% of the time of high-level d20. Not the same ballpark.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> True.
> 
> But when I heard them boast (somewhere) "Now you can create a NPC in half the time" I realized I needed to let go of the hope. Half of way too long is still... way too long.
> 
> As a contrast, I'd say a high-level NPC in 5th edition takes 5% of the time of high-level d20. Not the same ballpark.




If it follows Starfinder's methodology, "half the time" is the high-water mark.  I was strongly in the PCs and NPCs should use the same rules camp until I played Starfinder.  The first few NPCs I made were comparable time-wise to PC creation but that's only because I was learning the system and constantly comparing the "PC build" of the character to the "NPC build" to better understand the differences.  Starfinder sold me on their NPC system, and I expect PF2 to do the same and if it's even close, NPC-creation time drops significantly.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Azgulor said:


> I was strongly in the PCs and NPCs should use the same rules camp until I played Starfinder.



In contrast, all the time I DMs 3.0 and 3.5, I asked myself why I had to build NPCs at all.

I like spending my prep time on other stuff. I like taking my NPCs off the shelf (including lifting "unique" ones from the hardback adventures and then slightly tweaking them).

I want a game with d20 (and PF) complexity on the player-side but 5E's (complete lack of) complexity on the DM side.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> In contrast, all the time I DMs 3.0 and 3.5, I asked myself why I had to build NPCs at all.
> 
> I like spending my prep time on other stuff. I like taking my NPCs off the shelf (including lifting "unique" ones from the hardback adventures and then slightly tweaking them).
> 
> I want a game with d20 (and PF) complexity on the player-side but 5E's (complete lack of) complexity on the DM side.




Then you'll likely be covered over time but not at the playtest launch.

Pre-made NPC sources have long been a Paizo staple: Gamemastery Guide, NPC Codex, Alien Archive, etc.


----------



## mewzard (Aug 3, 2018)

qstor said:


> I think it's more like 3.5e to 5e. After a quick glance, PF2 seems a lot more simpler in some respects. It's toned down a lot of the power options. There's comments on the Paizo boards like "I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design trends. "
> 
> I can see a lot of PF1e fans won't like it. I have friends that are big power gamers and a lot of the "candy store" is closed in that regards. We'll see if more builder books for PF2 come out or if Paizo follows WotC lead and slows production of material.




Well, I mean, yes and no. In some ways, there's been a bit of a tone down, and the gap between martials and casters has shrunk some between skill feats and ritual casting that martials can do.

...But then you see things like the 10th Level Primal Spell that Druids can learn that literally lets them turn into a Kaiju, and you know things haven't all gone down power wise.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 3, 2018)

Azgulor said:


> Then you'll likely be covered over time but not at the playtest launch.
> 
> Pre-made NPC sources have long been a Paizo staple: Gamemastery Guide, NPC Codex, Alien Archive, etc.



Now I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, so I'll be brief:

I don't want someone else to craft super-cluttery complex NPCs. I want NPCs that are streamlined and purpose-made (lasting a single combat).

As I said, I want PF crunch for the players and 5E levels simplicity for the DM (even if WotC went too far, especially at high levels).

(At least when I'm the DM. I'll happily take d20 NPCs when I'm the player...)


----------



## mewzard (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Now I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, so I'll be brief:
> 
> I don't want someone else to craft super-cluttery complex NPCs. I want NPCs that are streamlined and purpose-made (lasting a single combat).
> 
> ...




From what I remember reading from the devs in the various blog comments sections, it's set up so you can make NPCs quick and easy in a non-PC way, but you can still make NPCs like PCs if that's your preference, or you want to go crazy detailed for a major boss or what have you.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Now I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, so I'll be brief:
> 
> I don't want someone else to craft super-cluttery complex NPCs. I want NPCs that are streamlined and purpose-made (lasting a single combat).
> 
> ...




I see.  But what you are calling "super-cluttery complex" I see as "rich and tactically satisfying".  Paizo stated "making NPCs will be easier" as a design goal.  They didn't say they would build to the kind of disparity you're seeking, but there are other games that do go that route.  FantasyCraft comes to mind.


----------



## mellored (Aug 3, 2018)

My initial, unplayed, impressions.


*What I Like:*

Balance between classes, and across levels.  No quadratic wizards and fighter's get nice things (mirror shield FTW).  

(Mostly) New options instead of +number.  It's just more interesting to gain a new way to attack or move, than just +Cha to fire damage.

Evokers have more fireballs, not better fireballs.  Ties to the above, but extra spells support casting fireballs, without encouraging casting ONLY fireballs.  Or only having a "best" invoker build.

Class/Skill/Ancestor feat spit.  Rounds out the game, and makes sure every character has a few dimensions.

MAD attributes.  Picking 4 attributes really helps the oddball build and multi-classing.  Monk/Wizard is now a realistic possibility.   Reducing the bonus to +1 after 18, and the flexible stat for races are nice touches as well.  I'd still rather just scrap attributes all together, but this isn't bad.

4 possible outcomes: nice to more than just a binary success/failure.

Proficiency range: -2 to +3 is a good range.  Especially since +3 is very rare.



*What I don't like:*

+level scaling.  While I like that everyone get's better at everything, I still want an army of low-level creatures to be able to be a threat to a high-level fighter.  Reducing it to +half level would be much better.

The book's organization.  This book has definition all over the place.  For instance, "bomb" alchemical items should say "no cost" right in the description, just like a bunch of other items do.  Instead, you need to look up the "bomb" definition to figure it out.  Sure, this is the playtest with parts moving all around, but it really needs a good editor to clean and steamline the book for the final presentation.

TAC.  Just seems unnecessary with all the other stats available.  Why not just a Reflex save?

Resonance and item with per day use limits.  Don't double dip on things to keep track of.  Pick one or the other.

I worry about alchemist needing to use RP means they can't use magic items.  (I do like the alchemist overall design and decision points though).  Not sure if this is an actual problem in play.



All in all, this may be my favorite version.


----------



## Jharet (Aug 3, 2018)

Changing the tactical nature of the gameplay ensures I won't playtest this and if it continues on course, will never buy into Pathfinder 2.  It's been all but stated that casual gamers are the target audience anyway.  Good luck with playtesting.  I hope I am proved wrong in the long run.


----------



## mewzard (Aug 3, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Changing the tactical nature of the gameplay ensures I won't playtest this and if it continues on course, will never buy into Pathfinder 2.  It's been all but stated that casual gamers are the target audience anyway.  Good luck with playtesting.  I hope I am proved wrong in the long run.




What's wrong with how "the tactical nature of the gameplay" has been changed? Just curious as to what's not clicking for you to the point of not even giving it a shot.

PF2E still seems to have quite a lot of depth to it without being stuck with the bloat that the PF1 accumulated over the years (even ignoring the prior history as 3rd/3.5). It seems to have a good variety of options and several really interesting mechanics.

My Experiences with PF, 4E, and 5E resulted in PF being the closest to my ideal level of depth, choice, style and meat to the mechanics, but years of playing it have really shown me it's still a bit off. PF2E looks thus far to be a solid solution to that. Just need some proper playtesting to confirm.


----------



## Jharet (Aug 3, 2018)

Put simply, they've changed the entire texture of combat.  Attacks of Opportunity are limited to fighters and five foot step is no longer possible along with a full round action or three action equivalent.  I and most of the people I play with like that interaction, so we're all put off by the new edition from the start.  It seems like an innocuous change, but to those that prefer it, it is in fact monumental.  The edition change is meant to cater to casual gamers.  It's just depressing to me.  I'm just focusing on collected the best of the third party content out there before it disappears.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 3, 2018)

A couple publishing related questions:

Have they given a timetable for when they hope to have the finished (playtested) version done? Wasn’t last time the gap about a year, so maybe GenCon 2019?

Any one know what their plans are for the dozens of hardcover supplements, not to mention adventure paths? I assume the Golarion supplements and adventure paths will just continue like they did through the 3.5 to PF change, but what about the hardcovers? That’s a lot of books to re-do...or maybe they are selective?


----------



## Morrus (Aug 3, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> A couple publishing related questions:
> 
> Have they given a timetable for when they hope to have the finished (playtested) version done? Wasn’t last time the gap about a year, so maybe GenCon 2019?




Exactly that. 



> Any one know what their plans are for the dozens of hardcover supplements, not to mention adventure paths? I assume the Golarion supplements and adventure paths will just continue like they did through the 3.5 to PF change, but what about the hardcovers? That’s a lot of books to re-do...or maybe they are selective?




Erik Mona has said they’re not going to just redo any books. It’ll be all new books.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 3, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> Erik Mona has said they’re not going to just redo any books. It’ll be all new books.




Thanks. Quick and to the point. It sounds like they're taking one from 5E, which I think is a good idea. But obviously there are probably several books they'll want to re-do relatively closely (e.g. Advanced Player's Guide).


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 3, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Put simply, they've changed the entire texture of combat.  Attacks of Opportunity are limited to fighters and five foot step is no longer possible along with a full round action or three action equivalent.  I and most of the people I play with like that interaction, so we're all put off by the new edition from the start.  It seems like an innocuous change, but to those that prefer it, it is in fact monumental.  The edition change is meant to cater to casual gamers.  It's just depressing to me.  I'm just focusing on collected the best of the third party content out there before it disappears.



Wait.  You...._like_...full round actions?


----------



## mewzard (Aug 3, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Put simply, they've changed the entire texture of combat.  Attacks of Opportunity are limited to fighters and five foot step is no longer possible along with a full round action or three action equivalent.  I and most of the people I play with like that interaction, so we're all put off by the new edition from the start.  It seems like an innocuous change, but to those that prefer it, it is in fact monumental.  The edition change is meant to cater to casual gamers.  It's just depressing to me.  I'm just focusing on collected the best of the third party content out there before it disappears.




Actually, Attacks of Opportunities aren't just limited to Fighters. Fighters are just the only class that gets them by default. I definitely saw AoO as a feat option for Paladins while reading that.

As for "Full-Round Actions", you can absolutely attack three times in a row (four if hasted) with decreasing chances to hit ala your traditional Pathfinder, you just aren't stuck only doing so. You can move and then attack twice (three times for Hasted), your Monk hasted with Flurry of Blows can end up getting five attacks, IIRC. Or, use your hasted action to shift. Monks have a high level feat that let them have a permanent action for movement purposes.

This new system lets you do that old stuff with new options. With the three action economy, you can end up casting a two-action and one action spell in a round. You can use your reaction for a lot of things. Counterspell is now a lot more viable now that you don't have to prep it and hope for the best. There are ways to get additional reactions, if that's not enough (especially for the Fighter).

With the new skill feat mechanics and how they can use ritual spells so long as they know the ritual and have a high enough ability in the appropriate skill, martials have the opportunities to do a lot more than the past system allowed.

I'm also really partial to the current weapon system, how diverse each one is, what attributes they have, their increase to dice number rather than +X for plusses to the weapon.

Just some amazing stuff.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 4, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Put simply, they've changed the entire texture of combat.  Attacks of Opportunity are limited to fighters and five foot step is no longer possible along with a full round action or three action equivalent.  I and most of the people I play with like that interaction, so we're all put off by the new edition from the start.  It seems like an innocuous change, but to those that prefer it, it is in fact monumental.  The edition change is meant to cater to casual gamers.  It's just depressing to me.  I'm just focusing on collected the best of the third party content out there before it disappears.




Wow you like the five foot shuffle of PF1? That’s surprising since no one I play with likes it. The whole get into position and then never move because you’re 1) afraid to get attacked and 2) don’t want to give up full attacks was the worst part of PF1. It turned batttles into slog fests where movement was awful. It also made martial disparity much more a thing since melee were disproportionately punished for moving.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 4, 2018)

I’m also likely going to convert our current level 11 PF2 game to PF2. Interesting to see how it works. Converting our spec and Druid are easy, but oracle and paladin/fighter will be a bit harder. I’ll find out what parts need changing then, but right now I really like the base chassis being proposed.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 4, 2018)

Realistically, the differences between 0e through 2e (including basic) were details about the classes. In the latter days of 2e, there were compilations of spells and magic items from all the previous editions. And some of the 2e splatbooks had the 1e classes as options. The power level of monsters was another thing that varied, but that was also tied into the varying power of character classes in each edition. Even so, they all used the same basic scale for stats so using a BX module with AD&D was no problem.

2e to 3e was a pretty big change. Classes did resemble their 2e versions to a degree, like fighters to hit increased by one per level. Feats seemed to be a lot like fighting styles or weapon proficiencies found in one of the compete books. Armor class was still generally from 10 to -10 (or 10 to 30). Probably the biggest difference was the change at 10th level, characters kept getting more hit dice, which means people had a lot of hit points and thus monsters had lots and lots. But in many cases you could run low level 3e modules with 2e/earlier systems using the 3e stat blocks for monsters.

This seems to have fundamental changes to most systems found in 3e, so I think the change from 3e to 4e or 5e is probably the closest analogy. I don't see how PF2 is even slightly compatible with PF1 (or 3.x) other than in the sense 4e or 5e or 1e is. 

For instance, armor class seems difference. Chain mail provides a +6 AC bonus in PF1, while here it's only +4. Max Dexterity bonuses are different. After a quick perusal, I have no idea how attack bonuses work in PF2. Actually, the playtest book is hard to decode, reminds me of the old Star Fleet Battles books


----------



## mewzard (Aug 4, 2018)

trancejeremy said:


> After a quick perusal, I have no idea how attack bonuses work in PF2. Actually, the playtest book is hard to decode, reminds me of the old Star Fleet Battles books




1d20+level+proficiency rank+Strength (or Dex where appropriate)+Weapon's item bonus

So basically, like everyone has full BAB, but you factor in how proficient one is with a weapon (-2 for Untrained, +0 for Trained, +1 for Expert, +2 for Master, +3 for Legendary). It might also factor in the weapon's quality, but I can't remember off the top of my head.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 4, 2018)

Azgulor said:


> I see.  But what you are calling "super-cluttery complex" I see as "rich and tactically satisfying".  Paizo stated "making NPCs will be easier" as a design goal.  They didn't say they would build to the kind of disparity you're seeking, but there are other games that do go that route.  FantasyCraft comes to mind.



Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. 

Paizo's claims about easier NPCs still is a far cry from easy NPCs.

Why are you bringing up other games. I want to discuss D&D and play D&D and Pathfinder is very much a D&D game. You go play those other games.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 4, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Put simply, they've changed the entire texture of combat.  Attacks of Opportunity are limited to fighters and five foot step is no longer possible along with a full round action or three action equivalent.  I and most of the people I play with like that interaction, so we're all put off by the new edition from the start.  It seems like an innocuous change, but to those that prefer it, it is in fact monumental.  The edition change is meant to cater to casual gamers.  It's just depressing to me.  I'm just focusing on collected the best of the third party content out there before it disappears.



Calling PF2 casual... I'm impressed. 

Anyway most people intensely dislike the static combats that result from having to choose between moving and attacking, so yeah, what's a bug to you is a feature to others.

5E simply made movement free - very welcome and easy if you ask me. Not sure how PF2 does it.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 4, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Calling PF2 casual... I'm impressed.
> 
> Anyway most people intensely dislike the static combats that result from having to choose between moving and attacking, so yeah, what's a bug to you is a feature to others.
> 
> 5E simply made movement free - very welcome and easy if you ask me. Not sure how PF2 does it.



Moving your speed costs 1 action, as does taking a 5ft step to avoid AoOs.  There are quite a few feats that let you bundle combinations of movements and other actions into one action, though.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 4, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.
> 
> Paizo's claims about easier NPCs still is a far cry from easy NPCs.
> 
> Why are you bringing up other games. I want to discuss D&D and play D&D and Pathfinder is very much a D&D game. You go play those other games.




You do realize that FantasyCraft is "very much a D&D game" too, right?  The intention of "bringing up other games" was to provide information you might find helpful.  Play whatever you like.  And the way NPCs work in Starfinder, and will likely work in PF2, I DO find to be easy.

Oh, wait....I see. You weren't really looking to discuss crunchy PC vs. light NPC, you wanted to knock PF2 for not doing something that Paizo never claimed it would do.  Got it.


----------



## Lylandra (Aug 4, 2018)

mewzard said:


> 1d20+level+proficiency rank+Strength (or Dex where appropriate)+Weapon's item bonus
> 
> So basically, like everyone has full BAB, but you factor in how proficient one is with a weapon (-2 for Untrained, +0 for Trained, +1 for Expert, +2 for Master, +3 for Legendary). It might also factor in the weapon's quality, but I can't remember off the top of my head.




weapons can be standard (+0), expert (+1), master (+2) and legendary (+3) and you simply add that bonus to your attack roll.

Magic enhancements DON'T increate your hit, they add weapon dice based on the + bonus.


----------



## ronaldsf (Aug 4, 2018)

mewzard said:


> 1d20+level+proficiency rank+Strength (or Dex where appropriate)+Weapon's item bonus
> 
> So basically, like everyone has full BAB, but you factor in how proficient one is with a weapon (-2 for Untrained, +0 for Trained, +1 for Expert, +2 for Master, +3 for Legendary). It might also factor in the weapon's quality, but I can't remember off the top of my head.




Yes, though the terminology the Rulebook uses is "proficiency modifier" which COMBINES level with proficiency rank... It saves on verbiage throughout the book, but it's pretty opaque to people new to the system.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 4, 2018)

So far I like most of what I'm reading. I quit playing PF regularly around 2011 when I went to 4e, then later to 5e. I don't see wanting to go back to PF at this point. (I prefer 5e for rules lite play and 4e for the tactical, crunchiness.) I am curious to try the Playtest to see if it could win me over (though the games I played at Origins did not); however, none of my local groups are interested in giving it a try. Maybe I'll give it a whirl on FG...?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Aug 4, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.
> 
> Paizo's claims about easier NPCs still is a far cry from easy NPCs.




While I agree with you that half the time of 3.x/PF1 NPC creation is too long (for my tastes), I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done much more quickly than that, despite the quote.

We haven't seen the NPC creation rules yet, but from the look of the Bestiary, I'd be surprised if they weren't something akin to what 4e/5e use. That being, essentially a chart of: an X level creature should have this for attack, that for defenses, season to taste with abilities. While many of the creatures in the Bestiary are on the crunchier side, that's simply the default PF rules preference (to the best of my understanding). Something like a Troll has a fairly simple and compact stat block, suggesting that there is certainly room for such in PF2. While the sample NPCs have class abilities and magic items, I'd be surprised if it weren't possible to ignore these and bake the modifications directly into the stat block, like you would for a standard monster. Just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 4, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Put simply, they've changed the entire texture of combat.  Attacks of Opportunity are limited to fighters and five foot step is no longer possible along with a full round action or three action equivalent.  I and most of the people I play with like that interaction, so we're all put off by the new edition from the start.  It seems like an innocuous change, but to those that prefer it, it is in fact monumental.  The edition change is meant to cater to casual gamers.  It's just depressing to me.  I'm just focusing on collected the best of the third party content out there before it disappears.




As a PF1 fan, I’m not liking what I’m seeing from PF2 either, but I’m not depressed - I’m thrilled i’m not tempted to buy into yet another system.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 5, 2018)

I do not understand why some of the Barbarians totems are flat out better than others. Like, statistically better in every way. Bear vs Cat I am looking at you.


----------



## Lylandra (Aug 5, 2018)

I like what I've read so far, but it does have to be tested in real gameplay. Love the complexity and the incredible modularity.  

My gut feeling is that PF2 is not newbie-friendly as I can guess it has a steep learning curve (learning wall?) to get and memorize all the traits, conditions and options. 

Paizo also needs to give us tools to organize our stats properly. Which means, we need means to make and play characters without first jumping back and forth through the rulebook and then writing down massive paragraphs of feat description on our sheets. 

The trait system already seems to be constructed with search filters in mind, which is a good thing. I do hope we'll get a SRD similar to the already existing one and maybe even an online character creation tool. I don't mind doing the math on my own, but I really don't want to type down all the feats for a high level character. 

That being said, I am a bit unsure why they didn't include linked references to their pdf. So many times where I thought "oh what's bolstered?" or "how does bleed work?" or "what does this paladin power do?" only to realize that I'd have to manually scan a 400+ pages pdf.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 5, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> weapons can be standard (+0), expert (+1), master (+2) and legendary (+3) and you simply add that bonus to your attack roll.
> 
> Magic enhancements DON'T increate your hit, they add weapon dice based on the + bonus.




Magic enhancements (_potency runes_) *do* provide an item bonus to hit. However, since it's an item bonus it doesn't stack with the bonus for the weapon's quality. So an expert longsword would have +1 to hit and deal 1d8+Str damage, while a _+1 expert longsword_ (generally you'd not write out the quality if it's the minimum for the _potency rune's_ level) would have +1 to hit and deal 2d8+Str damage.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 5, 2018)

DaveMage said:


> As a PF1 fan, I’m not liking what I’m seeing from PF2 either, but I’m not depressed - I’m thrilled i’m not tempted to buy into yet another system.




For anybody into Pathfinder 1E, Half-Price Books has a ton of material on Outlet sale right now.


----------



## David West (Aug 6, 2018)

I'll be honest. Will I run PF2? Maybe not. I like what we have now with PF1, and I have plenty of material to continue to play it especially when I haven't even tapped 3rd party items. 
Will I write for PF2? Definitely. I have sat out writing for a long time (my books for Hero Games/ICE got published in 1994) and I am starting to tool up to start writing again. PF2 material will be where I focus because the demand will be there with so many books and items needing added to the system as it is starting out.


----------



## Nylanfs (Aug 6, 2018)

Well we got a start on it, but Lone Wolf beat us getting it into Hero Lab Online because of early access to the rules. 

https://twitter.com/PCGen/status/1025896293762322433

https://twitter.com/PCGen/status/1026075273513631744


----------



## Maul (Aug 6, 2018)

The layout for Pathfinder 2E playtest is horrifically similar to 4E D&D.

The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough.  I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.  


LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 6, 2018)

Maul said:


> The layout for Pathfinder 2E playtest is horrifically similar to 4E D&D.
> 
> The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough.  I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.
> 
> ...




I haven't read it cover to cover yet, I've only jumped around looking at stuff that was immediately of interest to me. Could you explain what you mean?


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 6, 2018)

Maul said:


> The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough.  I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.
> 
> 
> LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.



I think you mean a column and half running from the end of page 5 to the middle of page 6.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2018)

Maul said:


> I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters.




Congratulations. 



> The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.
> 
> LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.




As per the rules of this site, please leave rants against inclusivity out of this forum.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Aug 6, 2018)

Maul said:


> The layout for Pathfinder 2E playtest is horrifically similar to 4E D&D.




To the rules, yes, the layout is remarkably similar to 4E D&D. Keywords are rampant, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Single class characters are the assumption, with multi-classing as a feat system, like 4E attempted. After re-reading it exhaustively, it's definitely an improvement on 4E's attempt, though I'm still torn about it. Sacrificing class optional class features or archetype features, to replace with secondary class features has, at least in writing, doesn't seem to provide much flexibility in a system advertised on exhaustive customization. I'm curious to see it in actual play. I would have like to see both a true multiclassing option and a feat dipping option, which has been offered in other games, but I am truly excited by risks they've taken with the new system - PF1 was blatantly D&D 3.5, revised again. PF2 is clearly a game inspired by D&D and d20, but with some innovative options that could draw me, at least occasionally, from other games. I just hope it doesn't suffer from the same combat minutiae that torpedoed 3.5, PF1, and 4E for me.



Maul said:


> The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough.  I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.
> LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.




Maybe consider that the inclusion of that topic, pun partially intended, is to offer said inclusion to potential players that may feel excluded, otherwise? No one has said, or even implied, that you specifically are excluding players, either. And there's no need for shouting. Some players may find that Pulp style cover art inspired games are their bag, while others feel excluded by it, due to the objectification and sexualization they frequently depict. Taking an inclusive approach, especially toward diversity in gaming, doesn't prevent the former group from still enjoying the game their way, and also invites others potentially turned off by former approaches to tone inherent in earlier editions of our games, which weren't necessarily consciously intended, but endemic in our society at the time of earlier publications. Prominent older gamers, the grognards of OD&D, and earlier, have recently been called out for various acts of unsavory -isms, even ones that have publicly espoused support for inclusion and diversity, especially in the #MeToo environment, and I think we need to try to be better as a society. Change isn't going to happen overnight, but it doesn't hurt to reexamine personal approaches and attitudes, to become better toward each other. There's a lot of butthurt over "Social Justice," but if someone is made uncomfortable by another's actions, intended or not, instead of the other party instinctively getting bent out of shape, maybe it would be beneficially to at least consider why the uncomfortable party was bothered. No one is saying that everyone need be Legendary in Perception and Diplomacy, but it wouldn't hurt for some to consider getting Trained.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Aug 6, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> As per the rules of this site, please leave rants against inclusivity out of this forum.




Sorry for missing your response before I posted mine. Morrus, your concision makes up for my verbosity. Also, it's not even remotely my job to moderate, sorry for stepping on those toes!


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 6, 2018)

I do not object to the politics espoused in general and I agree that they describe the _best_ way to conduct a game. I do think they could have worded it more judiciously though. The way it is written seems a little _possessive_ - as if they merely sold you a revocable license to play the game rather than a copy of the game (This might be a playtest but I assume they are modelling the language they want to use in the real consumer product). I think it would be better if they framed it more as why making inclusive games makes for better, more enjoyable, and most importantly - more reliable experiences. Because co-operative storytelling experiences need sufficient actors and require consistency and casting a wide net and not pushing players out is how you get and keep those things. After all they do say explicitly that the game is for everyone - and _everyone_ includes a lot of asses.


----------



## Maul (Aug 6, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> As per the rules of this site, please leave rants against inclusivity out of this forum.




I wasn't against inclusivity........It was the fact that Paizo thought players weren't inclusive in the first place that they had to even bring it up.

I have no problem with inclusivity.  As long as a player isn't a dick, I allow anyone to play.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Aug 6, 2018)

Maul said:


> I wasn't against inclusivity........It was the fact that Paizo thought players weren't inclusive in the first place that they had to even bring it up.
> 
> I have no problem with inclusivity.  As long as a player isn't a dick, I allow anyone to play.




Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not you are, there are a large population of gamers, though not a majority, that aren't inclusive. Members of this outspoken sub-culture are why there have been messes like Gamergate. In response to such situations, Paizo is vocalizing that they stand on the side of inclusivity, as most publishers have been doing, and it should be applauded, not railed against. Also, Morrus congratulated you on being inclusive. No one has said that you're not. He's just asking that you abide by the message board rules and not decry Paizo for supporting inclusivity. Paizo including that section in the What is a Roleplaying Game section hurts no one.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 6, 2018)

So...many...Feats. I'm surprised being able to breathe or walk aren't locked behind feat taxes.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It wasn't free - they wanted me to sign in and accept marketing emails.
> 
> That's not free. If I'm the product it isn't free.
> 
> _Edit:_ They even watermark the playtest! Luckily I used maildrop.cc to create a burner email with no connection to my real personal details I will never read or use again.




It is all OGL anyway. You are free to copy and distribute the relevant text. 



Kaodi said:


> I do not object to the politics espoused in general and I agree that they describe the _best_ way to conduct a game. I do think they could have worded it more judiciously though. The way it is written seems a little _possessive_ - as if they merely sold you a revocable license to play the game rather than a copy of the game (This might be a playtest but I assume they are modelling the language they want to use in the real consumer product). I think it would be better if they framed it more as why making inclusive games makes for better, more enjoyable, and most importantly - more reliable experiences. Because co-operative storytelling experiences need sufficient actors and require consistency and casting a wide net and not pushing players out is how you get and keep those things. After all they do say explicitly that the game is for everyone - and _everyone_ includes a lot of asses.




Hadn't noticed the relevant passages. They feel a bit heavy handed and certainly don't translate well culturally. If I wasn't already into it, I would feel scared and otn wanting to touch it. It remarks the negative too much.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> It is all OGL anyway. You are free to copy and distribute the relevant text.



Not sure of your point.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 7, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> So...many...Feats. I'm surprised being able to breathe or walk aren't locked behind feat taxes.




There isn’t even 200 feats. The PF1 rulebook has over 600. Sure maybe there is a lot now if you’re used to 5e, but that’s really not a lot of feats. And virtually none are feat taxes (feats requires to unlock other feats when you don’t care about the first.)


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 7, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> There isn’t even 200 feats. The PF1 rulebook has over 600. Sure maybe there is a lot now if you’re used to 5e, but that’s really not a lot of feats. And virtually none are feat taxes (feats requires to unlock other feats when you don’t care about the first.)




Fighter dedication is a feat tax for paladins and rangers desiring fight styles.

Edit: BTW the playtest has at least 450 feats (I estimate about 465), And the final game will certainly have even more of them, as archetypes consist of feats -we can expect at least the other eight multiclass archetypes, more generic archetypes and prestige archetypes-


----------



## mellored (Aug 7, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Fighter dedication is a feat tax for paladins and rangers desiring fight styles.



What fighting style?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 7, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> There isn’t even 200 feats. The PF1 rulebook has over 600. Sure maybe there is a lot now if you’re used to 5e, but that’s really not a lot of feats. And virtually none are feat taxes (feats requires to unlock other feats when you don’t care about the first.)




Admittedly, I don't like Feats at all: don't use them in 5E, never miss them.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 7, 2018)

mellored said:


> What fighting style?




Ok, oversimplification: Power attack/Opportunity Attack/Point-Blank Shot.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Not sure of your point.




This is free stuff? If you don't want to give Paizo your email, just ask a friend who did. They can copy paste the rules -with no fluff/pics- into a Word document, attach the OgL, give it a name and write a copyright notice. Done, you can have your Pathfinder 2 playtest with zero strings attached.


----------



## mellored (Aug 7, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Ok, oversimplification: Power attack/Opportunity Attack/Point-Blank Shot.




Ranger has double slice, which is pretty close to power attack, and several ranged attack boosts.  They lack in an OA.
And paladin has retribution strike, and can directly pick up attack of opportunity at level 6.  Plus plenty of shield buffs, and spells.  They lack a ranged buff.

If you want all of melee, ranged, and defense buffs, then yea, you need fighter.  I don't see that as a problem.


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 7, 2018)

Maul said:


> The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo.




I thought it was just me with that impression.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 7, 2018)

It was 2 pages (5-6) Starting on page 7 it was all game terms and the steps/options to building your characters. I think it was sensible information for Paizo to include in this day and age. It’s something WotC struggles with in MTG and D&D and it’s important to bring new audience to the game. In all it was only a half dozen paragraphs, nothing to be annoyed of.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> There isn’t even 200 feats. The PF1 rulebook has over 600. Sure maybe there is a lot now if you’re used to 5e, but that’s really not a lot of feats. And virtually none are feat taxes (feats requires to unlock other feats when you don’t care about the first.)



Thing is, EVERYBODY is used to 5E now.

PF1 is INSANELY cluttery. Now, that's not Paizo's fault, since it was WOTC who created d20.

Problem is, is there any market left for super-cluttery D&D games - even if two thirds less cluttery?

I'm concerned Paizo hasn't truly understood that the main reason 5E won is because it did away with all the niggling little +1s and -2s.

(Or C7 with their WFRP4 for that matter, but that's a discussion for another thread)


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> This is free stuff? If you don't want to give Paizo your email, just ask a friend who did. They can copy paste the rules -with no fluff/pics- into a Word document, attach the OgL, give it a name and write a copyright notice. Done, you can have your Pathfinder 2 playtest with zero strings attached.



That sounds like work.

And I'm the friend people who can't be bothered turn to.

This isn't free. By claiming it is, you're diluting the concept.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Problem is, is there any market left for super-cluttery D&D games - even if two thirds less cluttery?



I would say "yes." Look at the statistics of how many Pathfinder 1 and D&D 3.X games are still being played. There are so many indie games would love to have a market share like that. Is it as big as 5e D&D? No. But is there a market for "super-cluttery D&D games"? Most definitely. 



CapnZapp said:


> I'm concerned Paizo hasn't truly understood that the main reason 5E won is because it did away with all the niggling little +1s and -2s.



Let's be clear here: that's why 5e won _for you_ though not necessarily the market on the whole.


----------



## Maul (Aug 7, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I thought it was just me with that impression.




I just thought everything they had mentioned in those paragraphs was pretty much covered in that unspoken rule in life I like to refer to as the "Don't be a dick" rule. 

Or otherwise known as in Biblical terms, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> This isn't free. By claiming it is, you're diluting the concept.




I dont think that word means what you think it means.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 7, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Fighter dedication is a feat tax for paladins and rangers desiring fight styles.




That's not a feat tax.  That's just a feat.  Saying the desire to have fighting styles makes Fighter Dedication a feat tax is like saying that the desire to have wizard spells in 3e makes taking a wizard level a class tax.  

For something to be a feat tax it has to be something you are required to take in order to be at the baseline, like the feats in 4e that fixed the attack math.  Simply having to take a feat to get what you want to get is not a tax.  It's a cost.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> This isn't free. By claiming it is, you're diluting the concept.



I paid, oh, zero for these rules.  That's free.  By claiming it isn't, you are not understanding the concept.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> MoonSong said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




When the fighting styles are sprinkled among the martial classes when before they were feats anyone could freely take, I'd call the dedication feats taxes. Just because the dedication feats are better than Dodge or Point Blank Shot doesn't mean they're not taxes.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> When the fighting styles are sprinkled among the martial classes when before they were feats anyone could freely take, I'd call the dedication feats taxes.




I'm having trouble understanding this.  It sounds like you are saying that in Pathfinder one you could freely take a fighting style if you played a martial class.  If so, a rules change doesn't turn that into a tax.  It's just a rules change.  The dedication feats are just the new way to multiclass and nobody is required to multiclass.  Taking a feat if you want to multiclass is no different than using your level increase to multiclass.  In both cases it's a cost to gain the abilities of another class.

If that's not what you were saying, then I need you to rephrase what you wrote.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> houser2112 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm saying that any character (although only martials would typically be interested) could take combat feats without interfacing with the multiclassing rules. I can't make a longbow ranger (a pretty iconic archetype) without multiclassing into Fighter.  OK, so I take Fighter Dedication as my level 2 class feat, which gives me a bunch of stuff I already had, heavy armor which I'm very unlikely to want, and nothing that advances my concept. Tax. I have to wait until 4th level to take Point-Blank Shot so I don't suck with my longbow at typical encounter distances. I have to wait until 8th level until I can take the 4th level Double Shot (analogous to Rapid Shot from PF1) and until 12th level until I can take the 6th level Triple Shot. I shouldn't have to multiclass to build this very basic character.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I'm saying that any character (although only martials would typically be interested) could take combat feats without interfacing with the multiclassing rules. I can't make a longbow ranger (a pretty iconic archetype) without multiclassing into Fighter.  OK, so I take Fighter Dedication as my level 2 class feat, which gives me a bunch of stuff I already had, heavy armor which I'm very unlikely to want, and nothing that advances my concept. Tax. I have to wait until 4th level to take Point-Blank Shot so I don't suck with my longbow at typical encounter distances. I have to wait until 8th level until I can take the 4th level Double Shot (analogous to Rapid Shot from PF1) and until 12th level until I can take the 6th level Triple Shot. I shouldn't have to multiclass to build this very basic character.




There's absolutely zero need to multiclass to be a longbow ranger.  Rangers in Pathfinder 2 have many ranged feats available to them that will work with longbows.  You just WANT to have all the ranged stuff for ranger, plus extra.  It's not a feat for the rules to have changed and that extra now means you have to go into a second class.  It's only a tax if you have to take the feat in order to be viable, and a ranger is plenty viable without Double Shot.  Is Double Shot cool for a ranger?  Sure.  If you want that extra bit of coolness, pay the cost(not tax) and get it.  Rangers don't get to monopolize ranged weapons.  Fighters get to have cool ranged feats, too.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Thing is, EVERYBODY is used to 5E now.
> 
> PF1 is INSANELY cluttery. Now, that's not Paizo's fault, since it was WOTC who created d20.
> 
> ...




Lots of hyperbole here.

1. Why would Paizo want to remake 5e? If they just remade the game that’s not going to work. 5e has the official brand name and is entrenched.

2. Character differentiation and building unique characters are what defines Paizo games. 5e has a bit with feats but very little separates one cleric from another or one fighter from another. They play the same and you have no opportunity to customize the characters past level three.

3. What is this about tons of fiddly +1 bonuses? There is almost no feats anymore that give bonuses like that. (Like weapon focus or specialization or old power attack) There is a lot less buffs going around too for battles and like 5e most of those use concentration. If you build a level 10 fighter in PF1 they have like +15 to static bonuses and get access to another 5-10 during battle with spell buffs. In PF2 it’s much more like 5e. Your major scale is getting a good weapon, your static dmg buff is very hard to change through spells or customization. Which is leading to complaints on the boards because some people hate to roll dice and want certainty through static buffs on the dmg they do.

Like Aldarc said there is a lot of room for a game that actually allows customization which 5e does not. PF2 has some things to work through but by default the new action system and baseline customizations are excellent and will bring back players from 5e who are bored by lack of choice in characters.


----------



## zztong (Aug 7, 2018)

If your character concept is to be an Archer, the first choice you would face is picking which class to build upon. If the Feats you think best implement that concept are scattered across 2-3 classes then you have to try and map a viable path to all of them. Regardless of the mechanics, its a bummer to have to invest in Feats that don't advance your character concept.

Similarly, using the 3.5/PF1 method, it was a bummer to inherit another class's restrictions or pickup abilities that weren't part of your concept. Some people hated "dipping" because they considered it a min-maxing technique, but those chasing a concept saw it as a means to fulfilling their concept.

This all boils down to a matter of taste. I suspect that in general folks are going to want to have established their concept relatively early in the leveling process and then want to turn towards evolving those abilities. As it stands, the current classes appear to have few abilities and conceptions appear as if they'll take a dozen levels to be realized.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There's absolutely zero need to multiclass to be a longbow ranger.  Rangers in Pathfinder 2 have many ranged feats available to them that will work with longbows.  You just WANT to have all the ranged stuff for ranger, plus extra.  It's not a feat for the rules to have changed and that extra now means you have to go into a second class.  It's only a tax if you have to take the feat in order to be viable, and a ranger is plenty viable without Double Shot.  Is Double Shot cool for a ranger?  Sure.  If you want that extra bit of coolness, pay the cost(not tax) and get it.  Rangers don't get to monopolize ranged weapons.  Fighters get to have cool ranged feats, too.




Zero need? Did you miss where longbows have the "Volley 50" property, which means you take a -2 penalty to attack targets within 50 feet (most encounters take place within this distance, and it's a rare encounter that allows the opportunity to really use the full range of a longbow). This would be unacceptable in PF1, and even more so in PF2 with how important hit margin is when calculating critical hits. Point-Blank Shot seems to be the only way to mitigate that penalty, and the minimum to just do my job even without getting fancy with multishots. Perhaps fancy tricks like Double Shot and Triple Shot should be Fighter feats, that can be debated I suppose. Point-Blank Shot to achieve basic proficiency should not.

Let's imagine a different scenario, you want a Fighter good with a crossbow (for some reason). Point-Blank Shot is nice with a crossbow, but Assisting Shot seems rather lame. After that, we have Double Shot, which we can't use with a crossbow, and Triple Shot which is a modification of Double Shot. We have to wait until *8th level* to get another ranged feat we can use (Incredible Aim and Slippery Shooter). The big drawback to crossbows is that reload speed. There's a feat to mitigate that, but it's a Ranger feat...


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 7, 2018)

But the feats are hardly required. If you want to min max like that it has an opportunity cost. It’s not like missing one of those feats is going to cripple your character. It’s a trade off. In PF1 regardless of your class you could just take them all. 5e seems to do well with just allowing people to attack and then a few times at leveling giving another option. PF2 is going more towards that model but gives a choice on what you want to mix and match. Which could involve multiclassing or not, but I see no argument presented yet that a feat is powerful or necessary enough to require multiclassing.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 7, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> But the feats are hardly required. If you want to min max like that it has an opportunity cost. It’s not like missing one of those feats is going to cripple your character. It’s a trade off. In PF1 regardless of your class you could just take them all. 5e seems to do well with just allowing people to attack and then a few times at leveling giving another option. PF2 is going more towards that model but gives a choice on what you want to mix and match. Which could involve multiclassing or not, but I see no argument presented yet that a feat is powerful or necessary enough to require multiclassing.




Mitigating a -2 on virtually every shot I'm going to make is min-maxing? Wow.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 7, 2018)

Fighters in PF1 had a scaling attack/damage buff in weapon training that everyone else lacked plus access to some powerful fighter only feats. Somehow the game functioned with it and non fighter melee classes worked and worked well. Not all classes need access to same feats or buffs as long as each class is viable on their own. If you want to multiclassing to pick that up it’s your choice and it has a cost in features you’d take from your main class.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Thing is, EVERYBODY is used to 5E now.
> 
> PF1 is INSANELY cluttery. Now, that's not Paizo's fault, since it was WOTC who created d20.
> 
> ...



Sure.  I turn to Pathfinder when I'm in the mood for super-cluttery.  I have 5e, or a nice set of retro-clones, or Fate, or Dungeon World, when I want less cluttery.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> Zero need? Did you miss where longbows have the "Volley 50" property, which means you take a -2 penalty to attack targets within 50 feet (most encounters take place within this distance, and it's a rare encounter that allows the opportunity to really use the full range of a longbow). This would be unacceptable in PF1, and even more so in PF2 with how important hit margin is when calculating critical hits. Point-Blank Shot seems to be the only way to mitigate that penalty, and the minimum to just do my job even without getting fancy with multishots. Perhaps fancy tricks like Double Shot and Triple Shot should be Fighter feats, that can be debated I suppose. Point-Blank Shot to achieve basic proficiency should not.
> 
> Let's imagine a different scenario, you want a Fighter good with a crossbow (for some reason). Point-Blank Shot is nice with a crossbow, but Assisting Shot seems rather lame. After that, we have Double Shot, which we can't use with a crossbow, and Triple Shot which is a modification of Double Shot. We have to wait until *8th level* to get another ranged feat we can use (Incredible Aim and Slippery Shooter). The big drawback to crossbows is that reload speed. There's a feat to mitigate that, but it's a Ranger feat...



Or you follow the intent of the rule, which is that Longbows aren't great in Melee range, and you swap to something else when you're in Melee range.  Being super good with particular weapons even in awkward situations isn't a general martial trait, it's a fighter trait.  If you're not a multiclass fighter, you should probably take a different class feat to cover the situation where you're in melee range.

You can certainly argue that the property should be a general martial trait, not a fighter only trait, but make sure you understand the intent to give a fighter a niche that paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc., don't share.


----------



## mellored (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I can't make a longbow ranger (a pretty iconic archetype) without multiclassing into Fighter.



I don't see how you get that...
Rangers can use a longbow better than any other class besides the fighter.

Or do you think Rangers should deal as much damage as fighters, while also having bonus skills?


----------



## mellored (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> Zero need? Did you miss where longbows have the "Volley 50" property, which means you take a -2 penalty to attack targets within 50 feet (most encounters take place within this distance, and it's a rare encounter that allows the opportunity to really use the full range of a longbow).



I like the fact that longbows are for long range and shortbows are for short range.
Otherwise, why even have 2 bows?


Though, I do agree that rangers getting crossbow feats is a bit... odd.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 7, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Or you follow the intent of the rule, which is that Longbows aren't great in Melee range, and you swap to something else when you're in Melee range.  Being super good with particular weapons even in awkward situations isn't a general martial trait, it's a fighter trait.  If you're not a multiclass fighter, you should probably take a different class feat to cover the situation where you're in melee range.
> 
> You can certainly argue that the property should be a general martial trait, not a fighter only trait, but make sure you understand the intent to give a fighter a niche that paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc., don't share.




The longbow is an iconic ranger weapon. The shortbow (the best way to not run into Volley BS without multiclassing) is an iconic rogue, bard, or horse archer weapon. I agree that fighters should be supreme at fighting, but rangers should be able to at least achieve basic competency with ranged weapons (and TWF, but I haven't looked at that much), and PF2's ranger can't.



mellored said:


> I don't see how you get that...
> Rangers can use a longbow better than any other class besides the fighter.
> 
> Or do you think Rangers should deal as much damage as fighters, while also having bonus skills?




As much? No. Being able to at least connect just as often? Yes.



mellored said:


> I like the fact that longbows are for long range and shortbows are for short range.
> Otherwise, why even have 2 bows?
> 
> Though, I do agree that rangers getting crossbow feats is a bit... odd.




It is. They made the PF1 iconic ranger a crossbow-wielding dwarf for some reason, and are doubling down on that in PF2.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> The longbow is an iconic ranger weapon. The shortbow (the best way to not run into Volley BS without multiclassing) is an iconic rogue, bard, or horse archer weapon. I agree that fighters should be supreme at fighting, but rangers should be able to at least achieve basic competency with ranged weapons (and TWF, but I haven't looked at that much), and PF2's ranger can't.



You don't do your argument any favors when you attempt to turn "+2 bonus within 50'" into "basic competence".  I'm aware of how valuable a +2 bonus to hit is with PF2's crit system, but equating a situational bonus with competence is hyperbolic.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> It is. They made the PF1 iconic ranger a crossbow-wielding dwarf for some reason, and are doubling down on that in PF2.




No more odd that D&D's iconic ranger being a twin scimitar wielding goth elf for literal decades. I don't think we should bag on Paizo too much for trying to diversify the Tolkienisms a little.


----------



## mellored (Aug 7, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I agree that fighters should be supreme at fighting, but rangers should be able to at least achieve basic competency with ranged weapons (and TWF, but I haven't looked at that much), and PF2's ranger can't.



Sure they can. Again, Rangers are the second best bow class in the game.
And again, i'm perfectly happy with Longbows and Shortbows being functionally different, rather than one just being flat superior.

And both classes get a lot of the same Two weapon feats.



> As much? No. Being able to at least connect just as often? Yes.



Then a ranger can just use a shortbow and call it a longbow. You will connect just as much, and have less damage.
Quickdraw even lets you swap.



> The longbow is an iconic ranger weapon.
> <snip>
> They made the PF1 iconic ranger a crossbow-wielding dwarf for some reason, and are doubling down on that in PF2.



Well... then longbows are not the iconic ranger weapon in PF.


Though really, I don't see anything breaking if you let the ranger take the fighter bow feats, or letting the fighter take the ranger's crossbow feats. So if you really want a longbow ranger with fighter feats, then go ahead.
Most other class feats can probably be mixed as well.


----------



## Jer (Aug 7, 2018)

mellored said:


> Though really, I don't see anything breaking if you let the ranger take the fighter bow feats, or letting the fighter take the ranger's crossbow feats. So if you really want a longbow ranger with fighter feats, then go ahead.




But given that this is a playtest, fiddling with the rules this way is probably not the best approach.  Better would be to a) run the playtest adventure to make sure that it's actually going to be an issue and then b) provide that feedback to Paizo that this is an aspect of the Ranger design that seems flawed via their playtest surveys.

It may well be that someone involved forgot that there was supposed to be a feat that allows the Ranger to ignore the "Volley 50" tag on the longbow.  Or that they didn't realize how those rules would interact.  Or just weren't thinking about how important that iconic longbow use was for a Ranger and hadn't considered it all.  Or some other explanation.

There's a reason why this is the "Pathfinder 2 Playtest" and not the "Pathfinder 2nd edition".  There are a lot of things like this that are minor in the grand scheme of things but very important for certain audiences that you will only catch in a mass playtest looking at the whole game rather than in small playtests that are focused on mechanics.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2018)

Jer said:


> There's a reason why this is the "Pathfinder 2 Playtest" and not the "Pathfinder 2nd edition".  There are a lot of things like this that are minor in the grand scheme of things but very important for certain audiences that you will only catch in a mass playtest looking at the whole game rather than in small playtests that are focused on mechanics.




This ^^^ is super important. It is a PLAYtest. People should probably restrain themselves from tweaking rules and theory theorycrafting and actually play. At least build a couple dozen PCs of various levels and class/ancestry combinations. Learn the game. Use it. Test it. Report it.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2018)

Reynard said:


> This ^^^ is super important. It is a PLAYtest. People should probably restrain themselves from tweaking rules and theory theorycrafting and actually play. At least build a couple dozen PCs of various levels and class/ancestry combinations. Learn the game. Use it. Test it. Report it.




Well, people can do what they want. But yeah, that’s useless playtest feedback. Play the games as written and answer the periodic playtest questions.


----------



## mellored (Aug 7, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Well, people can do what they want. But yeah, that’s useless playtest feedback. Play the games as written and answer the periodic playtest questions.



"What I changed to make your game fun for my group" seems like perfect feedback to me.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 7, 2018)

People seem to be too hung up on the word feat and history of certain feats going back to 1e. Even though in PF1 most martial classes had baked in class features that provided far more differentiation than exists in PF2. But since power attack or point blank shot was generic in PF1 it bothers some people that it’s not specific. Rangers in PF2 are no less viable for missing Point Blank compared to fighters than they were in PF1 to fighters for missing weapon training, focus/specialization feats and having much less feats in general. I think there is room for some generic weaker combat feats to make it in to the general feat pools for gish options and straight class builds, but they should be weaker than options available to true martials. Just like if in PF1 that everyone would take weapon training if they could (or smite) but couldn’t. I’m not going to be hung up if the feat that you take a significant character building choice to take is named something that was shared in 1e.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2018)

mellored said:


> "What I changed to make your game fun for my group" seems like perfect feedback to me.



I imagine you have never designed a game and tried to iterate it based on playtest feedback. "What I changed to make your game fun for my group" is almost useless feedback and in fact counterproductive. "We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z" is useful feedback.


----------



## mellored (Aug 7, 2018)

Reynard said:


> I imagine you have never designed a game and tried to iterate it based on playtest feedback. "What I changed to make your game fun for my group" is almost useless feedback and in fact counterproductive. "We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z" is useful feedback.



Giving a solution is better than just listing problems.

But if you want to be verbose...

"We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z, so we change a,b, and c, which fixed the issues and now it's fun for my group"


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2018)

mellored said:


> Giving a solution is better than just listing problems.




It isn't, actually, because if the rule is in fact a problem then there are going to be a lot of other folks reporting issues with the rule. Most of them would provide solutions that are only good solutions for their group, not generally. Game design is a real technical field. Trust designers when they ask you for a specific kind of feedback. 



> But if you want to be verbose...
> 
> "We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z, so we change a,b, and c, which fixed the issues and now it's fun for my group"




That's not verbosity,  that's specificity, but the latter half 8s still not likely to be much use to the designer in a massive playtest like this. If yours was one of a half dozen groups that got the rules for alpha tests, that sort of thing would be useful. In this case, this late in the design, chances are the design team has a bunch of alternatives and iterations in the hopper for any given system and what they are interested in is whether the methodology they chose works. They need aggregate data, not anecdotes.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Sure.  I turn to Pathfinder when I'm in the mood for super-cluttery.



And I'm not saying you aren't. 

But I think most people turned to Pathfinder because WotC stopped releasing stuff for their beloved 3rd edition.

Now that there exists a good official Dungeons & Dragons, that in addition is way less cluttery than before, I'm worried Paizo is chasing a shrinking market.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> 1. Why would Paizo want to remake 5e?



Lol. 

Talk about irony. 

You _do_ know how Pathfinder started out right? (Yes, a remade 3e)


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I paid, oh, zero for these rules.  That's free.  By claiming it isn't, you are not understanding the concept.



I won't claim something is free just because you don't pay with money.

The synonym of "free" we're looking for here is "for nothing". Having to give up personal details is not nothing.

So it isn't free. Very simple.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 7, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would say "yes." Look at the statistics of how many Pathfinder 1 and D&D 3.X games are still being played. There are so many indie games would love to have a market share like that. Is it as big as 5e D&D? No. But is there a market for "super-cluttery D&D games"? Most definitely.



Now you're using the term "market" in a way that's almost meaningless. 

The relevant questions are:
- will the PF2 market be big enough for Paizo?
- could Paizo have gained market share by moving with the times and declutter its upcoming game, taking inspiration from how WotC in 5th edition finally and truly fixed a lot of issues with D&D that has plagued the game for decades?

I'm afraid I believe the answers to be "no" and "yes", respectively.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> And I'm not saying you aren't.
> 
> But I think most people turned to Pathfinder because WotC stopped releasing stuff for their beloved 3rd edition.
> 
> Now that there exists a good official Dungeons & Dragons, that in addition is way less cluttery than before, I'm worried Paizo is chasing a shrinking market.




Beyond just the Byzantine organization, they have also changed the rules significantly enough that it then moves from "D&D" to going against the other fantasy hearbreakers on the market. This engenders the question "why PF2 instead of Runequest, DCC, Savage World's or Genysys?"


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I won't claim something is free just because you don't pay with money.
> 
> The synonym of "free" we're looking for here is "for nothing". Having to give up personal details is not nothing.
> 
> So it isn't free. Very simple.




If you go by that, then well, next to nothing is truly free. "Not such a thing as a free meal" and stuff.  (In my case, well they already had that by virtue of me buying from them in the past)


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> And I'm not saying you aren't.
> 
> But I think most people turned to Pathfinder because WotC stopped releasing stuff for their beloved 3rd edition.
> 
> Now that there exists a good official Dungeons & Dragons, that in addition is way less cluttery than before, I'm worried Paizo is chasing a shrinking market.



I freely admit that's quite possible.  I'm not really sure what the optimal volume of crunch is for PF2, honestly, I think that's one of the ideas they should be crowdsourcing to find out.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Lol.
> 
> Talk about irony.
> 
> You _do_ know how Pathfinder started out right? (Yes, a remade 3e)



Except 5e ia a currently supported version of the game. Pathfinder exists at all because WotC's policies on Open Gaming in the 4E era necessitated it in order for Paizo to continue to operate the way it was doing so at the time. Pathfinder appealed to 3.5 players, for sure, but had 4e been as open as d20 ig probably would have benefited from broad 3rd party support (many companies did support it under the much stricter GSL) including Paizo. It's even reasonable to postulate that Paizo support might have made 4e more successful and thereby changed what D&D currently looks like. In any case, the lines diverged significantly enough it doesn't make any sense to suggest Paizo is trying to chase 5e players with its Pathfinder 2e or that it would be successful in doing so. If Paizo wanted 5e dollars all they would have had to do was abandon PF in favor of 5e when that game came out and completely dominated the 5e 3PP market with their APs.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Except 5e ia a currently supported version of the game. Pathfinder exists at all because WotC's policies on Open Gaming in the 4E era necessitated it in order for Paizo to continue to operate the way it was doing so at the time. Pathfinder appealed to 3.5 players, for sure, but had 4e been as open as d20 ig probably would have benefited from broad 3rd party support (many companies did support it under the much stricter GSL) including Paizo. It's even reasonable to postulate that Paizo support might have made 4e more successful and thereby changed what D&D currently looks like. In any case, the lines diverged significantly enough it doesn't make any sense to suggest Paizo is trying to chase 5e players with its Pathfinder 2e or that it would be successful in doing so. If Paizo wanted 5e dollars all they would have had to do was abandon PF in favor of 5e when that game came out and completely dominated the 5e 3PP market with their APs.




It's more complex than that, the restrictive license was a big deal, but not by itself the dealbreaker. The loss of the magazines and that they didn't get a wide enough preview of 4e were more important. There is a lot of writing about that time.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 8, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> Zero need? Did you miss where longbows have the "Volley 50" property, which means you take a -2 penalty to attack targets within 50 feet (most encounters take place within this distance, and it's a rare encounter that allows the opportunity to really use the full range of a longbow). This would be unacceptable in PF1, and even more so in PF2 with how important hit margin is when calculating critical hits. Point-Blank Shot seems to be the only way to mitigate that penalty, and the minimum to just do my job even without getting fancy with multishots. Perhaps fancy tricks like Double Shot and Triple Shot should be Fighter feats, that can be debated I suppose. Point-Blank Shot to achieve basic proficiency should not.
> 
> Let's imagine a different scenario, you want a Fighter good with a crossbow (for some reason). Point-Blank Shot is nice with a crossbow, but Assisting Shot seems rather lame. After that, we have Double Shot, which we can't use with a crossbow, and Triple Shot which is a modification of Double Shot. We have to wait until *8th level* to get another ranged feat we can use (Incredible Aim and Slippery Shooter). The big drawback to crossbows is that reload speed. There's a feat to mitigate that, but it's a Ranger feat...




Yes.  Zero need.  Rangers have some pretty nice ranged feats, including favored aim which negates that -2 penalty.  That's also combined with Hunt Target which reduces the penalty for your extra attacks, also compensating for that -2 penalty.  And that's if you want to use a longbow instead of something else and just enjoy the bonuses.  

Rangers need to be good at ranged, and they are.  Fighters are the masters of weapons, so they also need to be good at ranged, and they are.  You want to have it all and are complaining that you have to spend some feats to get it all.  Each class needs to have unique ranged feats, and Pathfinder 2 has set it up so that each one has unique feats with ranged weapons.

There is no feat tax.  If you want to have it all, pay the COST to get it all.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I won't claim something is free just because you don't pay with money.
> 
> The synonym of "free" we're looking for here is "for nothing". Having to give up personal details is not nothing.
> 
> So it isn't free. Very simple.




Your definition of "free" is utterly useless.  Time is worth as much or more to people than some personal details.  It's a resource that will never be recovered.  So by your incredibly broad painting of "free," nothing can ever be free.  

I'm going to stick with the definition that requires that money or items to actually barter be required before something isn't free.  Having to make an account before downloading the playtest is not a cost. Heck, you made an account here and you aren't even getting as much to download and play from this place as you are from Paizo.  

If it really bothers you, though, tell them your name is Ben Kingsly, born on February 15th, 1994.  Then make a quick, free, throw away email account somewhere and presto, you've gotten the playtest without giving up those precious details.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I freely admit that's quite possible.  I'm not really sure what the optimal volume of crunch is for PF2, honestly, I think that's one of the ideas they should be crowdsourcing to find out.




No!  You can't freely admit anything!  It cost you time!


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Except 5e ia a currently supported version of the game. Pathfinder exists at all because WotC's policies on Open Gaming in the 4E era necessitated it in order for Paizo to continue to operate the way it was doing so at the time. Pathfinder appealed to 3.5 players, for sure, but had 4e been as open as d20 ig probably would have benefited from broad 3rd party support (many companies did support it under the much stricter GSL) including Paizo. It's even reasonable to postulate that Paizo support might have made 4e more successful and thereby changed what D&D currently looks like. In any case, the lines diverged significantly enough it doesn't make any sense to suggest Paizo is trying to chase 5e players with its Pathfinder 2e or that it would be successful in doing so. If Paizo wanted 5e dollars all they would have had to do was abandon PF in favor of 5e when that game came out and completely dominated the 5e 3PP market with their APs.




That last sentence seems like a pretty good idea, from a business viewpoint. 5E is OGL material.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> That last sentence seems like a pretty good idea, from a business viewpoint. 5E is OGL material.



Except that it requires resources to do so and has associated non-material costs. If Paizo thought they could produce 5e APs, even 5e conversions of older APs, and make a net profit, I have no doubt they would. Whether it is wanting to focus on PF or not grow too big or whatever, they have decided that sticking with PF (and adding Starfinder) is better for them than supporting 5e. Who am i to second guess that?


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I won't claim something is free just because you don't pay with money.
> 
> The synonym of "free" we're looking for here is "for nothing". Having to give up personal details is not nothing.
> 
> So it isn't free. Very simple.




Of course it is not free, you still have to pay for the electricity to run your computer and your internet connection.

It just uses the "free" tag so that you can tell that you do not have to pay money for it as opposed to the other meanings of free.


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> If Paizo thought they could produce 5e APs, even 5e conversions of older APs, and make a net profit, I have no doubt they would. Whether it is wanting to focus on PF or not grow too big or whatever, they have decided that sticking with PF (and adding Starfinder) is better for them than supporting 5e. Who am i to second guess that?




Remember that last time when Paizo supported another company who changed the rules of the game and did not renew their license?  Yeah lets do that again.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Who am i to second guess that?




This seriously calls into doubt this entire message board endeavor.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The relevant questions are:
> - will the PF2 market be big enough for Paizo?
> - could Paizo have gained market share by moving with the times and declutter its upcoming game, *taking inspiration from how WotC in 5th edition finally and truly fixed a lot of issues with D&D that has plagued the game for decades*?
> 
> quoteI'm afraid I believe the answers to be "no" and "yes", respectively.



Your assessment would have been far more credible and your questions far more "relevant" if you did not feel obligated to insert your raging bias in the bold.


----------



## ZickZak (Aug 8, 2018)

So far very few options presented that actually matter to me. This could be very good and potentially much better than 5e when a lot more books are out with a lot more options. 

PF to me was always about creating a character exactly how I wanted it. There were classes, then archetypes which you could have multiple of, tons of specific feats that - depending on which were chosen - changed how one plays the character... 
In PF2 there really isnt anything like that and so far it's an interesting concept, but nothing I'll ditch 5e for as of yet.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Beyond just the Byzantine organization, they have also changed the rules significantly enough that it then moves from "D&D" to going against the other fantasy hearbreakers on the market. This engenders the question "why PF2 instead of Runequest, DCC, Savage World's or Genysys?"



Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. 

And of course my point is that if Paizo thinks they're more than a heartbreaker that would be because they're piggybacking on the market leader.

It doesn't appear Paizo has realized this. They apparently believe they can compete head to head.

But they have never done so in the past. They successfully competed with WotC at a time when they decided to 
1) abandon their successful product
2) yet allow clones like Pathfinder 
and in addition 
3) offered a completely new and strange product that crashed and burned.

To me, that does not scream "we can take them". It sounds more like hubris.

IMHO Paizo needed to analyse what 5E does well and less well, and then offer a product that improves on the latter while not throwing away the former.

PF2 does not shape up to be anything of the sort.

It looks more like "now that we have our own Pathfinder brand and market we can do anything, and people will be faithful to us"

But my point is, most people turned to Paizo because WotC shat in their own bowl, not because they're inherent Paizo fans.

If PF2 doesn't offer anything to the d20/PF1 crowd, and doesn't look anything like 5E... is it more than any other heartbreaker in that case..?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> If you go by that, then well, next to nothing is truly free. "Not such a thing as a free meal" and stuff.  (In my case, well they already had that by virtue of me buying from them in the past)



Thank you for finally understanding. 

Hopefully now you too will reserve "free" for its intended meaning "gratis" instead of the marketing siren call of "it's free just sign here".


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I freely admit that's quite possible.  I'm not really sure what the optimal volume of crunch is for PF2, honestly, I think that's one of the ideas they should be crowdsourcing to find out.



I think that misses the point.

I think they should offer a baseline level of 5E compatibility and then add player-side crunch from there.

The ONLY reason Paizo is more of a household name than the dozens of companies that offer DnD:ish gameplay is because they piggybacked onto the 500 pound gorilla.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Except 5e ia a currently supported version of the game. Pathfinder exists at all because WotC's policies on Open Gaming in the 4E era necessitated it in order for Paizo to continue to operate the way it was doing so at the time. Pathfinder appealed to 3.5 players, for sure, but had 4e been as open as d20 ig probably would have benefited from broad 3rd party support (many companies did support it under the much stricter GSL) including Paizo. It's even reasonable to postulate that Paizo support might have made 4e more successful and thereby changed what D&D currently looks like. In any case, the lines diverged significantly enough it doesn't make any sense to suggest Paizo is trying to chase 5e players with its Pathfinder 2e or that it would be successful in doing so. If Paizo wanted 5e dollars all they would have had to do was abandon PF in favor of 5e when that game came out and completely dominated the 5e 3PP market with their APs.



Yes, the hubris argument. 

We'll see how it goes. I am very pessimistic a bloated mess of fidliness can compete with 5E, crunch or no crunch. 

After all, if PF2 does take off, WotC can kill it by releasing an Advanced Player's Handbook. (Nothing suggests they plan one now, but I'm talking about a future where Paizo is looking like a serious competitor)


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> It's more complex than that, the restrictive license was a big deal, but not by itself the dealbreaker. The loss of the magazines and that they didn't get a wide enough preview of 4e were more important. There is a lot of writing about that time.



I'm betting they thank their lucky star they couldn't jump on the 4e bandwagon... 

They would probably not exist today if they did


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Your definition of "free" is utterly useless.



It might seem that way, but only if you have been brainwashed by Facebook and their ilk.

I urge you to think again.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Except that it requires resources to do so and has associated non-material costs. If Paizo thought they could produce 5e APs, even 5e conversions of older APs, and make a net profit, I have no doubt they would. Whether it is wanting to focus on PF or not grow too big or whatever, they have decided that sticking with PF (and adding Starfinder) is better for them than supporting 5e. Who am i to second guess that?



I think it is likely they believe in their hubris it is time to take market leader head on, even if it at is strongest ever.

PF2 does not seem like a rational decision made by a company fully aware where it's success came from.

(Hint: it came from piggybacking, not wrestling, the 500 pound gorilla. And it came at a time when the gorilla was preoccupied with eating poisoned bananas and producing a less than popular edition)


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Of course it is not free, you still have to pay for the electricity to run your computer and your internet connection.
> 
> It just uses the "free" tag so that you can tell that you do not have to pay money for it as opposed to the other meanings of free.



Sure, relativize all you want.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Your assessment would have been far more credible and your questions far more "relevant" if you did not feel obligated to insert your raging bias in the bold.



I didn't insert it in bold.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 8, 2018)

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], it seems that you are projecting both hubris on Paizo and a competition between Paizo and WotC that exists only in your head, and it's severely clouding any rational judgment on your part of Pathfinder 2 here.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], it seems that you are projecting both hubris on Paizo and a competition between Paizo and WotC that exists only in your head, and it's severely clouding any rational judgment on your part of Pathfinder 2 here.



I am assuming Paizo is gunning for Pathfinder levels of success.

However - you could be right and I could be wrong. I guess Paizo could be content with a small slice of the pie.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It might seem that way, but only if you have been brainwashed by Facebook and their ilk.
> 
> I urge you to think again.




1.  I've already shown you how to get around that.  2. Paizo is not Facebook or even remotely close to being Facebook or its ilk.  It doesn't have the numbers, variety of people, or platform style to be useful to advertisers in the same way that Facebook and its ilk are.  3. It clearly doesn't really bother you, or you wouldn't be here.  You've given that information out already.



> Hopefully now you too will reserve "free" for its intended meaning "gratis" instead of the marketing siren call of "it's free just sign here".




And I've already shown you how your uselessly broad definition of "free" means that "gratis" doesn't exist.  Literally everything you do costs time, the most precious resource we have.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I am assuming Paizo is gunning for Pathfinder levels of success.
> 
> However - you could be right and I could be wrong. I guess Paizo could be content with a small slice of the pie.



When Paizo created Pathfinder, it was not intended to compete "head-to-head" with 4e D&D. It was intended as a stopgap measure for their survival as a company. If people have now left Pathfinder 1 due to 5e - for whatever their myriad of reasons - then Pathfinder 2 is likely also meant partially as a stopgap for their survival and as a means to evolve their game into a new future. I see them looking to retain the core of the customers they have rather than those they lost. 5e is good, but it is not perfect. I know of a number of groups here in Austria who actively prefer Pathfinder over 5e. They enjoy creating builds, more player decision points, rules mastery, the zero to EPIC! feel,etc. that 5e does not satisfactorily "solve" for them. I don't know if Pathfinder 2 will retain that core audience, but I don't think that it is fair to attribute any hubris to Paizo for creating Pathfinder 2 as WotC made 5e. 

5e captured lightning in a bottle, much as WoW did with the MMORPG market. But that does not mean that every successful MMO should be WoW-like just to make a niche for itself. In fact, many games that sought to take WoW on "head-to-head" or referred to as "WoW-killers" often turned out to be duds. The MMO games that persist are often those that sought to establish their own identity. And I think that Paizo likely desires to establish their own brand identity away from D&D such that Pathfinder is not just a "D&D 3.75" brand that perpetually competes with D&D 4E, D&D 5E, or D&D 6E. But obviously their own legacy is intricately tied to D&D, so there is a difficult tight rope they are walking between their desire to preserve the spirit of Pathfinder's D&D roots while also striking into new territory. If it results in Paizo's equivalent of 4e? I'm perfectly okay with that, especially if it generates new revolutionary ideas in the market and possibly leads to Paizo's own equivalent of 5e. But I doubt that Paizo is blinded by hubris. I think that they have genuine love for Pathfinder and the d20 system. 

I have my own issues with Pathfinder 2. I don't know if I will play it. My gaming group has enough games as it is that we are looking to play. But I also don't know if I will play 5e for reasons other than convenience of what my group may want. There are a lot of us in my gaming group who are dissatisfied with 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 8, 2018)

I like some parts of the playtest, the boosts for example, did not like their races erm ancestry section, and the classes are a bit to fiddly and are struggling to understand some of them including the fighter.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  Zero need.  Rangers have some pretty nice ranged feats, including favored aim which negates that -2 penalty.  That's also combined with Hunt Target which reduces the penalty for your extra attacks, also compensating for that -2 penalty.  And that's if you want to use a longbow instead of something else and just enjoy the bonuses.




Those are good options, but I don't want my only combat options to be so heavily tied to my class features.



> Rangers need to be good at ranged, and they are.  Fighters are the masters of weapons, so they also need to be good at ranged, and they are.




Yes, no argument here.



> You want to have it all and are complaining that you have to spend some feats to get it all.




I don't mind spending feats to get what I want. I do mind spending a feat on Fighter Dedication (a feat tax because it gives me nothing that I want itself) to get what I want, and doing so locks out any other archetype/multiclass I want to take until I take 2 fighter feats.



> Each class needs to have unique ranged feats




This is the fundamental issue I have with the situation. I don't like that they've segregated fighting style by class. They've changed from a system such that each (non-fighter) class had incentive to go in a certain direction (either in the form of free feats or weapon proficiencies), but could break out by spending feats, to a system where each of those classes is heavily disincentivized from breaking out of the silos that are established, by using the strict multiclassing rules.



> Pathfinder 2 has set it up so that each one has unique feats with ranged weapons.




As I said above, this is good, but I want generic options too.



> There is no feat tax.  If you want to have it all, pay the COST to get it all.




Fighter Dedication is a great feat, provided that you weren't already a martial character. If you are, though, it qualifies as a tax.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 8, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> Those are good options, but I don't want my only combat options to be so heavily tied to my class features.




That's an understandable argument.  Calling a feat a tax when it isn't, isn't.  



> I don't mind spending feats to get what I want. I do mind spending a feat on Fighter Dedication (a feat tax because it gives me nothing that I want itself) to get what I want, and doing so locks out any other archetype/multiclass I want to take until I take 2 fighter feats.




Again, this is no different than multiclassing in other games/editions to get what you want.  You ended up with class features you didn't need or want in order to get the ones that you did.  Having to get something you don't want when you pay a cost to get something you do want is not a tax.



> This is the fundamental issue I have with the situation. I don't like that they've segregated fighting style by class. They've changed from a system such that each (non-fighter) class had incentive to go in a certain direction (either in the form of free feats or weapon proficiencies), but could break out by spending feats, to a system where each of those classes is heavily disincentivized from breaking out of the silos that are established, by using the strict multiclassing rules.




Which is again an understandable position, but a different argument than feat taxes.



> Fighter Dedication is a great feat, provided that you weren't already a martial character. If you are, though, it qualifies as a tax.



It can't qualify as a tax, because it's not required that you take it.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Your assessment would have been far more credible and your questions far more "relevant" if you did not feel obligated to insert your raging bias in the bold.




Appealing to people just like CapnZapp has to be Paizo's goal, though: people who play D&D but want something more intricate and involved than 5E. He is quite possibly their ideal potential customer.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Calling a feat a tax when it isn't, isn't.




I think you need to define "feat tax" then. I define it as "feat you have to take to get some other feat, that you wouldn't take on its own merits".



> Again, this is no different than multiclassing in other games/editions to get what you want.  You ended up with class features you didn't need or want in order to get the ones that you did.  Having to get something you don't want when you pay a cost to get something you do want is not a tax.




It is quite different. I didn't have to multiclass to advance a fighting style in 3.PF. I could do it _faster_ by multiclassing into fighter because fighter granted combat feats, but I could do it entirely with general feats if I so desired.



> It can't qualify as a tax, because it's not required that you take it.




I don't understand this argument. If a non-fighter wants Point-Blank Shot, Double Shot, and Triple Shot, they have to take Fighter Dedication. "Tax?" may be a subjective argument, but "Prerequisite?" is not.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Appealing to people just like CapnZapp has to be Paizo's goal, though: people who play D&D but want something more intricate and involved than 5E. He is quite possibly their ideal potential customer.



Only if folks like CapnZapp are willing to put their preconceived notions and biases aside and give the game a honest fair shot. It is likely a waste of Paizo's time, energy and marketing budget to try and pry people out of their own assertions.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Appealing to people just like CapnZapp has to be Paizo's goal, though: people who play D&D but want something more intricate and involved than 5E. He is quite possibly their ideal potential customer.




I do kinda feel like “D&D Advanced” is the pitch which would appeal to me. I haven’t seen it yet (my preorder is yet to arrive, and I can’t read long PDFs) but it’s still my major anticipated game for that exact reason.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2018)

Morrus said:


> I do kinda feel like “D&D Advanced” is the pitch which would appeal to me. I haven’t seen it yet (my preorder is yet to arrive, and I can’t read long PDFs) but it’s still my major anticipated game for that exact reason.



I think a lot of folks would like that option. I don't think that is what PF2 is, however. It seems much more aimed at streamlining PF's complexity while maintaining its fiddliness appeal and baking in the setting lore more than PF1. Does that make it a Fantasy Heartbreaker? Possibly, though it would still be the largest and most successful one.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Appealing to people just like CapnZapp has to be Paizo's goal, though: people who play D&D but want something more intricate and involved than 5E. He is quite possibly their ideal potential customer.



Why and how so? It seems as if CapnZapp already has his pitch perfect game in 5e, with 1+ last thread on balancing it. His main criticism of Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2 so far has been that it is not 5e. It's not criticizing that New Coke isn't Coke, but that New Coke isn't Cherry Pepsi. I'm skeptical that you can please that sort of customer or that these should be your target audience. If that customer is hellbent on wanting the other game to be 5e, then there is no point on making that game into 5e just to appease them when they already have 5e to play.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Why and how so? It seems as if CapnZapp already has his pitch perfect game in 5e, with 1+ last thread on balancing it. His main criticism of Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2 so far has been that it is not 5e. It's not criticizing that New Coke isn't Coke, but that New Coke isn't Cherry Pepsi. I'm skeptical that you can please that sort of customer or that these should be your target audience. If that customer is hellbent on wanting the other game to be 5e, then there is no point on making that game into 5e just to appease them when they already have 5e to play.




Oh, absolutely. If what you want is 5E, and your main criticism is that something isn’t 5E, Pathfinder isn’t for you.


----------



## Kurviak (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I am assuming Paizo is gunning for Pathfinder levels of success.
> 
> However - you could be right and I could be wrong. I guess Paizo could be content with a small slice of the pie.




They officially said they are not competing with wotc because that will be suicide for them


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Why and how so? It seems as if CapnZapp already has his pitch perfect game in 5e, with 1+ last thread on balancing it. His main criticism of Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2 so far has been that it is not 5e. It's not criticizing that New Coke isn't Coke, but that New Coke isn't Cherry Pepsi. I'm skeptical that you can please that sort of customer or that these should be your target audience. If that customer is hellbent on wanting the other game to be 5e, then there is no point on making that game into 5e just to appease them when they already have 5e to play.




You have apparently not seen many of his 5E posts: he has numerous, loudly shared criticisms of the system, and a crunchy alternative is what he has been asking for. Repeatedly. 

Thinking that 5E is the current high watermark in the the RPG industry doesn't mean that he has some insurmountable bias, or that Paizo should discount him as a customer. Disgruntled D&D fans who want more crunch is how Paizo built their house. If they simultaneously alienate PF1 fans, and fail to attract 5E fans from the margins...to whom are they selling?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 8, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Oh, absolutely. If what you want is 5E, and your main criticism is that something isn’t 5E, Pathfinder isn’t for you.




What CapnZapp has expressed a desire for isn't 5E, but a game incorporating the OGL lessons from 5E while providing a different, crunchier experience. This is something PF2 could have been.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> What CapnZapp has expressed a desire for isn't 5E, but a game incorporating the OGL lessons from 5E while providing a different, crunchier experience. This is something PF2 could have been.



But was never promising to be. Why is it incumbent upon Paizo to service the disaffected 5e fans? Isn't that WotC's job? Moreover, doesn't anyone else get tired of people making hyperbolic judgments about the business acumen of a company that has already far exceeded expectations? Maybe PF2 will fail and destroy the company, but even if it does it won't be because CapnZapp didn't like it.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> You have apparently not seen many of his 5E posts: he has numerous, loudly shared criticisms of the system, and a crunchy alternative is what he has been asking for. Repeatedly.
> 
> Thinking that 5E is the current high watermark in the the RPG industry doesn't mean that he has some insurmountable bias, or that Paizo should discount him as a customer. Disgruntled D&D fans who want more crunch is how Paizo built their house. If they simultaneously alienate PF1 fans, and fail to attract 5E fans from the margins...to whom are they selling?



I would be twice as excited for PF2e if it was "crunchy 5e" rather than "streamlined PF1".  And honestly, they can get there if they make the feat system less gated and drop the +level bonus to everything.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I would be twice as excited for PF2e if it was "crunchy 5e" rather than "streamlined PF1".  And honestly, they can get there if they make the feat system less gated and drop the +level bonus to everything.




But they aren’t making 5E. They’re making Pathfinder. That’s a bit like saying “I’d be more excited about ice cream if it was a steak”.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> What CapnZapp has expressed a desire for isn't 5E, but a game incorporating the OGL lessons from 5E while providing a different, crunchier experience. This is something PF2 could have been.




But they are making that and I don’t understand arguments that say they’re not. PF2 playtest looks a lot like PF1 from character building and a lot like 5e from in battle flow. There is going to be more feats (both class and general feats) and gating them like they have now is no different than smite evil and weapon training and favored enemy being gated in PF1. 

As for bounded accuracy there are two aspects to it. There is difference between players in a party. In that it is like 5e (or like PF1 at level one) where everyone can compete skill wise or bab wise. Both systems are ability mod plus prof mod. The only difference is that PF2 adds level to everything because they want high level characters to be a lot better than low level ones. But if you want to recreate 5e bounded accuracy in PF2 it’s very easy. Just drop the level bonus to everything, or halve it if you want something in between.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 8, 2018)

Morrus said:


> But they aren’t making 5E. They’re making Pathfinder. That’s a bit like saying “I’d be more excited about ice cream if it was a steak”.



But they could make Pathfinder more like 5e.  Nothing is stopping them other than their design intent.  A brand has no immutable characteristics other than what its owners choose to give it.  They could make PF2e a d100 roll under system, and it would still be Pathfinder.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 8, 2018)

I don’t see how they could make PF2 any more like 5e without being 5e. Look at how battle works. It’s got a better and different action system and the critical success/failure system but otherwise they are very similar. Spells scale in the same way, spell power is down in general, they have a similar level of buff spells (and use concentration now too) and so on. If you just compare the combat rules of the three games PF2 is closer to 5e than PF. They have really simplified the rules of the game down.

What they haven’t skimmed down is character building, but that is what PF’s schtick is. And I’m sure that Paizo will add options to build on the core rulebook far faster than WotC.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> But they could make Pathfinder more like 5e.  Nothing is stopping them other than their design intent.  A brand has no immutable characteristics other than what its owners choose to give it.  They could make PF2e a d100 roll under system, and it would still be Pathfinder.




It would still be *called* Pathfinder, but that’s just a label. It wouldn’t be Pathfinder in any meaningful sense.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 8, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> I don’t see how they could make PF2 any more like 5e without being 5e. Look at how battle works. It’s got a better and different action system and the critical success/failure system but otherwise they are very similar. Spells scale in the same way, spell power is down in general, they have a similar level of buff spells (and use concentration now too) and so on. If you just compare the combat rules of the three games PF2 is closer to 5e than PF. They have really simplified the rules of the game down.
> 
> What they haven’t skimmed down is character building, but that is what PF’s schtick is. And I’m sure that Paizo will add options to build on the core rulebook far faster than WotC.



I wouldn't go that far.  The bundling of bonuses into the advantage/disadvantage system is wildly different than PF2e's approach.  PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects.  And the 3 action system, where so many options can consume 2 or 3 actions, and other effects can spend a variable amount of actions to determine potency, is way more complex than 5e's action-move-sometimes bonus action system.  Those are little changes, they affect the entire playstyle of the game.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 8, 2018)

Morrus said:


> It would still be *called* Pathfinder, but that’s just a label. It wouldn’t be Pathfinder in any meaningful sense.



I'll be honest, with only one edition of Pathfinder released, and that edition derived from another game anyway, I'd have trouble defining what the intrinsic characteristics of Pathfinder are.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2018)

Raise your hand if you have actually played a game, even a single encounter, of PF2 at this point.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Raise your hand if you have actually played a game, even a single encounter, of PF2 at this point.




Me! Me! Played a demo at UKGE in June.


----------



## zztong (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Raise your hand if you have actually played a game, even a single encounter, of PF2 at this point.




I've made around 15 characters and I play for the first time tonight. I can say from experience that I don't like PF2e character generation, but I really think I'm going to like the action sequence.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Raise your hand if you have actually played a game, even a single encounter, of PF2 at this point.



It's been 6 days.  I doubt a whole lot of people have yet.  I certainly don't get to game every week.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 8, 2018)

Morrus said:


> But they aren’t making 5E. They’re making Pathfinder. That’s a bit like saying “I’d be more excited about ice cream if it was a steak”.




The analogy is more like "I'd be more excited by this ice cream if it was Strawberry rather than Macha Green Tea flavored, or the Chocolate that WotC is producing" They are making D&D, the comparison is like to like, just differing in details.

Haven't played any, probably won't. I was interested in the life path character generation, but that has proven not to be very fun at all, and not at all streamlined. Still better than abstract point buy systems, but half-baked.

What I really love, however, are the Archetypes, and how they replace multiclassing and Prestige Classes entirely.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I wouldn't go that far.  The bundling of bonuses into the advantage/disadvantage system is wildly different than PF2e's approach.  PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects.  And the 3 action system, where so many options can consume 2 or 3 actions, and other effects can spend a variable amount of actions to determine potency, is way more complex than 5e's action-move-sometimes bonus action system.  Those are little changes, they affect the entire playstyle of the game.




I’m not sure why I should argue with someone who hasn’t read the rulebook. That being said.

1. Pathfinder 2 does have concentration, in fact most buff spells have it.
2. 5e does not fully lack buff spells. Bless, guidance, magic weapon, bardic inspiration, etc all give buffs. Many of those don’t even give a +1, they instead make you roll additional d4s and d6s
3. The list of PF2 spells that give buffs is very small. Bless, guidance, celestial brand, heroism, magic weapon/fang and that’s it. So it’s basically the same list with heroism/brand added. Also note that they all give conditional bonuses which means they don’t stack. As compared to 5e where they do. So this means buff stacking is actually lower in PF2 than 5e.

Anyway this is what makes it hard to debate here (and it’s worse on Paizos forum) with all the misinformation going around. It’s not like concentrate is hard to miss, it’s in the first couple pages of the spell section as well as littered over the spell options.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 8, 2018)

As for playing I’ll be DM’ing my first session on Sunday. I’ll let you all know how it goes.


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Appealing to people just like CapnZapp has to be Paizo's goal, though: people who play D&D but want something more intricate and involved than 5E. He is quite possibly their ideal potential customer.




Is someone too paranoid to sign up for a Paizo account really Paizos ideal potential customer?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> 1.  I've already shown you how to get around that.  2. Paizo is not Facebook or even remotely close to being Facebook or its ilk.  It doesn't have the numbers, variety of people, or platform style to be useful to advertisers in the same way that Facebook and its ilk are.  3. It clearly doesn't really bother you, or you wouldn't be here.  You've given that information out already.



Maybe you missed that part but I gave out the burner email account provider I used. 

So I'm good. And no, I didn't give out any personal data.

I'm here to contest the usage of "free" where strings are attached, that's all.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And I've already shown you how your uselessly broad definition of "free" means that "gratis" doesn't exist.  Literally everything you do costs time, the most precious resource we have.




You too can relativize all you want. Changes nothing.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Why and how so? It seems as if CapnZapp already has his pitch perfect game in 5e, with 1+ last thread on balancing it. His main criticism of Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2 so far has been that it is not 5e. It's not criticizing that New Coke isn't Coke, but that New Coke isn't Cherry Pepsi. I'm skeptical that you can please that sort of customer or that these should be your target audience. If that customer is hellbent on wanting the other game to be 5e, then there is no point on making that game into 5e just to appease them when they already have 5e to play.



I don't want to disturb your argumentation, except to emphatically declare I hate Cherry Pepsi.

That is all.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> What CapnZapp has expressed a desire for isn't 5E, but a game incorporating the OGL lessons from 5E while providing a different, crunchier experience. This is something PF2 could have been.



I feel I'm a celebrity here or sumthin'


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Maybe PF2 will fail and destroy the company, but even if it does it won't be because CapnZapp didn't like it.



Thank god.

Imagine playing a game you don't really love only because dozens of people would lose their jobs otherwise...


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I would be twice as excited for PF2e if it was "crunchy 5e" rather than "streamlined PF1".  And honestly, they can get there if they make the feat system less gated and drop the +level bonus to everything.



This.

So very much this.

A player-side crunchy 5E from the renowned adventure makers Paizo would be sweeeeeet ☺


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Morrus said:


> But they aren’t making 5E. They’re making Pathfinder. That’s a bit like saying “I’d be more excited about ice cream if it was a steak”.



Actually I'm lactose intolerant so I could get behind that...


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I'll be honest, with only one edition of Pathfinder released, and that edition derived from another game anyway, I'd have trouble defining what the intrinsic characteristics of Pathfinder are.



Actually I think the horrible truth is that people will miss Pathfinder just as much as they missed d20.

That is, not much at all.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 8, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> The analogy is more like "I'd be more excited by this ice cream if it was Strawberry rather than Macha Green Tea flavored, or the Chocolate that WotC is producing"



Sorry, I would never say that


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 8, 2018)

I doubt Paizo will go under if PF2 tanks. I would expect them to pull a Sega and go 3pp and do limited support for pf1/2 and they have Starfinder and can do 5E stuff. 

 Would anyone hate 5E Golarion or Rise of the Runelords?


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> This.
> 
> So very much this.
> 
> A player-side crunchy 5E from the renowned adventure makers Paizo would be sweeeeeet ☺




This is pretty much what PF2 is. For how much you’ve posted in this thread you’ve not actually said anything of substance. If you look at the combat rules you’ll find that PF2 and 5e share a ton in common now, far more than PF2 and PF1 do.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 9, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> I’m not sure why I should argue with someone who hasn’t read the rulebook. That being said.
> 
> 1. Pathfinder 2 does have concentration, in fact most buff spells have it.
> 2. 5e does not fully lack buff spells. Bless, guidance, magic weapon, bardic inspiration, etc all give buffs. Many of those don’t even give a +1, they instead make you roll additional d4s and d6s
> ...



Concentration isn't the same concept as in 5e, though.  Concentration spells are much less ubiquitous than in 5e, and you can concentrate on 3 at once, assuming you're willing to devote your actions to do so.  (If there's a constraint that only lets you concentrate on one spell, I didn't see it on pages 196-197, where the Concentrate on a Spell action is detailed.)  It's more of an action economy constraint in PF2, which isn't a bad thing!  I actually quite like most of the spell casting rules in PF2.  

I do agree that they seem to have dialed back a lot of the buff spells, which is great, as layering buffs was one of the most annoying features of 3.5/PF1.  No more _blessing of fervor_!  I'm not a fan of keeping bonus types, though...a bunch of bonus types that don't stack is worse than a bunch of bonuses that do.  I'd also note that heroism and magic weapon/fang are not concentration, and also stack.  As does the classic combo of Fly/Greater Invisibility (or Heightened Invisibility, now), of course.

So it's probably good you decide to argue with someone who "hasn't read the rulebook", as we've both learned a lot today.  And that's one to grow on!


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Would anyone hate 5E Golarion or Rise of the Runelords?



Got me.  I'm certainly in the minority in that I like Pathfinder, but have zero interest in the adventure paths, as I don't really run published adventures.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 9, 2018)

He only likes one edition of D&D.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> He only likes one edition of D&D.



OD&D (1974) is the one true edition of D&D.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 9, 2018)

You said “PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects.” and you’re wrong despite how much you’re trying to walk it back now that someone called out your misinformation. Spending your entire turn concentrating on buffs that are weaker than their 5e counterparts is probably not a good idea. Also by my rough count today there is about 50-60 spells requiring concentration, so it is pretty common.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 9, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> You said “PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects.” and you’re wrong despite how much you’re trying to walk it back now that someone called out your misinformation. Spending your entire turn concentrating on buffs that are weaker than their 5e counterparts is probably not a good idea. Also by my rough count today there is about 50-60 spells requiring concentration, so it is pretty common.



You seem fun.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 9, 2018)

Yeah people who call out bs are a pain. Maybe we could spend the next six months about how to make the final game better and provide actual feedback for the playtest or we can just rehash edition wars that everyone is sick of. There is plenty of actual things we can discuss that I think would be useful and are actual points of concern. Such as:

1. Is there a way to prevent multiclassing being a trap that is more flexible than playtest rules?
2. Do casters need more spell slots?
3. What is the balance between class gated feats and what should be general? (Aka how to stop casters stealing all the martials toys)
4. Is there perhaps some clarification needed on hand moving. (In regards to paladins using lay on hands while using a 2h weapon)
5. What is your tables experience with resonance. Does it do what the devs intended or is there a less fiddly way to do the same thing?

Those are things I’d like to discuss.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 9, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I think you need to define "feat tax" then. I define it as "feat you have to take to get some other feat, that you wouldn't take on its own merits".




I define it as it was introduced.  A requirement to hit the baseline that the game requires.  The expertise feats in 4e fit that bill.  The game math was off and they corrected via feats, which was a mistake.  Having to take feats to be where you should be without them is a feat tax.  Pre-requisites are not a tax.  They are a cost.  



> It is quite different. I didn't have to multiclass to advance a fighting style in 3.PF. I could do it _faster_ by multiclassing into fighter because fighter granted combat feats, but I could do it entirely with general feats if I so desired.




No.  It's no different.  Sure, you could customize better in PF.  That doesn't make these changes a tax.  It just means that the rules have changed and the costs are different.  I happen to agree with you.  I prefer more options outside of the classes.  It's one of the reasons that 3e is still my favorite edition of D&D.  However, moving the costs around doesn't create a tax.  You are not required to take these feats, so no tax exists.



> I don't understand this argument. If a non-fighter wants Point-Blank Shot, Double Shot, and Triple Shot, they have to take Fighter Dedication. "Tax?" may be a subjective argument, but "Prerequisite?" is not.




Sure, it's a pre-requisite, but it's not a tax.  Nobody has to take those feats, especially rangers who have plenty nice ranged feats of their own.  Wanting them doesn't make the feats required.  I just makes them worth paying for.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Yeah people who call out bs are a pain. Maybe we could spend the next six months about how to make the final game better and provide actual feedback for the playtest or we can just rehash edition wars that everyone is sick of. There is plenty of actual things we can discuss that I think would be useful and are actual points of concern. Such as:
> 
> 1. Is there a way to prevent multiclassing being a trap that is more flexible than playtest rules?
> 2. Do casters need more spell slots?
> ...



Perhaps playing the game as designed in the playtest rules will help determine the answers to these questions.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You too can relativize all you want. Changes nothing.




You mean like relativizing personal information the way you did?  Look in a mirror, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and pot meet kettle...


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 9, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I'll be honest, with only one edition of Pathfinder released, and that edition derived from another game anyway, I'd have trouble defining what the intrinsic characteristics of Pathfinder are.



I suspect that the issue that you raise here is why (1) they are anchoring their rules to their Golarion setting, and (2) attempting to strike out a bit more boldly away from D&D 3e. These things help establish a clearer identity for their brand. But it seems like a good place to start for answers would be looking at why people are playing comparable systems. Why Pathfinder 1 and not 3.Xe D&D or 5e D&D? Why are people not playing Pathfinder 1 and opting for 3.Xe D&D or 5e D&D instead? Adventure Paths likely constitute part of the appeal, but I know many gamers here who prefer Pathfinder 1 over 5e and 3.X who don't use the Adventure Paths.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 9, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You mean like relativizing personal information the way you did?  Look in a mirror, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and pot meet kettle...



Look.

Don't call something free if you don't hand it out no strings attached. This is very simple.

That the morning cereal you need to eat to not starve to death before visiting Paizo's site costs money is entirely beside this issue, and bringing it up is only your way of trying to squiggle out of owning up this fact.

I believe we're done here.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 9, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> These things help establish a clearer identity for their brand.



Yep. Corporate decisions aren't always smart decisions.

In their dreams people playing in Golarion will accept their new game hook line and sinker.

In reality, why play PFx if they don't provide any advantages over the dozens of other companies not named WotC?

Previously they had one such advantage; custody of 3rd edition (in all but name).

I understand it would hurt the black corporate soul to admit it, but Paizo's success comes from being a WotC symbiote.

I understand the business decision to break free; I just think they overestimate the non WotC market, while ignoring the opportunity window of a crunch add-on to 5E created by WotC, whose complacency means we'll get as little crunch from them as they can get away with.

Any other company would have published a revised Ranger, psionics, the artificer and more by now.

Paizo turning up the heat on WotC would have been a great development. Shame they chose the path to irrelevance instead...


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Yep. Corporate decisions aren't always smart decisions.



And customer criticisms aren't always valid criticisms.  



> In their dreams people playing in Golarion will accept their new game hook line and sinker.
> 
> In reality, why play PFx if they don't provide any advantages over the dozens of other companies not named WotC?



Their APs are apparently their big selling points, and their APs are tied to Golarion. If my Golarion-tied APs were my gravy train, then tying my rules a bit closer to Golarion does not seem that foolish. 



> Previously they had one such advantage; custody of 3rd edition (in all but name).



Yet going for a crunchier version of 5e would also be abandoning that custody of 3rd edition (in all but name) as well, so... 



> I understand the business decision to break free; I just think they overestimate the non WotC market, while ignoring the opportunity window of a crunch add-on to 5E created by WotC, whose complacency means we'll get as little crunch from them as they can get away with.



I think that you refuse to give Paizo enough credit and underestimate them. 

Also, I would have to double-check, but I don't think that the current licensing agreement for 5e would permit the crunchier version of 5e that you are wistfully daydreaming about here. 



> Shame they chose the path to irrelevance instead...



Just like WotC did with 4e, and look at them now. Stop being a DebbieDowner and making this out to be the end of the world for Paizo. We are barely into this playtest. Do you even recall how the first iteration of Pathfinder 1 playtest looked like? People were again spelling the doom of Paizo and Pathfinder at its outset just like you are with Pathfinder 2 and Paizo now. 



CapnZapp said:


> Look.
> 
> Don't call something free if you don't hand it out no strings attached. This is very simple.
> 
> ...



So did you blow this much hot air about how the "free" D&D Next playtest require that you register your email on the old website? I somehow doubt it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 9, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> OD&D (1974) is the one true edition of D&D.




 I own it


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> That the morning cereal you need to eat to not starve to death before visiting Paizo's site costs money is entirely beside this issue, and bringing it up is only your way of trying to squiggle out of owning up this fact.




I never did that, though.  When I brought up time, it wasn't to squiggle out of anything.  It was to show that your definition of free was uselessly broad by giving you an example of something that was every bit as much of a "cost" as personal information, that quite literally applies to everything.  If personal information is a "cost," then so is time.  If time is a "cost," there is literally no such thing as free or gratis and the terms are worthless.  Hence my statement that you've made the term free worthless with your claim.

The word free relates to direct costs, such as money or barter of goods, neither of which is being required by Paizo.  You can stretch and squint sideways at the what free means all you like, but you still won't have stopped the Paizo download from being free.  You can Falsely Equate Paizo with Facebook and its ilk all you like, but that still won't make Paizo's collected information worth much.


----------



## zztong (Aug 9, 2018)

zztong said:


> I've made around 15 characters and I play for the first time tonight. I can say from experience that I don't like PF2e character generation, but I really think I'm going to like the action sequence.




I played for the first time last night.

We had a mix of players who had made characters and those who had not. Those who made characters needed 2 hours to complete them using Hero Lab Online and getting advice from those who had already been through it. My first character had taken me over 2 hours to make without any assistance. One player wanted to make an Archer. They got caught in the Fighter or Ranger decision and the nuances of the Class Feats, gave up, and made a Cleric who could use a bow (Elf gave access to it, IIRC.) My personal, snarky-jerk opinion of character generation is that the steps are: 1. Create a character conception. 2. Abandon that conception. 3. Make something from the options available to you and just be happy about your Class and Race, err I mean Ancestry.

This left 2 hours to play. We got through the intro and the first two rooms. The Action Economy (I guess that's the vogue term for it) seemed to work okay. I ended up playing a Wizard. The GM had to "bot" a rogue because nobody chose to play one. Normally, nobody wants to play a Cleric.

From my perspective, I could have been playing PF1. The 1st level Wizard fired off cantrips and saved his 1st level spells in case they were needed. The DM was surprised I didn't take the Shield spell because he had played in a couple of games at GenCon and the Wizard players he had observed always cast Shield. My AC was 10, and I didn't see a point in casting Shield to make my AC an 11, though 4 points of DR would be like 4 temp hitpoints each round. I used my spare actions to just stay away from the enemy and our screening party members held.

We spent a lot of time parsing the meaning of the Heal spell variations, overcoming confusion with the rules, and trying to understand the layout. I was frustrated by the layout's use of numbers in little colored boxes. We spent five minutes trying to figure out if they always referred to "level" or if in some cases it meant something else, like the number of Spell Points it cost to use.

Folks generally forgot that "Goblins were people too" now. During the intro, NPCs said something about having found a goblin in the dungeon. A PC inquired if the NPCs had already eliminated the goblins. They were reminded there were "good goblins now." Then, in the second room, we were attacked by goblins, which we slaughtered. I figured I would be the only stodgy fellow stuck in a rut believing Gobo should remain monsters. I was surprised to see most people at the table felt the same way. They enjoyed them as lovable, entertaining, incompetent *villains*. The DM's young kid had made a Gobo Druid, and I wonder how he would have fit in, but he ran off to watch TV before play started.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 9, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Yeah people who call out bs are a pain. Maybe we could spend the next six months about how to make the final game better and provide actual feedback for the playtest or we can just rehash edition wars that everyone is sick of.



Don't joke, we lost good soldiers in the Edition Wars.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 9, 2018)

zztong said:


> I played for the first time last night.
> 
> We had a mix of players who had made characters and those who had not. Those who made characters needed 2 hours to complete them using Hero Lab Online and getting advice from those who had already been through it. My first character had taken me over 2 hours to make without any assistance. One player wanted to make an Archer. They got caught in the Fighter or Ranger decision and the nuances of the Class Feats, gave up, and made a Cleric who could use a bow (Elf gave access to it, IIRC.) My personal, snarky-jerk opinion of character generation is that the steps are: 1. Create a character conception. 2. Abandon that conception. 3. Make something from the options available to you and just be happy about your Class and Race, err I mean Ancestry.
> 
> ...




 Think I would be in the 2 hour camp to create a PC as well. On the Paizo forums there have been reports of 3 hours to make one. 10-30 mins for an edition I am familiar with or maybe an hour for something complicated. 

 They probably should have provided some pregens. 

 Played some B/X adventures not to long ago in one of them it took 5 mins, grab semi pregen gen and flesh it out with various packs go. Some of them have better stats than what you could probably roll.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 9, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Don't joke, we lost good soldiers in the Edition Wars.




Yes, but your soldiers sucked and mine were great.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 9, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, but your soldiers sucked and mine were great.



Ha!  Your soldiers got lost in the desert when the mountains appeared!  Mine never got lost because mountains only appear when the players say so!


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 9, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, but your soldiers sucked and mine were great.




 Mine were great as well my small army invaded Thyatis and woe outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1.

 Are we using Battlesystem here?


----------



## zztong (Aug 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> They probably should have provided some pregens.




The DM had a few available, but the Playtest requires you to level up your characters at a couple of points, so we wanted them in Hero Lab Online.


----------



## Jer (Aug 9, 2018)

zztong said:


> I played for the first time last night.




Thanks for the play report - but you missed one question that I'd like to know which is "was it fun for you or not?"



> My personal, snarky-jerk opinion of character generation is that the steps are: 1. Create a character conception. 2. Abandon that conception. 3. Make something from the options available to you and just be happy about your Class and Race, err I mean Ancestry.




Oh - so like my experiences with most editions of D&D then 



> From my perspective, I could have been playing PF1.




yeah - just reading through the rules I wondered how much different it would feel at the table vs. during character creation at low levels.  I don't have any of the books handy - did you cast any spells that required multiple actions to cast?  And if so did that trip things up at all?


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 9, 2018)

I converted 3 of my players characters over to 2e last night (level four versions from when they were lower levels). I had read the rulebook and did use hero lab online for it. It took about 20 minutes each to remake their characters. The sorc was very easy, the fighter/paladin I remade as paladin with fighter dedication and the hard one was the oracle which I remade into a Angelic Sorcerer. Two races (Samsaran and Sylph) I basically remade as half elves, since the combination of human and elf ancestry feats had similar options to their original races.

Now I’ll have to find some level appropriate monsters for them to fight at level four in a “flashback” session before actually spending time at a table with them helping them remake their level eleven characters. Figure it’s best to let them play the system before doing conversion.


----------



## zztong (Aug 9, 2018)

Jer said:


> Thanks for the play report - but you missed one question that I'd like to know which is "was it fun for you or not?"




Hanging out with friends is always fun. The game? I would say I was just as happy throwing dice and moving pieces as I would have been with any other RPG. I would have been equally happy with D&D 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e, or PF1e. I've only played D&D 5e once, but it would probably fine too.



Jer said:


> Oh - so like my experiences with most editions of D&D then




Hehe. Normally my go-to character for a first game is a Ranger. I couldn't make a Ranger concept work well enough in PF2e, plus we needed a Wizard for a balanced party. The PF2e Universalist Wizard seemed close to the PF1e Universalist Wizard.



Jer said:


> yeah - just reading through the rules I wondered how much different it would feel at the table vs. during character creation at low levels.  I don't have any of the books handy - did you cast any spells that required multiple actions to cast?  And if so did that trip things up at all?




I only cast cantrips because I wasn't sure how far the other PCs could go without rest. The cantrips took 2 actions (of 3) to cast. 1 action for verbal, 1 action for somantics. (I hope I got that right.) I could cast and move, which was the same as PF1. I could have not moved and extended the range of a spell by 30 feet, which would have been nice for Color Spray, but I didn't need to cast it. The DM (who played at GenCon) said he had seen Wizzy's casting two spells: an attack and then Shield. I had not put Shield in my spellbook, so I didn't have that option.

I don't recall a point where any of the other players were tripped up by the action system. There were points where there was discussion of options that were different. One noticeable difference was that 1st level characters could attack more than once. Another noticeable difference is that Criticals are much more common and I don't think I like that. Time will tell. We didn't see the dying/death system work, so I don't know how that will affect how people act.


----------



## zztong (Aug 9, 2018)

I just remembered something else that I thought didn't work right. I suspect its more a matter of DM mistake than a rules problem.

We had entered the first room and folks were looking around. There were bones present, and something about the way the DM described them made me think they had been arranged in a strange way. He asked me what I wanted to do, and I asked if the arrangement of the bones meant anything to me perhaps related to my Occultism knowledge. He asked me to roll. I rolled poorly and got a total of 8.

Combat broke out, and my initiative was 8 because of my Occultism roll.

I don't really care about the 8, nor about using +5 skill instead of my Perception (+1). Another player's initiative was their latest Arcane roll. I don't remember what the other players were doing. They might have used a "Nose Picking" roll for all I know. What was wrong with an Initiative Roll? In that case I think it would have made more sense.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Aug 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Maybe you missed that part but I gave out the burner email account provider I used.
> 
> So I'm good. And no, I didn't give out any personal data.
> 
> I'm here to contest the usage of "free" where strings are attached, that's all.




So... You *did* get the playtest document.  And you *did not* give them any personal information for it?

So you got it for free. Good job. You have proved that it is free.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 9, 2018)

Michael Silverbane said:


> So... You *did* get the playtest document.  And you *did not* give them any personal information for it?
> 
> So you got it for free. Good job. You have proved that it is free.



If you believe that "proof", I have a bridge I would like to sell to you.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you believe that "proof", I have a bridge I would like to sell to you.




But if you’re insisting it’s not free, and you didn’t pay the price, then you’ve stolen it by your own logic.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 9, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I define it as it was introduced.  A requirement to hit the baseline that the game requires.  The expertise feats in 4e fit that bill.  The game math was off and they corrected via feats, which was a mistake.  Having to take feats to be where you should be without them is a feat tax.  Pre-requisites are not a tax.  They are a cost.
> 
> No.  It's no different.  Sure, you could customize better in PF.  That doesn't make these changes a tax.  It just means that the rules have changed and the costs are different.  I happen to agree with you.  I prefer more options outside of the classes.  It's one of the reasons that 3e is still my favorite edition of D&D.  However, moving the costs around doesn't create a tax.  You are not required to take these feats, so no tax exists.




OK, fine. Using your definition, dedication feats and half-level restrictions are not taxes because the system isn't outright broken (that we know of).



> Sure, it's a pre-requisite, but it's not a tax.  Nobody has to take those feats, especially rangers who have plenty nice ranged feats of their own.  Wanting them doesn't make the feats required.  I just makes them worth paying for.




There are a few, but hardly "plenty", and those few are high level. If it weren't for the half-level thing, I'd multi into fighter just because I have nothing better to use those early class feats on.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 10, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> OK, fine. Using your definition, dedication feats and half-level restrictions are not taxes because the system isn't outright broken (that we know of).
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few, but hardly "plenty", and those few are high level. If it weren't for the half-level thing, I'd multi into fighter just because I have nothing better to use those early class feats on.




 All the MC feats seem better than the basic feats. Seems like 4E in that regard assuming you just had the 4E PHB and even in later splats the 4E MC feat lets you pick different paragon paths.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 10, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> There are a few, but hardly "plenty", and those few are high level. If it weren't for the half-level thing, I'd multi into fighter just because I have nothing better to use those early class feats on.



It's not a feat, and it's not specifically ranged, but Hunt Target is good for ranged combat.  At 2nd level(hardly high level) Favored Aim gives you a +2 to hit or ignore some portions of cover.  Stalkers Shot(also 2nd level) gives you a free shot against a hunted target that doesn't see you.  Then yes, the rest of the good ones are 12th level or higher.


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 10, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Think I would be in the 2 hour camp to create a PC as well. On the Paizo forums there have been reports of 3 hours to make one. 10-30 mins for an edition I am familiar with or maybe an hour for something complicated.




My game on Thursday turned into Character creation night so hopefully we can do a little Goblin bashing next week.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> My game on Thursday turned into Character creation night so hopefully we can do a little Goblin bashing next week.




 IDK if I will get to playtest my group was not keen once they saw the PF2 PDF. And there are some things i it I am fundamentally not interested in such as their 3 action round thing. Its better than 3.5/PF but make it simple just give them multiple attacks and rebalance the classes around that.


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 11, 2018)

I made a character in a half hour, and a lot of that was looking up spells and how skills work.

3 hours is baffling for someone who's played modern d&d type games.

Unless you're reading the rules while making the character, but then what did you expect?


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 11, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> IDK if I will get to playtest my group was not keen once they saw the PF2 PDF. And there are some things i it I am fundamentally not interested in such as their 3 action round thing. Its better than 3.5/PF but make it simple just give them multiple attacks and rebalance the classes around that.




I dont see how multiple attacks are simpler then having one attack per action except for remembering if you are at +0, -5 or -10 to your attack.



The Human Target said:


> 3 hours is baffling for someone who's played modern d&d type games.
> 
> Unless you're reading the rules while making the character, but then what did you expect?




How else can you make a character without reading the rules?  I have to say that the search function on the pdf was a real time saver.


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont see how multiple attacks are simpler then having one attack per action except for remembering if you are at +0, -5 or -10 to your attack.
> 
> 
> 
> How else can you make a character without reading the rules?  I have to say that the search function on the pdf was a real time saver.




Heh, fair point. I meant for the first time.


----------



## cglied (Aug 11, 2018)

As a D&D 5e player, I just wanted to wish my fellow gamers good fortune with PF 2e. I hope you all enjoy it!


----------



## zztong (Aug 13, 2018)

The Human Target said:


> I made a character in a half hour, and a lot of that was looking up spells and how skills work.
> 
> 3 hours is baffling for someone who's played modern d&d type games.
> 
> Unless you're reading the rules while making the character, but then what did you expect?




I probably could have made a character quickly if I would have just chosen things like abilities based on their names. Why would I do that?

I've played D&D type games since the 1977. Three hours didn't even get me a complete character when just using the book. I switched to Hero Lab and then still needed an hour to make one for the first time. Most of the time was spent on differences in terminology, analysis of options, trying to find things I assumed would be present.

I can see where the time it takes could depend on the class. For instance, I started trying to make a Ranger. This class doesn't include a lot of classic Ranger abilities, and I spent time looking for them because I was certain they had to be there. I similarly got hung up in Ancestries trying to figure out why my racial abilities weren't all present from the start. I got hung up on the Lore Skill. I didn't understand it. I still don't understand it. Weapons have traits that have to be reviewed, etc.

Sure, I can throw together a character (sans equipment) in around 10 minutes with Hero Lab now that I've made 15 characters.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 13, 2018)

What do you guys think the optimal state distribution is in the endgame? In an absolute point sense the most you can get at level 20 is 19 18 18 18 18 18, thought from a numerical advantage perspective it would probably be better to shoot for 20 18 18 18 18 16. But of course you could sack two more boosts to get a 22 in your prime stat, and maybe even to get 20 in a secondary stat. But... would you really want to? Are we gonna get a situation where at the highest levels of play there are virtually no differences in stat lines, and is that even a bad thing?


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 14, 2018)

I think you'll always want your class primary stat to be maxed out, just like you do in PF1 and 5e. So starting with it being as high as possible (18) and then put all 4 points into it, leaving you at 22. Then going up to 24 if you got the magic item for that stat. Since getting your to hit high is important as is getting your caster level up I think it will be worthwhile. Every class is always going to have something to not raise, whether that be Dex for high armor characters or Int for some classes. Even charisma is still somewhat a dump stat once your level gets high enough to give you resonance for what you need.


----------



## mellored (Aug 14, 2018)

Kaodi said:


> What do you guys think the optimal state distribution is in the endgame?




Str is an easy dump for many classes.  If your not wearing heavy armor and a heavy weapon, there isn't a big need for it.
Cha and Int are also somewhat weak.  As 2 out of your 20 resonnance (at level 20), or 2 extra trained skill (you don't extra get skill feats...) is probably worth losing for +1 to hit.
Fort / Ref / Will are not easy dumps, but probably not worth the 2 boosts for.  Con as hit points isn't a huge thing.  So 18's for them.

So that's 2 or 3 stats you could potentially leave behind.

So... 
For the non-strength classes, I would say...
22 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 12 (str)

For the Str classes it still seems worth getting 22.
22 (str) / 18 / 18 / 18 / 16 (int) / 16 (cha)

I could also see some multi-classes going...
22 / 22 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 16  (int/cha) / 10 (str)


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 14, 2018)

What is the basis for dumping Str with Divine casters? That you just use Chill Touch and Reach Spell for offence?


----------



## mellored (Aug 14, 2018)

Kaodi said:


> What is the basis for dumping Str with Divine casters? That you just use Chill Touch and Reach Spell for offence?



I could see all 3 clerics.

22 Str clerics, with (mostly) support spells that don't depend on Wis.  (i.e. bless).
22 Wis clerics, who use chill touch and DC spells.
22 Str / 22 Wis / 18 Con / 18 Dex / 14 Cha / 12 Int clerics, who can both attack, cast chlll touch, and use DC spells.

Also, ranged attacks use Dex, so Str isn't a huge deal.
Though, the +1 AC from medium armor means you might not want Str to be at least 14, even if your going full spell caster.



But mainly, I see 22 in your main stat (and 18 in Con/Dex/wis) as being the winner most of the time.
With 22/22 being worth it in some cases (hopefully one of those will be Con/Dex/Wis).

Not that 20 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 16 (int or cha) would be awful or anything...


Really, with 4 choices and a reason to take each stat, it's hard to screw up.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 14, 2018)

Actually I do not think you can get 22/22 because you cannot get two 18s at start? 

I think the most stacked set of even numbers you can get is 22, 20, 20, 20, 10, 8 with an 18, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8 starting array.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 15, 2018)

Kaodi said:


> Actually I do not think you can get 22/22 because you cannot get two 18s at start?
> 
> I think the most stacked set of even numbers you can get is 22, 20, 20, 20, 10, 8 with an 18, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8 starting array.




You get boosts later in the game.

 18 to start with +1 at level 5,10, 15 not sure where you get the other +1 from. In 5E terms you get 4 ASIS at those levels but once you get an 18 you only get +1 instead of +2.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 15, 2018)

Level 20. You still get ability boosts at level 20.


----------



## mellored (Aug 15, 2018)

Kaodi said:


> Actually I do not think you can get 22/22 because you cannot get two 18s at start?



You're right.



> I think the most stacked set of even numbers you can get is 22, 20, 20, 20, 10, 8 with an 18, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8 starting array.



That might work well for a Bard.  Dumping Str and Int, and picking up Eclectic Skill to fill in the gaps.

But I'm not sure I'd take that for most.


----------



## mellored (Aug 15, 2018)

Kaodi said:


> Level 20. You still get ability boosts at level 20.



Well... now that you mention that...
Having 22 for only 1 level of play probably isn't worth skipping +1 resonance form 15-19 (and +2 resonance at level 20).


So, unless I was starting at level 20 I'd probably *would* do 20 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 16

Or maybe 20 (@ level 10) / 20 (@ level 15) / 18 / 18 / 18 / 12


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 15, 2018)

I don't think I would boost anything above 20. Maybe even 18.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 15, 2018)

Talk about inflation. 

What happened to the wisdom that says strength needs weakness to stand out.

If you can easily get multiple 18's then a 12 or 14 will start to feel like a weakness. 

What's next? Starting with 20 in all abilities, so you never have experience getting only a +4 to your roll?


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 15, 2018)

I know that the a lot of people are hating on the sorcerer right now but I still rather like the flexibility of bloodlines giving access to different spell lists.

Last night I made an attempt at a level 1 witch using the sorcerer and got:

The Witch
female human animal whisperer demonic sorcerer 1, neutral evil
str 10 dex 14 con 12 int 14 wis 10 cha 18
feats familiar (black cat), natural ambition, train animal
trained skills animal lore, athletics, crafting, deception, intimidate, medicine, religion, survival
cantrips - chill touch, detect magic, light, prestidigitation, shield
1st - fear, harm, heal

And honestly that feels pretty good to me.


----------



## mellored (Aug 15, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you can easily get multiple 18's then a 12 or 14 will start to feel like a weakness.



The typical starting array is 18 / 16 / 14 / 12 / 10 / 8
But with a soft cap at 18, and raising 4 out of 6, you tend to round out at you level.

Though, I do agree that reducing it to raising 3 stats (and keeping the soft cap of 20) would make for a more variety.




> What's next? Starting with 20 in all abilities, so you never have experience getting only a +4 to your roll?



Works for me.
Or rather, just get rid of ability scores altogether.   You can still have all the flavor, without the extra step.


Instead...
Elves get +1 to bows, unarmored AC, initiative, stealth, and reflex saves, and -1 to fort saves.
Dwarves get +1 to axes and hammers, armored AC, athletics, and resist 5 to poison, and -1 to diplomacy.
etc...


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 15, 2018)

Good grief, the Paladin is a *dumpster fire* in this playtest. I could tell it was from reading it, and it's even more evident running one in a recent session. Designing a class around a reactive ability with a limited trigger DOES. NOT. WORK.

I'm glad to see that a lot of playtesters on the Paizo boards think the same. Maybe it'll get addressed ...


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 15, 2018)

Now I really want to play a Paladin of Shelyn.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 16, 2018)

Or a Goblin Paladin of Sarenrae who wields a horsechopper and has the Fire domain.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 16, 2018)

I'm going to take a good look at the "hated" classes and see if they are actually bad or just bad compared to their previous incarnations.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 16, 2018)

Power level on everything is a bit down. I think most of the Paladin hate is they went from the strongest offensive physical dps class (melee or ranged just because of smite evil) to a more defensively orientated class. They still do get a couple buffs to damage so they might still have higher dmg/hit than a fighter but not nearly as many tricks. Fighters have things that will raise damage for others or for themselves in the future through things like inflicting flat footed but I didn't see any fighter feats that give a flat boost to damage rolls.

As for Rangers they're going to be very strong archers (especially with the likely longbow change) with any type of bow. How strong they are at melee I'm not as sure on.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 17, 2018)

Pirate seems like a bit of a weird dedication. The initial feat and Sea Legs seem a lot better on classes that do not already have Acrobatics and Athletics as signature skills. So I made a Gnome Bard with them. I think she could work in a normal party,  .

Sedni Soursail
female gnome sailor maestro bard 4, chaotic evil
str 8 dex 16 con 14 int 12 wis 10 cha 18
background feat underwater marauder
ancestry feat animal accomplice (parrot)
class feats lingering composition, pirate dedication, sea legs
skill feat defencive climber, virtuosic performance (singing)
general feat breathe control
trained skills sailing lore, acrobatics, deception, intimidation, occultism, performance, society, survival
expert skill athletics
cantrips - inspire courage, know direction, light, mage hand, message
1st - magic missile, mending, soothe
2nd - invisibility, silence, sound burst


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 17, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Power level on everything is a bit down. I think most of the Paladin hate is they went from the strongest offensive physical dps class (melee or ranged just because of smite evil) to a more defensively orientated class. They still do get a couple buffs to damage so they might still have higher dmg/hit than a fighter but not nearly as many tricks. Fighters have things that will raise damage for others or for themselves in the future through things like inflicting flat footed but I didn't see any fighter feats that give a flat boost to damage rolls.
> 
> As for Rangers they're going to be very strong archers (especially with the likely longbow change) with any type of bow. How strong they are at melee I'm not as sure on.




 Yes but you can still min max. For example a +1 Greatsword+ power atack deals 3s12 damage.

 Cantrips scale at level 3 and get ability core to damage so 1d8 becomes 2d8+4 at level 3, 3d8+4 level 5, 4d8+4 level 7 etc.


----------



## SeanPatrickMcCluskey (Aug 17, 2018)

cglied said:


> As a D&D 5e player, I just wanted to wish my fellow gamers good fortune with PF 2e. I hope you all enjoy it!




As a Savage Worlds player, I second this emotion.


----------



## mellored (Aug 17, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Good grief, the Paladin is a *dumpster fire* in this playtest. I could tell it was from reading it, and it's even more evident running one in a recent session. Designing a class around a reactive ability with a limited trigger DOES. NOT. WORK.
> 
> I'm glad to see that a lot of playtesters on the Paizo boards think the same. Maybe it'll get addressed ...



I disagree.

I mean, I agree that retributive strike is pretty weak, and some of those feats that boost it are pretty trappy*...
But I don't see paladins as being designed around the one feature.  They *also* get lay-on-hands and righteous ally.  And several weak features add up.

Compared to the fighter who *only* gets opportunity attacks (a conditional reaction), I'd say they are doing just fine.



*Better feats would be things that let you use your strike more often.  Making it less conditional.  i.e.

Delayed Retribution: When a creature within 30' of you hits an ally or friendly creature, you can use your reaction to mark them for retribution.  On your next turn, you can use an action to perform a retributive strike against the target.  This applies a multi-attack penalty as normal.

Inescapable Retribution (prerequisite: Delayed Retribution)
When you mark a creature with delayed retributive, that mark does not go away until you hit them, or you use the feature again.

Retributive Step: When an enemy is 5' too far away to use retributive strike, you can move 5' to get into range as part of the same reaction.


Also, why does "litany against sloth" slows people down?  It would make much more sense to speed up a slowed ally.
"Litany against haste" would be better for slowing people down.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 18, 2018)

One thing that vexes me greatly is that in the navigation table of contents they list _every single feat_ and _every single spell_ and _not so much as a letter guide_ for magic items. ALL of these things should be simply navigated as A page X, B page Y, C page Z, etc. Would vastly decrease the amount of necessary scrolling overall.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I mean, I agree that retributive strike is pretty weak, and some of those feats that boost it are pretty trappy*...
> But I don't see paladins as being designed around the one feature.



It's not just those feats though. 2 of the 3 automatic features they get that aren't just armor/weapon/skill stuff are tied directly to Retributive Strike. Including one that's named Holy Smite in what has to be the biggest troll job in table-top RPG history.



> They *also* get lay-on-hands and righteous ally.  And several weak features add up.
> 
> Compared to the fighter who *only* gets opportunity attacks (a conditional reaction), I'd say they are doing just fine.



Attack of Opportunity has more triggers, though. Fighters also have a much better selection of feats that have nothing to do with AoO, and its higher-level automatic features also aren't restricted to AoO.



> *Better feats would be things that let you use your strike more often.  Making it less conditional.  i.e.
> 
> Delayed Retribution: When a creature within 30' of you hits an ally or friendly creature, you can use your reaction to mark them for retribution.  On your next turn, you can use an action to perform a retributive strike against the target.  This applies a multi-attack penalty as normal.
> 
> ...



A lot of these (Retributive Step, especially) read like something that should probably be added to Retributive Strike by default.

I wouldn't have minded Retributive Strike if it was a feat, but making it the defining Paladin feature and hinging two big other features on it and a whole bunch of class feats was definitely not the way to go. It shoehorns the Paladin into purely reactive gameplay, which is an inherently weaker way to play.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 19, 2018)

From http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vcc6?News-from-Paizo-Twitch-170818-Mark-Seifter



> News from Paizo Twitch 17 / 08 / 18 - Mark Seifter
> 
> 1) In two weeks we will probably see new rules for "Dying"
> 
> ...




#4 is the big one for me. I dislike being so limited in character options. Such as being unable to build a functional ranged paladin, longbow ranger, or crossbow fighter because all the relevant combat feats are class specific. It just limits characters to what the designers think should be played, while also artificially creating a need for splatbooks that fill out the gaps. 

This and the entire design of the feedback survey really makes it seem like this playtest is actually, well, a playtest. Unlike the 5e playtest, which was more of a concept test. It seems like they're _not _ looking to gather feedback on the overall design or making major changes to the system, and are just looking to fine tune subsystems. 
It looks very much like final game will look an awful lot like the playtest game. 

Which is disappointing as the playtest book did exactly the opposite of everything I wanted an update of Pathfinder to do...


----------



## Roadie (Aug 20, 2018)

So it just me, or is there no actual distinction between "actions" and "activities"?

Consider, for example, Ready, which is listed as a "basic action" but takes 2 actions (making it an "activity" by definition).

Why are there even two separate words? Why not just have them all as a single category?

Edit:

Compare the Trample activity...








...to the Ready action...








What makes one an activity and the other an action?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 20, 2018)

Jester David said:


> From http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vcc6?News-from-Paizo-Twitch-170818-Mark-Seifter
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have no PF experience, but I had plenty with 3.x. I was curious when I downloaded the PDF if it could entice me. Instead, it seems to have doubled down on what I really didn't like in 3.x. The lifepath system was promising, but did not help streamline anything. The Archetypes are just about the only thing I appreciated.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 20, 2018)

They are apparently gunning for the 3.x holdouts.

5E is a huge success likely in no small part because it truly and fully did keep the fun from 3.x but without the clutter, wonkiness, imbalance and profound system mastery issues.

The only way I can make sense of Paizo yet again not taking the clue is that they're content with those malcontent with a quick fast simple easy friendly system.

Either that or they don't have a franking clue that they're replacing one cluttery nightmare with another.


----------



## zztong (Aug 20, 2018)

Jester David said:


> This and the entire design of the feedback survey really makes it seem like this playtest is actually, well, a playtest. Unlike the 5e playtest, which was more of a concept test. It seems like they're _not _ looking to gather feedback on the overall design or making major changes to the system, and are just looking to fine tune subsystems.




I'm relieved to see I'm not alone in this feeling. I was looking at a list of the survey questions and was upset to see that none of them involved an expression of opinion on major features. The questions appeared to be focused entirely on tuning numbers related to party performance, such as uses per day, healing per day, etc.


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> They are apparently gunning for the 3.x holdouts.




How do you figure? The find it exceedingly hard to believe that there are players that feel that PF1 is too divergent from 3.x (such that they are actively avoiding it, as opposed to just continuing what they're doing due to inertia), but could be lured to PF2, a game which diverges even harder from 3.x.



> 5E is a huge success likely in no small part because it truly and fully did keep the fun from 3.x but without the clutter, wonkiness, imbalance and profound system mastery issues.




I think the people that like 5E on its own merits are already playing it.



> The only way I can make sense of Paizo yet again not taking the clue is that they're content with those malcontent with a quick fast simple easy friendly system.




"Yet again"? PF2 is the first "misstep" that I consider Paizo to be making. PF1 was, I believe, exactly or very close to what people wanted out of a system at the time. What PF1 fans really want is a cleaned up PF1, not the incompatible mess they're being given now.



> Either that or they don't have a franking clue that they're replacing one cluttery nightmare with another.




This is unfortunately what I believe is happening.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 20, 2018)

zztong said:


> I'm relieved to see I'm not alone in this feeling. I was looking at a list of the survey questions and was upset to see that none of them involved an expression of opinion on major features. The questions appeared to be focused entirely on tuning numbers related to party performance, such as uses per day, healing per day, etc.




In theory, they might do those more general surveys later... but given that's the stuff that will require the most work. You'd think they'd want to get that out sooner. 
Hopefully they're just trying to give people more than a twenty days to read the book and play the game. (But it didn't take me twenty minutes to look through the book and go "assumed magic items, rapidly increasing number porn bonuses, and equal complexity for all classes... hard pass.")

I worry that they're just getting more general feedback from the forums. Which is probably a huge mistake. Because there's a lot of noise in the forums, and a lot of squeaky wheels. The percentage of players who visit forums and talk there is small, and we are not necessarily representative. Plus, it is really, really easy to just focus on the happy voices agreeing with you and ignore the people disagreeing. 
You _need_ to get a survey going that casts a wider net and gives you some hard numbers for who likes what and how popular bits of the design are.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 20, 2018)

Pathfinder 2 feels more cluttered with jargon than any edition of D&D, 4e included, ever did. I cannot see any of my players picking this up and lasting five pages of reading from this jargon-induced nightmare of writing. Especially since most of my players are not native English speakers.


----------



## zztong (Aug 20, 2018)

Jester David said:


> In theory, they might do those more general surveys later... but given that's the stuff that will require the most work. You'd think they'd want to get that out sooner. Hopefully they're just trying to give people more than a twenty days to read the book and play the game.




Exactly. Their schedule has to involve something like having everything settled around the new year. If they wait until November to find out they need to rip up and redo big sections then they leave no time to playtest those revisions, much less come up with new mechanics. And OMG, there are big sections that need replaced.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 20, 2018)

Lots of hyperbole again from people who have not played the game and likely never had any intention of playing the game.

Now that I've DM'd about 5 hours of game over 2 nights I feel like I have more to add now. Our group enjoyed it a lot and is moving over our PF1 game to PF2. We spent the last 1.5 hours of last night working on moving their level 11 characters over.

The combat class feats people think are required to make function characters is no more true than not being a functional ranged character who is a non fighter in 5e. A ranged Paladin is just fine in PF2 despite not getting double/triple shot. A fighter will do 2 attacks at -2 against separate targets. A paladin can just do iterative attacks but can hit the same target. Does this mean the Paladin archer doesn't function? No it just makes it a bit worse, and they can do things like Blade of Justice or Righteous Ally to give damage buffs to their weapons to have higher static bonuses or more dice rolls on it. 

The class feats in general are not giving bonuses to hit, and in only a few cases are they giving bonuses to damage. Could I see them moving a couple combat generalist feats into the general feat pool? Sure, but I don't expect a lot of it because doing that is part of what allows casters to steal all the martial's tricks and put them on a class with 9th level spells. Martials having exclusivity to martial attacks to me is no more unfair or broken then casters getting exclusive access to powerful spells.

As for feedback, well they have no need to just listen to the people who shout loudest, whatever their motives are. And there are some very loud people on the internet and tbh from what I've seen regarding the skill system people are arguing about they want things that are worse for the game. Unless people think PF1 was fun when the game got past 7th level and skills became pointless in the face of magic. That being said there is still a lot of stuff that I would be happy if they change/modify.

1. I wouldn't mind being a bit more conversational in tone in certain parts of the rulebook, mostly around the modes of play. I'm perfectly fine being very concise and specfic within battle.
2. I don't think there is much point to the -2 penalty for the opportunity attack types (AoO or Retributive Strike). I could see them just going to flat roll on that.
3. Dying rules are changing I guess, it seemed fine from the one unconscious person we had in our session but I'm curious to see what they go with.
4. I could see them tweaking the multiclassing rules (since now only way to multiclass is through archetyping since you can't change your original class) Then again in PF1 unless you were doing full BAB to full BAB multiclassing was a total trap.
5. I would like the ready action to be a 1 action thing so you can do something cooler with the ready like cast a spell.
6. I wouldn't mind trying level/2 for all the level based numbers to keep numbers a little down, but I love the new proficiency numbers in that like 5e it guarantees the upper and lower bounds of a party are within a certain value.
7. Not sure how much I love the take on some polymorph forms. Mainly I'm not a big fan of something like Righteous Might not allowing you to cast spells. Now I don't mind just having the elemental forms have their own stats again and not be based on their own. I also don't mind not having Natural Spell and making Wild Shape just a reskin for full casters. Now being a beast feels like a beast, but I don't like things like Righteous Might shutting down casting. I also find the rules for some of the durations on them a bit weird. It's hard to make a druid who stays at an animal the full time.
8. Inflexibility of signature skills in how you can take them independently from your class. I don't mind that its an opportunity cost, but there should be more options to add a signature skill so you can get to legendary in something that's not typical for your class.
9. Resonance probably needs changes. I like the goal of limiting magic item use (per 5e) but there is probably a better/cleaner way to do than the current rules.

I'm not concerned about feat/tweaking options. This is Paizo and they're going to add a lot more to that. That's why it amuses me that people are focusing so much on the feat balancing between classes. This is a playtest and its pretty clear the final game is going to have more than what is presented here, and further books will of course add even more.

Edit: 
10. Ancestry feats likely need changes I think to be more front loaded. I'd shift more bonuses to heritage feats, give two choices at level one and then give less options to take on ancestry feats as they level.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 20, 2018)

With Paladin I mean if you really hate their feat options that much why not just multiclass into Cleric and get your spellcasting back?


----------



## Jester David (Aug 20, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Lots of hyperbole again from people who have not played the game and likely never had any intention of playing the game.



I actually kinda wanted to play. 
I was unlikely to play in the playtest due to time. My 5e game is in the middle of things, which is going slow due to summer business. But had I _liked _the game, I might have tried a one-shot or done something later. Because 2/5ths of my gaming group want a little more from the ruleset. They want more options for their character. And having Pathfinder 2 as an alternate system would have been nice. 

Instead, I had to force myself to even finish enough of the playtest book to do a review and have zero interest in actually buying the physical book enough to play. 



Arakasius said:


> The combat class feats people think are required to make function characters is no more true than not being a functional ranged character who is a non fighter in 5e. A ranged Paladin is just fine in PF2 despite not getting double/triple shot. A fighter will do 2 attacks at -2 against separate targets. A paladin can just do iterative attacks but can hit the same target. Does this mean the Paladin archer doesn't function? No it just makes it a bit worse, and they can do things like Blade of Justice or Righteous Ally to give damage buffs to their weapons to have higher static bonuses or more dice rolls on it.



Except for the "soft cover" of shooting past an ally. (There's a special term for that, which I cannot be bothered to look up.) And the volley penalty for using a ranged weapon in a standard dungeon environment.

Without the feats, you are going to suffer. 
Meanwhile, if you're not taking feats that complement your build... you're taking feats that give you bonuses to do things you're not actually doing. 



Arakasius said:


> The class feats in general are not giving bonuses to hit, and in only a few cases are they giving bonuses to damage.



Go back and look at how many feats have an icon by them. 
Every single one of those is NOT just a bonus to hit. You gain a LOT of action options from class feats. 



Arakasius said:


> Could I see them moving a couple combat generalist feats into the general feat pool? Sure, but I don't expect a lot of it because doing that is part of what allows casters to steal all the martial's tricks and put them on a class with 9th level spells. Martials having exclusivity to martial attacks to me is no more unfair or broken then casters getting exclusive access to powerful spells.



Casters could almost use it. 
Just losing automatic scaling of spells is pretty much enough to bring casters down from quadratic to linear. Especially if they're burning class feats to get better at archery rather than progressing their spellcasting like they're expected. 

Having something like two-weapon fighting feats in the general feats is _not _going to break the casters. It will be nice for characters, such as the iconic rogue, who is always portrayed as fighting with a rapier and a dagger, without having to dip into fighter. 



Arakasius said:


> As for feedback, well they have no need to just listen to the people who shout loudest, whatever their motives are. And there are some very loud people on the internet and tbh from what I've seen regarding the skill system people are arguing about they want things that are worse for the game. Unless people think PF1 was fun when the game got past 7th level and skills became pointless in the face of magic. That being said there is still a lot of stuff that I would be happy if they change/modify.



WHICH IS EXACTLY THE COMPLAINT WE JUST MADE.

Yeah, they shouldn't listen to who complains the loudest. They should get information on all the complaints and see which is common among all the audience. They should gather feedback from the entire audience and see what the largest percentages want, don't want, and are looking for in an update. But the surveys don't do that. They're all very much based on fine tuning some pretty niche aspects of the ruleset and not really asking the big questions like "could you build a character you liked", "how do you feel about assumed magic items", or even "did you have fun playing?"



Arakasius said:


> I'm not concerned about feat/tweaking options. This is Paizo and they're going to add a lot more to that. That's why it amuses me that people are focusing so much on the feat balancing between classes. This is a playtest and its pretty clear the final game is going to have more than what is presented here, and further books will of course add even more.



I don't think the giant release schedule of Pathfinder 1 was good for the game or the company. I expect Pathfinder 2 to have a release schedule much more like Starfinder, which has had three hardcovers in a full year but none of which have focused on classes.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 20, 2018)

Respond to some of your points.

1. Screening is a +1 to AC. Hardly crippling for any offensive character. (compared to the +4 it was in PF1)

2. In responds to suffer that's why I said hyperbole. If you want to play a martial character in 5e then you "suffer" immediately if you're not a fighter, because action surge, more attacks and more ability score improvements blow anything else out of the water. But classes like Barbarian and Paladin can do fine because they have other class features that make up for that. Just because a PF2 fighter has a couple more to hit than you (and likely less damage because of not having rage or Paladin weapon buffs) isn't going to make Paladins and Barbarians unplayable. And of course Paladins and Barbarians have special abilities that do things a fighter can't.

3. On class feats mostly being actions you're exactly right and that's my point. PF1 was all about take your one style of attack and then take power attack/weapon focus/furious focus/etc to pump as many static bonuses out of it as possible. And a class like fighter did have "mostly" exclusive access to weapon specialization and greater weapon focus. The fighter feats are nearly entirely action economy and giving things to do in battle. They're not pumping up hit (point blank shot is, but they've already said they're likely doing away with volley) so the difference between a fighter double shotting and a paladin archer just taking two shots isn't enough to make Paladin suboptimal or broken. Yes the fighter has a higher average to hit and will crit more, but likely the Paladin will have considerably higher damage mod between Blade of Justice and Righteous Ally. I just don't think its enough to make one unviable and I'll take note of that in the game I DM since we do have a Paladin.

4. Casters have never needed to burn feats to progress their spells, metamagic is a fine bonus but hardly required.. Basically most PF1 power melee builds were classes like Cleric or Druid or Summoner coming in with their 3/4 BAB and taking all the martial feats which combined with their powerful spell list made up the attack bonus. I don't think losing scaling hurts them that much either considering they get more of the power of the spell straight up (compare fireball at level 5 in PF1 vs PF2) as well as getting to cast spells in higher levels for the heightened benefits. Similarly a single class DC for all spells make it that lower level spells continue to be useful while in PF1 low level spells by high level were either utility of worthless. I think casters will continue to be strong and gishes are better than ever, even if you don't multiclass into another class.

5. If they want to give double slice (or something similar) to rogue than that is cool. I just don't think its needed for martial feats to be in a general pool for everyone to take unless they're extremely basic things.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I actually kinda wanted to play.
> I was unlikely to play in the playtest due to time. My 5e game is in the middle of things, which is going slow due to summer business. But had I _liked _the game, I might have tried a one-shot or done something later. Because 2/5ths of my gaming group want a little more from the ruleset. They want more options for their character. And having Pathfinder 2 as an alternate system would have been nice.



This.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> 2. In responds to suffer that's why I said hyperbole. If you want to play a martial character in 5e then you "suffer" immediately if you're not a fighter, because action surge, more attacks and more ability score improvements blow anything else out of the water. But classes like Barbarian and Paladin can do fine because they have other class features that make up for that. Just because a PF2 fighter has a couple more to hit than you (and likely less damage because of not having rage or Paladin weapon buffs) isn't going to make Paladins and Barbarians unplayable. And of course Paladins and Barbarians have special abilities that do things a fighter can't.



Actually the Paladin and Barbarian are fine. More than fine, actually, since two simple levels of Fighter multiclass gets them most of what you say they "suffer" from not having.

Smite nova or double hit points is easily better than the level 6 bonus ASI (which is the only one that really counts, since past level 11 you don't really need much of anything seeing how stupendously powerful high-level 5E characters are).

The true casualty, however, is the Rogue.


----------



## zztong (Aug 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Lots of hyperbole again from people who have not played the game and likely never had any intention of playing the game.




I'm not sure who that's directed at, but I am playing PF2 as part of the playtest.



Arakasius said:


> As for feedback, well they have no need to just listen to the people who shout loudest, whatever their motives are.




Exactly. Which is why I am frustrated by the questions they're asking in the survey. They appear to be focused on tweaks, but I think big chunks of character generation are horrible. Its just my opinion, of course, but I think Ancestries, Backgrounds, Classes, and Skills all need significant work. I'm undecided on Feats.

Look, I don't always get the luxury of picking the game system. I'm part of two different games where I co-DM and play. In both cases, the primary DM picks the game system. One is sticking with PF1, the other is active in the Pathfinder Society and is running the PF2 playtest. I suspect that second game will play PF2, so I have an interest in trying to make PF2 something more appealing as I will probably have to bite the bullet and play it.


----------



## mellored (Aug 21, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> It's not just those feats though. 2 of the 3 automatic features they get that aren't just armor/weapon/skill stuff are tied directly to Retributive Strike. Including one that's named Holy Smite in what has to be the biggest troll job in table-top RPG history.



well, I still disagree that they are underpowered.  Again, they get 2 features, not 1.

But I do agree that it feels bad, and not particularly paladin-y.



> I wouldn't have minded Retributive Strike if it was a feat, but making it the defining Paladin feature and hinging two big other features on it and a whole bunch of class feats was definitely not the way to go. It shoehorns the Paladin into purely reactive gameplay, which is an inherently weaker way to play.



Having it as a feat isn't a bad idea. 
Hmm....

Paladin's Sacrifice (new base feature)
When an ally within 5' would be hit by an attack, you can push them 5' out of the way, step into their location and take the attack with a -2 A.C. penalty.

Retribution strike (feat)  when you use paladins sacrifice, you can also make an attack against the attacker as part of the same reaction.

And other stuff like that.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 21, 2018)

I was more referring to the people who keep on bringing up edition wars and business strategy stuff.

On the character generation stuff I do somewhat agree ancestries need work. I find it odd that stuff that should be part of what a being is are being added on later. I do agree in general with moving it away from front loading everything with options, but in this case I think ancestries is something that didn't need that much customization. Let people have 2 feat choices at level 1 so they can reasonably define their ancestry and then at that point opt out of iconic things for elf/dwarf/etc if they want but then after that I'd give no more than 2 ancestry feats over the life of a character.

Not really sure what is wrong with background (fairly minor bonuses), skills or classes though so you'd have to elaborate more on that.


----------



## zztong (Aug 21, 2018)

Background are pretty simple. The problem is that when they define "sailor", it may or may not represent what the player envisions as a sailor. Rather than define thousands of backgrounds and scatter them over dozens of future books and supplements, there should be a "Custom Background" option. The Lore skill that comes out of the background is a foggy concept to me. How do I as the DM know what all of the possible Lore skills are? The best I can think of this seems like something designed to integrate with Paizo's APs and is not necessary. The AP could say "anyone with a background in sailing would know..."

On a skill by skill basis, I have modifications I'd like to make. An example would be the Acrobatics skill. I think all of that belongs in the Athletics skill, and that anything involving "tumbling" should be a skill feat. Signature skills need to go. They're too constraining for character conceptions. I don't care for skill bonuses advancing with levels. Spending points was better, though I don't mind the idea of gating certain skill features behind "trained" or "master." I think "mastery" would make for a nice skill feat.

Classes are really frustrating and I don't know how well I can convey what I feel. An example, perhaps. I was telling a friend that I didn't think the Ranger class actually involved being a Ranger. Having made two of them, the only thing that reminded me of being a Ranger was that I was able to be trained in the Nature skill. The Ranger did not seem like a specialist in a known territory. Instead, a Ranger appears to be either a specialist in pick one: two-weapon fighting, crossbow, animal companion, or traps. Repeat that pattern over all of the classes (I've made at least one of everything) and only the Wizard seems sane. Thus, I come away with the feeling that the Dev's have predetermined the handful of viable concepts for each class. Even multiclassing doesn't appear to break you free of those limited concepts.

Sure, you can craft and roleplay a personality. Nothing stops that. You can have fun with the game's action system and have a good fight. But I don't come away with the idea that I can make any concept of an infinite combination of possibilities. I don't think I can even remake most of my PF1 character concepts.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> 1. Screening is a +1 to AC. Hardly crippling for any offensive character. (compared to the +4 it was in PF1)



Plus the -2 volley penalty for using a longbow within 50 feet. Longbows in Pathfinder 2 are only effective without penalty between 51-100 feet.
So in a game where you're always going to be fighting people +/- 3 levels of you and need a 10+ to hit, a -3 penalty to most attacks is steep and will always put you behind the curve. It's a 30% reduction of accuracy. 



Arakasius said:


> 2. In responds to suffer that's why I said hyperbole. If you want to play a martial character in 5e then you "suffer" immediately if you're not a fighter, because action surge, more attacks and more ability score improvements blow anything else out of the water. But classes like Barbarian and Paladin can do fine because they have other class features that make up for that. Just because a PF2 fighter has a couple more to hit than you (and likely less damage because of not having rage or Paladin weapon buffs) isn't going to make Paladins and Barbarians unplayable. And of course Paladins and Barbarians have special abilities that do things a fighter can't.



I'm not going to respond to this. Because, as you say later: 


Arakasius said:


> I was more referring to the people who keep on bringing up edition wars and business strategy stuff.



5th Edition discussion doesn't belong here. It's largely irrelevant to the discussion.

It's also whataboutism. Pointing out the flaws in 5e (and debatable ones at that) doesn't make the flaws in Pathfinder 2 forgivable or negate its problems. 



Arakasius said:


> 3. On class feats mostly being actions you're exactly right and that's my point. PF1 was all about take your one style of attack and then take power attack/weapon focus/furious focus/etc to pump as many static bonuses out of it as possible. And a class like fighter did have "mostly" exclusive access to weapon specialization and greater weapon focus.



Which is kinda the catch. It's designing the fighter like a caster. Instead of letting players focus on one or two signature thing, it's giving them lots and lots of options they may not want. It's giving players who might just want to hit things a bunch of martial "spells" and a large hand size of options. 



Arakasius said:


> The fighter feats are nearly entirely action economy and giving things to do in battle. They're not pumping up hit (point blank shot is, but they've already said they're likely doing away with volley) so the difference between a fighter double shotting and a paladin archer just taking two shots isn't enough to make Paladin suboptimal or broken. Yes the fighter has a higher average to hit and will crit more, but likely the Paladin will have considerably higher damage mod between Blade of Justice and Righteous Ally. I just don't think its enough to make one unviable and I'll take note of that in the game I DM since we do have a Paladin.



The point is that the game is purposely designed for "balance" over "play". It wants you to play the expected characters that fit into the boxes designed by the game designers and how they conceptualise the classes and ancestries. Playing against type is harder, as is making variant characters. 

And while the archer ranger build might be viable at low levels, at high levels the character will get feat after feat that doesn't benefit them and that they do not want. They'll have to pick from options that do not appeal to them and offer no benefit. It's the game telling you that you're playing it wrong. Or to "buy splatbook X" where the paladin gets an archery build with two new feats and six reprints.



Arakasius said:


> 4. Casters have never needed to burn feats to progress their spells, metamagic is a fine bonus but hardly required.. Basically most PF1 power melee builds were classes like Cleric or Druid or Summoner coming in with their 3/4 BAB and taking all the martial feats which combined with their powerful spell list made up the attack bonus. I don't think losing scaling hurts them that much either considering they get more of the power of the spell straight up (compare fireball at level 5 in PF1 vs PF2) as well as getting to cast spells in higher levels for the heightened benefits. Similarly a single class DC for all spells make it that lower level spells continue to be useful while in PF1 low level spells by high level were either utility of worthless. I think casters will continue to be strong and gishes are better than ever, even if you don't multiclass into another class.



I think they'll be fine. They seem much more in line with other classes. 

But the _point _is that having general combat feats and having the wizard take one instead of a caster feat is NOT going to move them from "fine" to "broken". 



Arakasius said:


> 5. If they want to give double slice (or something similar) to rogue than that is cool. I just don't think its needed for martial feats to be in a general pool for everyone to take unless they're extremely basic things.



Agreed. 
I just think the baseline feats that let you get adequate at archery, two-weapon fighting, using a shield, and other fighting styles need to be generic. There's lots of room for other generic combat feats. Like Quick Draw, Blind-Fighting, or maybe even Shield Bash. 


The whole point of roleplaying games like Pathfinder is being able to build the characters you want. Pathfinder's whole selling point over 5e is increased customization and options. But the game is applying shackles and needless limitations to that customisation, which is defeating the primary selling point of the game. Instead of freeform creation, it's presenting classes with a bunch of established feat chains built around a single theme, which is a little too like the subclass design of 5e. Having the freedom not to take a subclass' feature isn't really a viable option if the other options don't work with your build. That's not a meaningful choice, that's a choice between optimal and in-optimal... which is the exact opposite of what is being asked for. 
That's a huge freakin' design flaw.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 21, 2018)

I'm afraid I don't understand the cries for freeform creation.

Any classed system only remains so as long as there are restrictions to customization and options.

I am not excusing Paizo's cluttery limitations, but I do expect the devs to set limits on each class, that you simply cannot overcome (unless you multiclass).

Otherwise classes would lack identity and you'd be better off playing a skill- or archetype-based game with no strict classes.

So if the criticism really means "I can't play the build I like" then sorry, those limitations are supposed to strengthen class identity: choose another.

If it's more "this build feels like Paladin-y (or whatever class), it should be possible" that's fair, though.

Not sure which it is...


----------



## houser2112 (Aug 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand the cries for freeform creation.
> 
> Any classed system only remains so as long as there are restrictions to customization and options.
> 
> ...




Well, PF2 isn't being marketed as a brand new system. The fact that they're sticking a "2" on the end of "Pathfinder" suggests that it should resemble Pathfinder. When the product they're putting out as a sequel does not feature even remotely the same level of customization as its predecessor, I think people have a right to complain. I'm not talking about volume of options; of course the first book (let alone a playtest document) isn't going to have everything. I'm talking about what it seems that they're trying to do with the class design, and that design is antithetical to the design philiosophy of 3.x.

You may or may not like that design, and that's ok, but forgive me if I find your "I'm afraid I don't understand the cries for freeform creation" just a bit disingenuous.


----------



## mellored (Aug 21, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Plus the -2 volley penalty for using a longbow within 50 feet. Longbows in Pathfinder 2 are only effective without penalty between 51-100 feet.
> So in a game where you're always going to be fighting people +/- 3 levels of you and need a 10+ to hit, a -3 penalty to most attacks is steep and will always put you behind the curve. It's a 30% reduction of accuracy.



What's wrong with fighters being better at bows than other classes?

And why you can just use a shortbow?


I much perfer *short*bow and *long*bow.  Rather than weakbow and strongbow like every other edition.


Though, "volley" is a rather clunky and unintuitive mechanic.  So perhaps something like...

Longbow: 1d6, range 100'
Shorbow: 1d8, range 40'

Much simplier, no extra mechanic, and still provides a nice trade-off.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 21, 2018)

They've said for longbows they are considering removing the volley feat and then give agile to shortbow. Which would make shortbow better for iterative attack classes, perhaps being a better choice for a class like Ranger. I can understand that even though the math pretty much works out the entire same between the 2 going the second way is better because it feels nicer to give a bonus to something than to give a penalty to something.

As for class balancing it has always relied on the premise that for some reason martial feats have rarely been exclusive while spells have always been exclusive. In 3.0-PF1 it was very easy for a caster class to take the martial's toys (because the pure class features of martials were so limited and were generally just static hit/damage bonuses) but impossible for the martials to do the same. And for 9th level spell casters (especially the 3/4 BAB ones) they all pretty much could make better optimized melee characters than the martials. Which was all part of LFQW. So here in PF2 they've gone and yes for now made martials caster like (with a protection over their class options to the same level that casters have over their spells) to protect their identity. 

A wizard right now with no fighter feats just by taking a couple generalist feats (or ancestry feats) for armor/weapon access can make a very good gish without taking multiclassing. Since there is no 1/2 or 3/4 BAB anymore there is even more of a point to protecting the martial's toys. They've made it right now that regardless of your class you can make your class good at physical attacking just by allocating your abilities there. So the question then is why are casters allowed to protect their turf (and have a class identity) but martials are not? I can see some basic things being moved into the general pool but move to much and its just every previous edition over again. What are martials allowed to get to call their own? PF1 tried doing it with hit/dmg static bonuses and that didn't work. I suspect in the end some basic combat feats move to general but 80% of what are class specific feats for combat maneuvers/options still remain class specific with a significant cost to opting in to. (aka archetyping)


----------



## Jester David (Aug 21, 2018)

mellored said:


> What's wrong with fighters being better at bows than other classes?



I don't mind the idea of a fighter who specialises in the longbow being the best there is with the longbow. That's just fine actually. 
I don't like the idea that to make the fighter the best with the longbow, everyone else has to be incompetent with the longbow and unable to use it effectively. 

That's bad design. If you want to make the fighter, actually _make them better_. Don't just stack penalties onto everyone and have them negated for the fighter.


----------



## mellored (Aug 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> They've said for longbows they are considering removing the volley feat and then give agile to shortbow.



That works.



> What are martials allowed to get to call their own? PF1 tried doing it with hit/dmg static bonuses and that didn't work. I suspect in the end some basic combat feats move to general but 80% of what are class specific feats for combat maneuvers/options still remain class specific with a significant cost to opting in to. (aka archetyping)



I kinda want to make fighters the only martial class.  With all the weapon and armor feats and abilites.  No sharing, all under the fighter.

Then move rangers, rogues, paladins, monk, and barbarians into an archetype.   Though something you can choose at level 1.


----------



## mellored (Aug 21, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I don't mind the idea of a fighter who specialises in the longbow being the best there is with the longbow. That's just fine actually.
> I don't like the idea that to make the fighter the best with the longbow, everyone else has to be incompetent with the longbow and unable to use it effectively.
> 
> That's bad design. If you want to make the fighter, actually _make them better_. Don't just stack penalties onto everyone and have them negated for the fighter.



Everyone get's -2 to hit is the same as fighter's get +2 to hit.

But if you want it written as "bonus" instead of "penalty".  That's fine.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> They've said for longbows they are considering removing the volley feat and then give agile to shortbow. Which would make shortbow better for iterative attack classes, perhaps being a better choice for a class like Ranger. I can understand that even though the math pretty much works out the entire same between the 2 going the second way is better because it feels nicer to give a bonus to something than to give a penalty to something.



That's nice. 
Where did they say that? 

Was it a a blog? Twitch? Twitter? A comment to a forum post? 
They've done a single official update: http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5ll03?Your-First-Adventure  It doesn't mention volley. 

Not that I don't believe you or am calling you a liar. But without a citation it's just hearsay. 
I've been doing the forum game too long to just outright believe "the designers said xxx", because it's too easy for people to read one thing and take away what they want. Or drift into friend-of-a-friend territory. 



Arakasius said:


> As for class balancing it has always relied on the premise that for some reason martial feats have rarely been exclusive while spells have always been exclusive.
> ...
> So the question then is why are casters allowed to protect their turf (and have a class identity) but martials are not?



That's not even _remotely_ what I was saying. 

I'm totally okay with martials getting exclusive stuff. Asking for generic feats doesn't mean _all_ feats have to become generic. That's a false dichotomy. 

Firstly, yes, I want the generic combat feats left generic. Right now there are _zero _generic combat feats. Generic feats are mostly skill and utility based. And lots of feats are inevitably just going to be reprinted again and again in the classes. We also don't need four or five variants of Double Slice that all do functionally the same thing but are in different classes. That's just bloat and wasted space. 
We've literally seen this once before, with 4th Edition powers. You inevitably end up with a dozen feats that all do almost identical things but just have different names.
Just make them generic, print them once, and use the extra space to make something class specific. 

Yeah, martials need their own stuff. Heck, I think more than anything fighters need some exclusive class features. I love unique elements in 5e, like Action Surge and Second Wind.
I always argued that fighters should get to choose from weapon/ armour specialisation as a baked-in class feature. Rogues get sneak attack, barbarians get range, rangers get favoured enemy, and fighters can specialise. Fighters should be the best with weaponry. They should get better than anyone else with their favoured weapons, and unlock special talents and techniques with weapons they have. Weapon stunts. And, yes, class feats would be a cool way to do that. 

But the way to make a cool and interesting fighter is NOT to take a bunch of generic feats and just make them exclusive to the fighter. That doesn't make the fighter more like a fighter. That just makes the fighter more like everyone else. Making it so the cleric can't make attacks of opportunity as that's a fighter feature doesn't make the fighter cooler. It's generic and unoriginal. It's the epitome of lazy design. Instead, make the fighter's attacks of opportunity matter more and do cooler things! 
Plus... the playtest already has rangers, paladins, and rogues sharing feats with the fighter. There's no guarantee that fighters won't slowly lose all their features. What they need is distinct fighter only class features that can be augmented and improved by feats, like the ranger and paladin have.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 21, 2018)

mellored said:


> Everyone get's -2 to hit is the same as fighter's get +2 to hit.
> 
> But if you want it written as "bonus" instead of "penalty".  That's fine.



Right. It's mathematically the same. The difference is psychological, but that's almost more important. 
How we feel the game is played is often more important than the math. It's often much more important that something _feels _balanced and fair during play and at the table than if it actually is mathematically balanced in a white room simulation.  

The Flash is the fastest man alive because he can run at superspeed. Not because he's the only one in sneakers while everyone else has concrete shoes. 

This kind of "bonuses not penalties" design comes out of late 3.X design. You can see it in _Star Wars Saga_ and _4th Edition_. It predates _Pathfinder 1_. 
Seeing it in _Pathfinder 2_ feels like if they kept descending AC. After all, -2 AC and THAC0 is mathematically the same as 22 AC and attack bonuses...


----------



## mellored (Aug 21, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Generic feats are mostly skill and utility based.



That's intentional, and I prefer it that way.
Class feats are for combat.  General feats are for utility.



> And lots of feats are inevitably just going to be reprinted again and again in the classes. We also don't need four or five variants of Double Slice that all do functionally the same thing but are in different classes. That's just bloat and wasted space.



Agreed.  They should just have a feat list like they do with spells.  Each class can access certain ones.
But I still want the combat and non-combat feats to be seperated.


Also, "General feat" needs to be renamed.  Possibly to "utility feat".


----------



## Jester David (Aug 21, 2018)

mellored said:


> That's intentional, and I prefer it that way.
> Class feats are for combat.  General feats are for utility.
> 
> Agreed.  They should just have a feat list like they do with spells.  Each class can access certain ones.
> ...



I completely agree that you shouldn't be able to pick from combat feats instead of skill feats. I do like that certain levels have utility feats. And these could be expanded to far more interesting things than the skill bonuses and unlocks. 
But I'd prefer a general list of combat feats that most classes can gain access. So every few levels they can pick a class feat or a generic combat feat. Generic class feats.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 21, 2018)

Jester David said:


> That's nice.
> Where did they say that?
> 
> Was it a a blog? Twitch? Twitter? A comment to a forum post?
> ...




From Paizo's post gencon twitch stream. I copied some text from the reddit article.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/96eoiz/paizos_post_gen_con_twitch_stream_upcoming/

_A few notes not mentioned in another text comment.

Ancestry: The changes to ancestry have been mainly because during the Advanced Race Guide they noticed not all races were created equally, even the ones that should have been. The feat thing and spreading ancestry abilities out makes things more equal between them.

Also Ancestry: They’ve gotten a lot of feedback about ancestries not working correctly conceptually because of it, and they’re heavily considering giving each character an extra Ancestry Feat specifically for their heritage. They’re looking for more feedback and issues, but they’re looking at it.

The boxing off of certain class feats: partially there were a lot of little mistakes conceptually there too. Like how Rogues have nothing to help them Dual Wield or how Rangers don’t have a lot of Archery support. At the same time Fighters have both, which is fine except it’s hard for others to get those abilities. The main fix for those things seems to be giving them more feat choice that would fix that, not opening up certain feats.

Signature Skills:As for skills, they’re starting to realize that walling off advancement in certain skills to certain classes was perhaps incorrect too. They kinda thought we’d like walking off of Skills so that Rogues would always be good at unlocking doors and Rangers would always be good at tracking.

Fighter Dedication’s benefit in particular for Wizards: They think that putting your Str that high and taking the feat justifies the bonus. But they’re looking for our data about it.

Bows might have some changes coming. Particularly the volley ability being removed from long bow and agile getting added to short bow._




Jester David said:


> That's not even _remotely_ what I was saying.
> 
> I'm totally okay with martials getting exclusive stuff. Asking for generic feats doesn't mean _all_ feats have to become generic. That's a false dichotomy.
> 
> ...




Sure I don't mind condensing it, but I still see no reason to put them in a general category available to all. Slap a Martial tag on it and have it that all martial characters can take it, whether it be Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian. My issue is with casters taking stuff that defines other classes identities to add on to their terrific package.



Jester David said:


> Yeah, martials need their own stuff. Heck, I think more than anything fighters need some exclusive class features. I love unique elements in 5e, like Action Surge and Second Wind.
> I always argued that fighters should get to choose from weapon/ armour specialisation as a baked-in class feature. Rogues get sneak attack, barbarians get range, rangers get favoured enemy, and fighters can specialise. Fighters should be the best with weaponry. They should get better than anyone else with their favoured weapons, and unlock special talents and techniques with weapons they have. Weapon stunts. And, yes, class feats would be a cool way to do that.




I don't find most of what you listed above compelling. Say for PF1 you had weapon training, rage, smite evil, study target, sneak attack, etc. All it was was a way to boost your hit/damage against a target. Nothing about it is compelling in changing options for your character. What did that was feats, getting things like deadly shot, spring attack, vital strike, whirlwhind, step up, etc. Regardless of what class you decided to make your build on you activated your special button and did it again and again. 3.0-PF1 martial variability is a sham because regardless of class taken its just figuring out where your bonus comes from. 



Jester David said:


> But the way to make a cool and interesting fighter is NOT to take a bunch of generic feats and just make them exclusive to the fighter. That doesn't make the fighter more like a fighter. That just makes the fighter more like everyone else. Making it so the cleric can't make attacks of opportunity as that's a fighter feature doesn't make the fighter cooler. It's generic and unoriginal. It's the epitome of lazy design. Instead, make the fighter's attacks of opportunity matter more and do cooler things!
> Plus... the playtest already has rangers, paladins, and rogues sharing feats with the fighter. There's no guarantee that fighters won't slowly lose all their features. What they need is distinct fighter only class features that can be augmented and improved by feats, like the ranger and paladin have.




One removing attacks of opportunities for everyone is a great move. It's one of the things that make PF1 battles painful past level 6. (along with full attacks). 5e did a great thing in killing full attacks and now PF2 is killing the other one in stupid attacks of opportunities that slow the game down. In the 2 sessions I've done this is already one of my favorite changes.

And in regards to your generic fighter features that is what they're going with. Fighters get the majority of the cool attack options that sort of came over from PF1. Barbarians and Rangers get a small amount of those with their rage/animal stuff and Paladins focus more on their ally and buffs and Monks get their stances. Unlike you I think those generic options that were in PF1 that everyone took were the cool features that martial classes should divvy between themselves. If casters want to take those options they should have to pay to. So I'm fine in clearing up some naming in regards to shared feats and just say Double Slice is Fighter/Ranger/Rogue. I'm honestly not sure how much more space there is to make a whole batch of other things to make Martials play different when your default position seems to be to give every feat that allowed for different gameplay to everyone. It's not like PF1 didn't have 10 years of content where they pretty much fully explored avenues people can take for whacking people and making general feats for it. Regardless of making any of them general (and I agree there should be a generic combat feat section of a small handful of choices for everyone to take from) a lot of options that everyone could take in PF1 that defined styles of play for martial characters should be restricted to martials, just like spells are restricted to casters.

TLDR: Martial differences in PF1 were all about bonuses and where you got them from. Almost no class meaningfully played any different with the same feat package. (compare archer Paladin/Ranger/Fighter/Inquisitor/Hunter/Slayer for example, in all you press your buff button and then from then to the end of the fight you do the exact same thing) Feats in PF1 defined the different options classes had to do different things in battle. PF2 has pretty much killed all static hit/damage feats so all the feats left are basically some bonuses on non damage as well as powers you can use and different ways to make actions and to actually do different things in battle. Do I expect a small few to go to a general class feat bucket? Sure, but most should stay where they are.


----------



## Jharet (Aug 22, 2018)

Taking out full attacks and attacks of opportunity are only good for players that don't like it.  My tables like that level of combat.  Otherwise it feels dumbed down for the masses.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 22, 2018)

So… a month or so ago I told myself I wasn't going to get sucked into Pathfinder 2, as it seemed like it was going to be a 3e vs 4e Edition war all over again. Even before the playtest dropped the divisions in the community seemed raw and the mood was tense. 

But I'm a dumbass who cannot help but engage. I literally have to block sites via my route to remind myself not to reply and be baited. So when the playtest actually dropped and I read it to do my review, I couldn't help but dive back into the debate head first. 
And every single discussion I have had on the subject I've pretty much regretted.

As I said in my review, I loved 3e and Pathfinder and played the hell out of both. And despite being burned by Pathfinder, I almost want to go back for one last campaign to try and get some final use out of my massive stack of books. (I know the campaign too: it'd be _Carrion Crown_.) 
And I have a strong, strong fondness for Paizo as a company. I want to see them succeed. 

But I can't deal with another bulls**t edition war. 
So here's my final post on the subject of Pathfinder 2. Which kinda ballooned as I started getting my thoughts down. 


I burned out *hard* from Pathfinder 1. 
A large part of that was the bloat. The optimizers in my table could build characters that could solo encounters. I regularly had two encounters trigger at the same time or denied the party and opportunity to rest between fights. And I slowed advancement, to keep them lower level so the fights would be an appropriate challenge. (By the time my second AP ended, the party was two levels behind where they were supposed to be. And the final boss fight was STILL two encounters mashed together followed immediately by a third.)
But a lot of the rules also grated at me. The magic item Christmas tree where magic items were just another element of character builds and not wondrous treasure. The crazy high math and bonuses that just went up and up for no reason and made it harder to use the monsters I wanted as they were a couple levels too low. And the crazy complexity of characters that meant half my table only partially levelled up, putting off the annoying homework of feats or talents for a couple levels. 

The Playtest fixes a lot of problems with Pathfinder. But half the problems it fixed were not problems _I_ had.

What I would like to see the final product do is make a few serious changes.


First, there needs to be more mandated class features. Every class needs a half-dozen baked-in signature features gained and unlocked at higher levels.
Right now most classes just get feats. Which is fine... but makes the classes indistinct: you get so very many feats, the benefits of your class become forgotten. There's few element uniting rangers who go down different paths. They might as well be different classes. Especially as there's so much potential for overlap and classes gaining access to each other's feats. A two-weapon fighter and two-weapon ranger will look a lot alike. 
The solution is to give classes more powers at higher levels. Plus… several of these features should be based on exploration and downtime. Non-combat. Flavour powers: what 5e would call "ribbons". Because when you give players the option of taking a utility power or a combat power, almost all will choose the later, so make it a mandatory part: every class should have some utility features, which are currently lacking in a lot of classes.
However, these class features should be role neutral. Right now the fighter and paladin have very tanky features. Characters should have roles in the party, not classes. The fighter should be able to be a brute and focus on DPR or built as the meat shield and protect the party. The player should make that call, not the game system.

Similarly, there needs to be a list of Universal Class Feats. Feats you can take in place of your class feats (but not in place of skill or general feats). The generic feats that fit the wheelhouse of every class. This is where you put stuff like charging, archery feats, two-weapon fighting, and the like. Meanwhile, the more specialized stuff can remain in the classes. The feats that feel like things only that particular class should do, rather than things multiple classes could be good at.
Because people _need _to be able to make the characters they want. The game shouldn’t tell you that your fighter can’t use a crossbow or your wizard can’t take a long sword. If I want to build an archery based wizard inspired by an arcane archer, that should be doable. (It technically already is, as you can take the multiclassing fighter feat, which offers more benefits to the wizards, but literally zero to the paladin. Multiclassing _strongly _favours working against type rather than being a Paladin McFighter or Ranger McRogue.)

After all, if classes and class options are remotely balanced between each other, taking another class’ feats shouldn't completely break the game.


As a small addition, add suggested builds. Tracks for people who just want to sit down and play and not engage in character building between games. 
Because there are different kinds of players. Not every player is a “caster” player who likes lots of different options with their character and making a dozen different choices each round. And not every player likes to spend an hour going over every potential feat and pre-building their character to level 20. Some players just want to find one trick they like and spam it. Some players want to spend 30 seconds leveling a character at that table and then playing and not thinking about the game between sessions. 


Second, cut the level bonus in half. Adding your full level to all checks is just needless. It makes the numbers too high and makes mid-level characters cartoonishly more potent than low level characters. 
Right now characters advance like they're in _Dragonball Z_. Put a couple levels on and the former threat is just flailing at you ineffectually. And you end up with absurdities like the 9th level wizard with 8 Strength being able to out wrestle a level 1 barbarian. Meanwhile, the 9th level barbarian is better than every Olympic athlete.
Adding half level still gives you bonuses. Far more bonuses than 5th Edition. But the numbers are significantly less high and are far less cartoonish.
This means that monsters can be a threat for longer. Instead of monsters five levels lower than you awarding literally 0 experience, you could face those creatures seven or even eight levels later and they still might be partially effective. 

And while we're at it, dump the assumption that magical plusses are needed for weapons, armour, and saving throws. Or even delay them a little. +1 at level 10, +2 at level 15, and +3 at level 20. Rather than assuming everyone has +1 to everything by level 5. 
And move the increased damage dice from magical plusses to the masterwork type weapons. 


And since the game isn't assuming magical items, you can dump the absurd amount of gold being gained. There can be an optional treasure table for those using the 3e magic item Christmas Tree and crafting, but make it optional for the system. Make magic special again, rather than just "feats" with a different name. 
(I spent weeks trying multiple different inherent bonus systems trying to kludge a replacement for magic items for PF1. And every attempt broke down after level 10 or so due to the ridiculous amount of gold being handed out.)
This has a wealth of different side effects. You can now give out expensive rewards again, like keeps or ships, without worrying that the party will just sell them and buy a shinier sword. There doesn't need to be a bunch of variant "wealth" systems for managing kingdoms or pirate ships because tracking gold breaks wealth-by-level. And most importantly, players can actually *spend* their money on fun things. Rather than having to invest 80% of their finances in magic items so they can adventure to get more money to invest in magical items so they could adventure...


While tweaking accuracy from magic items… the hit rate is too low. The game is designed for a 10+ to hit. This seems fine on paper, but in play you miss too often. Combat in Pathfinder is slow, and waiting 5 to 10 minutes just to miss feels like a waste. You might only get four turns in an hour long combat, and if you miss half of them, you wasted 30 minutes. 

Which segues into feats and features granting bonuses and not negating penalties. 
While the math is the same, getting a bonus is just more fun. Negating a penalty just feels like trading a feat to be neutral at a task. Plus, bonuses are just easier to track: they’re on the character sheet. Penalties need to be remembered and just add extra math. Forgetting a bonus is annoying but fine, as it can turn a miss into a hit. Forgetting a penalty and negating a hit is just pure suckage.


It’s also be nice to make the language more natural. Tags can be useful at times, but the extremely technical coder language the book currently has is a massive barrier to entry that punishes people who aren't good at memorizing the dozens of keywords and dozens of conditions. Too much information is stored in keywords, with very little benefit to play. 
In theory, this is meant to save space. But in practice it's often not _that _much longer to use natural language. 

Someone on the Paizo boards brought up Furious Focus: 


> *(1 Action), Attack, Fighter, Press *
> *Requirements* You are wielding a melee weapon without the agile trait.
> Make a Strike. The Strike gains the following failure effect.
> *Failure* This attack does not count toward your multiple attack penalty.




Pointing out how knowledge of the "press" keyword is essential to knowledge of how the power works. 



> *Press* Actions with this trait allow you to follow up earlier attacks. An action with the press trait can be used only if you are currently affected by a multiple attack penalty. Some actions with the press trait also grant an effect on a failure. Effects on a failure can be gained only if the action took a –4 multiple attack penalty or worse. The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure.
> If your press action succeeds or critically succeeds, but it deals no damage and causes no other effects (typically due to resistance), you can choose to apply the failure effect instead.




They pointed out that it could be rewritten: 


> *(1 Action), Attack, Fighter
> All of strikes with a non-agile melee weapon, that suffer at least a -4 penalty from earlier attacks, do not increase your multiple attack for subsequent attacks if they miss, or miss and don't inflict damage, but not if they critically miss. This is incompatible with anything other then basic attacks.*



*

Both are about four lines. They both take up about the same amount of space on a page. But you don't need to memorize as many side rules or reference multiple pages. The power is less of a trap for the uninitiated.


Lastly, healing is broken.
I like slow natural healing personally. And I found cure light wound wands annoying. But I also know you need something to mitigate a bad combat in the middle of an adventure.
CLW wands (aka happy sticks) were a problem, but they they were a symptom of two larger problems: cheap availability of magical items and the aforementioned unpleasantly slow rate of healing. Resonance is a bandage slapped on the problem of the abuse of low level magic, but it doesn't solve the overall cause, nor does it do anything to fix the healing problem. 
Instead, “fixing” happy sticks just aggravates the previously fixed problem: that every party needs a cleric. While in Pathfinder 2 you have a couple builds of the sorcerer able to be a healer, the bard lost this option. So the number of healer classes remains the same. However, spells per day were slashed. This leaves the cleric, with its ability to cast heal via channeling remains the only viable option. Mandating that someone has to play the healer feels like a 2008 problem, and just leads to a 5 Minute Workday.


I doubt many fixes for the above problems will happen.
There’s just not enough time. 
The book will probably need to go to the prints in about eight months. And the last month (or two) is heavily dedicated to layout. I don’t think there’s enough time to rewrite the book and do internal playtests for errors. They likely don't even have time to change the writing style in the book. 
This playtest is all about catching small errors and making tweaks to subsystems. Elements like weapons, dying rules, and the like. They're likely to do small changes like altering the number of starting ancestry feats, but not stuff like making starting ancestries have more static bonuses. 
I didn't enjoy the playtest, so I highly doubt I'll like the final product. And continuing to engage and offer feedback for the next four months will just be me banging my head against the wall again and again.  

Which makes me a little sad. I'd hoped this game would lure me away from 5e and allow me to strike a balance between the two systems. That it would satisfy my crunch hungry players. But that seems unlikely. And I wanted to have an excuse to throw some money at Paizo for the first time in years. But that seems equally unlikely.*


----------



## Shasarak (Aug 22, 2018)

I do agree with some of Jester Davids thoughts and on the other hand as that was his last thoughts on the matter we may never know which ones.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

Thank you Jester.

I agree to almost everything: preserving class identity is a big one. The soul and heart of D&D lies in having distinct classes.

Generally PF2 appears unimpressive. They seem to have entirely forgotten that most gamers will assume and expect Paizo to have solved all the things 5E solved.

In this regard, PF2 feels like an unhappy throw-back to an earlier era.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 22, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Taking out full attacks and attacks of opportunity are only good for players that don't like it.  My tables like that level of combat.  Otherwise it feels dumbed down for the masses.




I honestly can’t see how one can compare PF1 and 5e and see in both games a game where mobility is encouraged until you get to level 6 and suddenly the best thing for every martial class to do is to just never move. It makes boring static battlefields that are just a slog. No one can move because fear of AoO and because moving cripples your fighting power. I’ve not seen a defense of that level of staticness that holds. It’s just not fun gameplay.


----------



## Arakasius (Aug 22, 2018)

As for the edition wars I think too many people here have this thought that the final game is done and have basically said this is the shipped version. While I disagree with many of Jester's criticisms (but agree with others), if you opt out of the playtest than you opt out of your influence to change the game to be more like you want it to be. Also many of the issues you stated just because of reading the rules but not actually playing might be invalid. Similarly you might find issues with the game that you didn't notice on your reading of the rules. That is what the playtest is for afterall.

Also for those who've decided this is the final game look back at the history of the first Pathfinder beta. They put a lot of experimental rules in there that were walked back before the final game was printed. Similarly they clearly came out at the start of this process that when they put some systems in they tried the more extreme version first. Who knows if they have a more PF1 magic system back in there instead of resonance or something different from the new archetyping. That is what the playtest is for. But I think Paizo does want to make the best game they can and will change stuff if they're convinced by the community. (more important to me is the collaboration with all the third party writers/freelancers they already work on with PF1)


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 22, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> I honestly can’t see how one can compare PF1 and 5e and see in both games a game where mobility is encouraged until you get to level 6 and suddenly the best thing for every martial class to do is to just never move. It makes boring static battlefields that are just a slog. No one can move because fear of AoO and because moving cripples your fighting power. I’ve not seen a defense of that level of staticness that holds. It’s just not fun gameplay.



One of the best things about 5E is how it encourages a fluid battle, simply by not forcing you to choose between movement and basic effectiveness...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> I honestly can’t see how one can compare PF1 and 5e and see in both games a game where mobility is encouraged until you get to level 6 and suddenly the best thing for every martial class to do is to just never move. It makes boring static battlefields that are just a slog. No one can move because fear of AoO and because moving cripples your fighting power. I’ve not seen a defense of that level of staticness that holds. It’s just not fun gameplay.




I never thought until I ran 5e about how much the Full Attack Option nailed fighters into place. I thought that the lack of feats, mods, and whatnot that applied to positioning would mean that there is no point in moving during a fight only to find that there was so much more movement going on.


----------



## Henry (Aug 22, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I never thought until I ran 5e about how much the Full Attack Option nailed fighters into place. I thought that the lack of feats, mods, and whatnot that applied to positioning would mean that there is no point in moving during a fight only to find that there was so much more movement going on.




For a recent PF1 game, we did some house ruling experimentation that gave combatants full attacks during moves with no penalties for movement, like 5e. (we still kept Op attacks the same, unlike 5e's op attacks.) Movement on the battlefield even at low level dramatically increased. Similarly in our first PF2 game, due to lack of op attacks by most foes, we had people running up, striking, and moving away frequently, followed by foes following suit, the battlefield was much more mobile than our usual PF1 and 3.x games. No matter what we use for our future games in 2019, for our groups I think some version of more mobile melee 
combat is going to be there, whether it's 5e, PF2, or a heavily houseruled PF1.


----------



## zztong (Aug 22, 2018)

Jharet said:


> Taking out full attacks and attacks of opportunity are only good for players that don't like it.  My tables like that level of combat.  Otherwise it feels dumbed down for the masses.




I like Attacks of Opportunity too, but I admit it isn't always perfect, nor is making them Fighter-unique.

AOO's really shine in simulating a large-scale fight where formations matter or when you're trying to do something like breach a gap in a wall that is well defended. Where they really fall short is simulating a 1 vs 1, or 2 vs 1 combat, where mobility comes more into play. Most RPG fights take place in a gap between the two when AOOs would be situationally appropriate with rules that would be too complex to be appealing.

If you want something more gritty, use AOOs for everyone. If you want something more cinematic go with few AOOs.

Most PF2 fans appear to want super heroic and cinematic.


----------



## mellored (Aug 22, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> One of the best things about 5E is how it encourages a fluid battle, simply by not forcing you to choose between movement and basic effectiveness...



I agree, but I also like PF2's sliding trade-off even better.

i.e. You're _slightly_ (-10 attack) more effective if you don't move.


It wouldn't be hard to add into 5e either.  With an even better sliding scale.
Fancy Footwork: You can spend your movement to dance and feint, confusing your enemy and giving you an opening.  You gain +1 to hit on your next attack this turn for each 10' of movement you use this way.


----------

