Pathfinder 2e

[Mordaedil]

I would buy helpful guides just for converting 3.5 stuff to Pathfinder, honestly.

[Scots Dragon]

Some stuff on the new action economy system.

I have to admit it looks kinda interesting.

I would buy helpful guides just for converting 3.5 stuff to Pathfinder, honestly.

They've had a free conversion guide available on the site for years.

[Andor13]

It does, although I see they are already breaking there own precept. Everything takes an action, unless it doesn't. Some things take two (casting most spells), some take an action and a reaction (readying an action, unless I misread that), some take a nebulous amount (maintaining concentration on a spell apparently takes 1 action per round.)

I'm not saying it's bad, in fact I like that they seem to have deliberately shifted the action economy to favor mobile fighters and turreted mages, I am saying they need a way to write that up that doesn't sound self-contradictory. :D

[Ninjaxenomorph]

While I'm as filled with trepidation as most of you, honestly the new actions system sounds fun. I'm side-eying Reactions a little, because while the idea sounds fun, and I definitely like that everyone gets a unique one for their class, something I read implied that attacks of opportunity will be a fighter (and monster) only thing. Which I don't know how to feel about.

[Scowling Dragon]

Again solid ideas (Taken from Trailblazer mostly), its just Paizo has a fantastic way of overcomplicating things FAST.

Keep complexity at the CLASS level. Classes and side mechanics should be as complicated as you need, but the core mechanics need to be prim and trim.

[Kurald Galain]

Ok, I'll tentatively say that I like the new action system.

Consider that both 3E and 4E have way too many action types that are confusingly similar and can be used in some combinations but not others (3E gets standard, move, 5' step, swift, immediate, full round, one round, free, free-as-part-of-a-move, and opportunity; whereas 4E gives us standard, move, minor, immediate-reaction, immediate-interrupt, opportunity-action, opportunity-attack, free, free-action-attack, and not-an-action). 5E does a decent job at clearing this up with standard, move, interact-with-object, bonus, reaction; but this pushes you towards doing the same thing every turn, since the actions aren't interchangeable, and it negates most movement-related tactics.

And now P2 says you just get three actions and can use them in any way you like (plus an out-of-turn reaction). That does sound like it makes for diverse and interesting combats. Move-move-attack. Withdraw, get potion, feed it to your ally. Attack three times in a row. Move, attack, 5' back. It's pretty elegant and there are a lot of options here, plus they seem to be aiming for giving monsters unique reaction-based defenses.

Of course there's much more to the game than this. But this part, at least, looks solid so far.

[Hunter Noventa]

"The fighter, for example, has a feat that you can select called Sudden Charge, which costs two actions but lets you to move twice your speed and attack once, allowing fighters to get right into the fray!"

So...they have to spend a feat to do something they can already do now without spending one? I wish I could say I hope that doesn't survive playtesting, but I don't exactly have high hopes.

I like the reactions they outline at least, and some streamlining of actions is nice, but I'm still not convinced without seeing the actual rules.

[Kurald Galain]

So...they have to spend a feat to do something they can already do now without spending one?

No. Without the feat, move-move-attack is three actions. With the feat, it is now two actions, leaving the third for something else.

[Scots Dragon]

So...they have to spend a feat to do something they can already do now without spending one? I wish I could say I hope that doesn't survive playtesting, but I don't exactly have high hopes.

They can already do the action without the feat, they just get a discount on the action economy so that they can use the third action to do something else. Say... sudden charge to move-move-attack... and then use the third free action to attack again, or to withdraw to a safer distance i.e. spring attack.

EDIT: Swordsage'd

[zimmerwald1915]

Nope

Oh well. Guess I won't be spending any money on this product or on adventures that are built in it.

[stack]

Wonder what they will do with CMB/MD scaling? Hopefully they can make that all work better without devoting an entire build and half your wealth to one maneuver. Its a known issue, so I could be addressed.

[Psyren]

Personally, I see zero need for a pathfinder 2e. PF is a great solid game that has stood for many years and, if supported, would stand for many many more.

The counterpoint though is that they have to weigh the energy and resources they would expend on disentangling existing snarls and contributing to existing bloat, vs that same energy being spent on developing something new and more accessible. Which one will better ensure the long-term health of their company and those depending on them for employment?

What I would like to see them do for PF going forward is legitimizing more of the higher-quality 3PP, like publishing APs containing Spheres or Pact Magic NPCs, similar to what they did with a psionics-user in Dragon's Demand. Then those 3PP will have a better chance of keeping the torch going while we wait for more P2 content.

Ok, I'll tentatively say that I like the new action system.

Consider that both 3E and 4E have way too many action types that are confusingly similar and can be used in some combinations but not others (3E gets standard, move, 5' step, swift, immediate, full round, one round, free, free-as-part-of-a-move, and opportunity; whereas 4E gives us standard, move, minor, immediate-reaction, immediate-interrupt, opportunity-action, opportunity-attack, free, free-action-attack, and not-an-action). 5E does a decent job at clearing this up with standard, move, interact-with-object, bonus, reaction; but this pushes you towards doing the same thing every turn, since the actions aren't interchangeable, and it negates most movement-related tactics.

And now P2 says you just get three actions and can use them in any way you like (plus an out-of-turn reaction). That does sound like it makes for diverse and interesting combats. Move-move-attack. Withdraw, get potion, feed it to your ally. Attack three times in a row. Move, attack, 5' back. It's pretty elegant and there are a lot of options here, plus they seem to be aiming for giving monsters unique reaction-based defenses.

Of course there's much more to the game than this. But this part, at least, looks solid so far.

I agree completely, and always had a feeling that aspect of Unchained was a pilot for something. I was a little surprised when Starfinder didn't use it right out of the gate, though it did some action-trimming of its own at least.

[Morty]

Yep, absolutely. There is no way in which 'Ranger' or 'Monk' are as broad archetypes as the 4 main classes. Everything else is an outgrowth of those. (Heck, you could reduce it back to the OD&D 3 if you were feeling particularly minimalist.)

But this is Pathfinder. Removing any core classes is about as big a third rail as I can imagine.

I feel like rangers and paladins are a good example. They started out as fighters who got extra powers for obeying a code of conduct. Then they became full classes, but not much has changed in their relation to the fighter class. Ever since, different designers have been trying to somehow make it work.

I'm not going to pretend like I know exactly what needs to be done about it, but completely abandoning any consideration of dropping and adding classes, beyond adding what's effectively another spellcaster, is a giant handicap on the outset.

[CharonsHelper]

Keep complexity at the CLASS level. Classes and side mechanics should be as complicated as you need, but the core mechanics need to be prim and trim.

I'll +1 this.

It's one of the main reasons that I'm a huge fan of class/level systems - it gates most of the complexity so that you don't need to know it when you start.

The way I figure it, there are 3 types of complexity.

1. Up-front

2. Gated

3. Emergent

In generally - the less of #1 and the more of #3 you can get the better. #2 still isn't a good thing, but it makes the game far more approachable if you can shift a lot of #1 to #2.

[Taelas]

What I would like to see them do for PF going forward is legitimizing more of the higher-quality 3PP, like publishing APs containing Spheres or Pact Magic NPCs, similar to what they did with a psionics-user in Dragon's Demand. Then those 3PP will have a better chance of keeping the torch going while we wait for more P2 content.

I can't see 3PP continuing to produce PF content if PF2E is out. There needs to be some kind of ongoing support. That's why they published Pathfinder in the first place, after all.

[Rhedyn]

The new action system is from Unchained. It is full, but the downside was that the system wasn't built around it so it felt weird at times.

[stack]

I can't see 3PP continuing to produce PF content if PF2E is out. There needs to be some kind of ongoing support. That's why they published Pathfinder in the first place, after all.

It is my understanding that 3PP sales for PF are already down, lagging well behind those for 5E and Starfinder. I don't have numbers; this is just what I have gathered in the 3PP world. I expect that the 3PP push into PF2 upon release will be aggressive and PF1 support will largely dry up outside of multi-platform products that can be easily adapted (settings, adventures, and misc supplements (village of..., 100 x in x, etc.). Even those will likely trickle down to nothing over the first few years.

[Scowling Dragon]

Like the action thing sounds good, but Paizo just can never stop fidgeting with mechanics like a child with too much sugar:

Let's say you're playing a paladin with a shield and you have spent an action to defend yourself with that shield. Not only does this boost your Armor Class; it also allows you to take a special reaction if you are hit by an attack. This shield block reduces the damage taken by an amount up to the shield's hardness!

You don't get a flat simple reaction to reduce damage. No you have to do an action, which gives a special triggered reaction which is dependant on your shields goddam hardness.

Not its AC Bonus (Or Scale it with level if NEED be), no hardness. Another number your gonna be forced to keep track of. I apreciate HP stats for items, but I hate how needless it is.

[Hunter Noventa]

No. Without the feat, move-move-attack is three actions. With the feat, it is now two actions, leaving the third for something else.

Ah, I miss understood I guess. Still on the fence about it. It's a hard sell with all the effort my groups have already put into PF1

[Felhammer]

I like the new shield rules, especially in conjunction with the new critical rules. It really makes

For those that missed it, your shield no longer provides a static bonus to your AC. Instead you must expend an action to hold the shield up. This will give you a +2 to AC. It will also give you access to a reaction that can apply a penalty to one incoming attack equal to the hardness of the shield. In the context of PF 1.0, this sounds like a lame/mediocre ability since you are giving up on an extra attack, that could potentially murder your enemy (and therefore, prevent them from hitting you back).

However, the new critical rule means that any attack that is 10 or more points above your AC deals double damage. So a +2 bonus, although minor, could mean the difference between taking normal damage and double damage. The reaction you gain access to means you can easily turn a double damage hit into a normal damage hit (or even a miss, if you are lucky).

What I like about this is that it makes shields feel relevant and interesting in a way they have not really been, since the early days of D&D 3.0. It also means more choices in combat, other than swing, swing, swing, which is great for everyone at the table.

[NomGarret]

That's the thing. Even if it's great, will I feel compelled to switch? Either it's a set of such small changes that you can port things over as easily as you could from 3.5 to Pf1, sort of an Unchained on steroids, which it looks like it won't be; or it's a significant enough change that the new things it introduces are so cool and different it's worth starting over. This means what can I do that I can't do in some other game I own, or what plays so much better in this version that I wouldn't play in another game I own?

If it's anywhere in the middle, I like to think I'll appreciate it but won't be compelled to switch. If I'm switching from the vast bulk of material available in my current game catalog to Human Fighter and Elf Wizard, those better be a lot more fun to play than the Human Fighter and Elf Wizard I'm playing now.

[Psyren]

I can't see 3PP continuing to produce PF content if PF2E is out. There needs to be some kind of ongoing support. That's why they published Pathfinder in the first place, after all.

I'm aware, it was just an idle thought really. The 3PP will go where the fanbase does.

I feel like rangers and paladins are a good example. They started out as fighters who got extra powers for obeying a code of conduct. Then they became full classes, but not much has changed in their relation to the fighter class. Ever since, different designers have been trying to somehow make it work.

I'm not going to pretend like I know exactly what needs to be done about it, but completely abandoning any consideration of dropping and adding classes, beyond adding what's effectively another spellcaster, is a giant handicap on the outset.

I'm a bit torn on this. On one hand, I absolutely agree that Monk, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian could just be Fighter archetypes - specific applications of the fighter's more "martial generalist" model. On the other, I look at the sheer breadth of archetypes for all of those classes and I can see the value in avoiding piling all of those onto a single base. Looking only at Ranger being a Fighter archetype for instance, you now get the martial trapper, the druid-lite magical ranger/hunter, the aspect/shapeshifter archetype, the {specialized hunter of specific monster} archetype, the {specialized partner of specific companion} archetype, and the {specialized tracker in specific environment} archetype, all on top of the various archetypes that Fighters already have. What you'd gain in simplicity for having fewer base classes, you would lose in the complexity of each of those classes having 2x-3x as many archetypes as before.

At the very least I think all the hybrid classes can be made archetypes though. Cavalier and Brawler can be Fighter offshoots, Bloodrager can be a Barbarian offshoot, Slayer can be a Rogue or Ranger offshoot, and so on.

[atemu1234]

Pathfinder's entire claim to fame is based on nostalgia for 3.5, and not wanting to switch over to a new system. If they think that making a new system is what people want, clearly they haven't been paying attantion.

[Felhammer]

That's the thing. Even if it's great, will I feel compelled to switch? Either it's a set of such small changes that you can port things over as easily as you could from 3.5 to Pf1, sort of an Unchained on steroids, which it looks like it won't be; or it's a significant enough change that the new things it introduces are so cool and different it's worth starting over. This means what can I do that I can't do in some other game I own, or what plays so much better in this version that I wouldn't play in another game I own?

If it's anywhere in the middle, I like to think I'll appreciate it but won't be compelled to switch. If I'm switching from the vast bulk of material available in my current game catalog to Human Fighter and Elf Wizard, those better be a lot more fun to play than the Human Fighter and Elf Wizard I'm playing now.

By that logic, people should have never switched from 1st edition D&D.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder's entire claim to fame is based on nostalgia for 3.5, and not wanting to switch over to a new system. If they think that making a new system is what people want, clearly they haven't been paying attantion.

That's how it started, sure, but they've been coasting on that nostalgia for 10 years. If you think that train runs indefinitely and that people don't increasingly want something more accessible, you haven't been paying attention. (Specifically, to 5e and Starfinder's receptions.)

[Morty]

I'm a bit torn on this. On one hand, I absolutely agree that Monk, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian could just be Fighter archetypes - specific applications of the fighter's more "martial generalist" model. On the other, I look at the sheer breadth of archetypes for all of those classes and I can see the value in avoiding piling all of those onto a single base. Looking only at Ranger being a Fighter archetype for instance, you now get the martial trapper, the druid-lite magical ranger/hunter, the aspect/shapeshifter archetype, the {specialized hunter of specific monster} archetype, the {specialized partner of specific companion} archetype, and the {specialized tracker in specific environment} archetype, all on top of the various archetypes that Fighters already have. What you'd gain in simplicity for having fewer base classes, you would lose in the complexity of each of those classes having 2x-3x as many archetypes as before.

At the very least I think all the hybrid classes can be made archetypes though. Cavalier and Brawler can be Fighter offshoots, Bloodrager can be a Barbarian offshoot, Slayer can be a Rogue or Ranger offshoot, and so on.

Fair point... which is why I don't think they should all be Fighter archetypes. First off, I don't think Fighter has been a useful class for a while now, except for the 4E fighter. Precisely because it's a "martial generalist" class that has to shoulder representing every concept that fights without weapons and relatively little or no magic.

Assuming we've got 12 classes to work with, having three or four martial classes along the lines of ToB, PoW or 4E might work much better. That still leaves us plenty of room for casters, hybrids or skill-monkeys. Of which there should hopefully be more than one.

Second, it's arguable how much of any given class needs to be an archetype. The only element of ranger that might deserve its own class or archetype is the animal companion. Maybe the "slayer of monsters" part, as well. Some of the others... honestly don't even need an archetype. Being a tracker, monster-slayer or survivalist can be, and should be, handled by skills and feats. "Can survive in the wilds and track well" just isn't enough for a class that goes from level 1 to level 20. One of the problems with non-magical characters in D&D has always been that you need a whole new class, PrC or archetype to do something new with them. Whereas a magic-user can become someone else just by picking different spells... just like a Warblade can be a canny duellist or raging berserker by focusing on different schools.

Finally, all those different classes, subclasses and archetypes have grown on Pathfinder over hears. A new edition is going to have to shed some of those at first, there's no way around it.

[Taelas]

That's how it started, sure, but they've been coasting on that nostalgia for 10 years. If you think that train runs indefinitely and that people don't increasingly want something more accessible, you haven't been paying attention. (Specifically, to 5e and Starfinder's receptions.)

Why would you want a Pathfinder that is "more accessible" when you could just use 5E? Most of these changes that I've seen seems aimed at more or less making Pathfinder more like 5E.

Pathfinder came out to fill a niche in the market, namely providing ongoing support for a 3.5E analogue. There's really no need for a 5E analogue -- 5E is still receiving support.

[Segev]

If PF2e manages to keep its niche of being the crunchy D&D game with well-defined rules (however well or poorly you may think they actually do at that), it probably will hold on to its fanbase. But it's going to need to be careful to be tightening their core rules and rebuilding classes to work with them, not to be redesigning classes in a whole new paradigm of class design nor creating complexity for the sake of complexity in the core system.

[oxybe]

I'm on a "I'll wait for the playtest to be in my hands before making a call"

When PF came out, I was in a hoping for the best but expecting the worst mode, hoping for a solution to problems I had with 3rd ed, but instead it was largely a continuation. Not particularly surprising, but still a bit disappointed. the PF core book was the single RPG book I ever bought & eventually sold back to the FLGS. Never bought another PF thing since then.

Now that they're making a 2nd ed, I'm a little bit more on the fence then before since they seem to be going into it with a "let's take this and make it better/more streamlined" mindset and I may finally get my "3.5, only better" but honestly?

PF is a game who's core idea was "3.5 needs to continue". That's where there fanbase came from. I'm more curious to know how far they're willing to go then anything else at this point and if their current fans will continue with them or jump ship to another 3.5 holdout/stay with PF 1st ed (knowing that all their OGL content is technically out there for use).

Maybe some other company will pull a PF and go "Pathfinder LIVES... IN ROADSEARCHER!".

[CharonsHelper]

However, the new critical rule means that any attack that is 10 or more points above your AC deals double damage.

I'm glad to hear that. It sounds like that will fill the gap that iterative attacks used to - making AC matter on more of a sliding scale. Without it AC would pretty much be an all or nothing investment. (Frankly - for normal Pathfinder it's too much that way since a lot of what you fight are monsters with natural attacks - which don't have iterative attacks.)