Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.

[ComaVision]

So here’s today’s thought that’s been kicking around the back of my mind. One thing that they could do that would make things easier on a lot of new/casual gamers is to get rid of ability scores and just use the bonuses. This is the most source of common questions I see asked at tables in the d20 era. “It says add my Dex. Is it this number or that number?” “So a 13 is ... +1?”

Pf2 looks to have a better setup for it than anything that’s come before, as the score is only used for determining starting HP, and that calculation can easily by shuffled around. Add the 10 to ancestry and then you get 2x Con. Odd scores aren’t used for anything but slowing growth past 18. A strength score of 4.5 doesn’t sound great, but when the only problem I can think of can be resolved by adding check boxes to a character sheet, this seems like a great opportunity.

If you check out the Playtest Bestiary the stats are set up like that. It's only the PCs that have ability scores.

This was brought up several times way before the Playtest Rulebook came out though. I'm paraphrasing from memory but basically, ability scores are a sacred cow that they aren't willing to get rid of. It would also complicate rolling for stats, which is still an alternative rule in the book.

(Personally, I think it's a good idea and they should also get rid of the half-bonus-after-18/+4.)

[Morty]

Seems to me like while the new rogue's technique feature bravely tries to get it out of the rut it never had to be in to begin with, ranged rogues are still kind of thrown under the bus. Melee rangers who don't dual-wield are likewise under the bus, because they've been there since 3.0 hit the shelves.

Also, what's this focus I saw people mention? Can't see anything about it in the rules update.

[Milo v3]

Also, what's this focus I saw people mention? Can't see anything about it in the rules update.

Something from the latest paizo blog.


Basically resonance is being removed-ish. But you can only playtest the new resonance but not in a specific adventure. New version has two immediate issues for me:

• They make it sound/feel like point tracking when they could just say you only get the benefits of 10 worn items at once.
• Monks now have 0 reason to have wisdom at all (they were already pretty useless if you try to have decent wisdom as a monk but now it's just useless).

[Callin]

I honestly thought they couldnt mess up the resonance system any worse than they started with. I was wrong. Unless I missed something Ancient Blooded Dwarves only can wear 8 magic items now instead of 10 like everyone else. And Focus is based off of Charisma. WHY!? If you had a Spell Point pool you lose it and replace it with Focus Points equal to 1 + Cha Mod. You use that to fuel you Class Powers now AND Magic Items after their 1/day use. What the ever loving heck.

[skaddix]

Yeah I really don't get how they screwed up Resonance so badly...its not a bad idea...you could make a whole magic system around it but they didn't do that cause that take a real overall of Pathfinder and the underlying system so instead they did something dumb.

[khadgar567]

Yeah I really don't get how they screwed up Resonance so badly...its not a bad idea...you could make a whole magic system around it but they didn't do that cause that take a real overall of Pathfinder and the underlying system so instead they did something dumb.

agreed mate. resonace was good idea but the problem is in both 3.5 and parthfinder 1e edition damage was the only true answer to most challenges thus we have cure lightwounds spam or quick runer shirt spam with this focus/ resonance update paizo kinda cut the major problems from the system while boosting most lacking areas like sorcerer and charisma caster. all we need is in my book is to update/ unnerf some of the spells and maybe one more pass at bloodline powers and 2e playtest is done for me.

[EldritchWeaver]

...you gents already decided that 2e is dumpster fire and needed to be rewriten from start.

There are some good ideas, but most of them are executed in a way I dislike. But even worse, Paizo fails to achieve their own goals from what I can see. So yes, at this point a rewrite is required, but I wonder if Paizo is able to make the game work at all (even if I'm not part of the target group then).

[Morty]

Making non-spellcasting characters better at using magic items is an idea with some precedent, and not a bad one. Though in this case it feels less like that and more like "you don't have anything interesting to spend those points on so you get to use magic toys instead".

I don't know, really. I think I see what they're trying to do with Resonance, but I also feel like they keep making it way more complicated than it has to be.

[khadgar567]

There are some good ideas, but most of them are executed in a way I dislike. But even worse, Paizo fails to achieve their own goals from what I can see. So yes, at this point a rewrite is required, but I wonder if Paizo is able to make the game work at all (even if I'm not part of the target group then).

I dont know it feels like most ideas are actually done much softer then i kinda wanted. if i was creating 2e i just nerf the proverbial f out of wizard like both introducing focus like currently and putting mandatory law of sequence in there so they need to work for the opness they have but hey its soft enough nerf and buff i can appreciate the surgical persicise strikes they made to balance the whole mess were most of you screaming with chainsaws in your hands. I realy like to know how you buff / nerf content to make 2e viable.

Making non-spellcasting characters better at using magic items is an idea with some precedent, and not a bad one. Though in this case it feels less like that and more like "you don't have anything interesting to spend those points on so you get to use magic toys instead".

I don't know, really. I think I see what they're trying to do with Resonance, but I also feel like they keep making it way more complicated than it has to be.

actualy what they want to do is kinda simple yet bit hard to see as the whole tier system plus 20 years of playing kinda make few tricks mandatory to reliably play the game and resonance kinda solves most of them like mostly mentioned cure light wounds spam or using new quick runner shirt before every encounter. how they solve is actualy briliant yet mundane enough. thanks to resonance/ focus you cant utilize quick runner shirts effect more then few times or in wizards case you need to play much smarter then regularly since you cant use your trump card school powers to much if you want to also use few items. on the other side of coin this buffcharisma casters so much with out giving them obious buff as they have larger pool to utilize which makes briges the gap between them and wizard everslightly in charisma casters favor

[137beth]

If you check out the Playtest Bestiary the stats are set up like that. It's only the PCs that have ability scores.

This was brought up several times way before the Playtest Rulebook came out though. I'm paraphrasing from memory but basically, ability scores are a sacred cow that they aren't willing to get rid of. It would also complicate rolling for stats, which is still an alternative rule in the book.

(Personally, I think it's a good idea and they should also get rid of the half-bonus-after-18/+4.)

It wouldn't actually make rolling for ability scores more complicated. You could just roll and then calculate the ability modifier the same way you do now, with the only difference being that you wouldn't need to remember your ability score after calculating the modifier. You already have to do this if you roll for ability scores, since you need to calculate the modifier anyways.

But you are right. My recollection is that Mark Seifter said folding ability scores and modifiers together would be too big a change.

[CasualViking]

I don't follow gaming gossip. I don't listen to RPG podcasts or actual plays. But I would absolutely get out the mastercard for a Mark Seifter tell-all book about Paizo.

[Faily]

For a system wanting to make things easier and more streamlined... they seem to be tacking on a lot of unnescessary stuff. I am not seeing the point of Focus Points.

[Minion #6]

For a system wanting to make things easier and more streamlined... they seem to be tacking on a lot of unnescessary stuff. I am not seeing the point of Focus Points.

Easier and more streamlined for who though? It's certainly easier and more streamlined for adventure designers.

[Morty]

It wouldn't actually make rolling for ability scores more complicated. You could just roll and then calculate the ability modifier the same way you do now, with the only difference being that you wouldn't need to remember your ability score after calculating the modifier. You already have to do this if you roll for ability scores, since you need to calculate the modifier anyways.

But you are right. My recollection is that Mark Seifter said folding ability scores and modifiers together would be too big a change.

Yeah, attributes are such a fixture that they're never going to change, no matter how much they might need it. Dropping the vestigial attribute/modifier thing would just be the start.

[exelsisxax]

Anyone have recommendations on systems to play while watching PF2 possibly implode? Is anyone in the know about successor games in development as a result?

[Milo v3]

Anyone have recommendations on systems to play while watching PF2 possibly implode? Is anyone in the know about successor games in development as a result?

System Recommendations: Starfinder (for PF 1e in space but streamlined while still recognizable), Lancer (for a cool Mecha/Titanfall RPG with some cool mechanics and customization without being too fiddly), Exalted 3e (for high fantasy flavourful game while still having high crunch with a big character creation minigame).

As for successor games, I think Purple Duck is trying to make a PF clone.

[skaddix]

I mean at some level buffing melees is easy give more skill points for out of combat stuff...the problem though is keeping martial classes simple while making them more versatile in combat that is the tricky part and I don't have a solution to that. But that is bandaging the problem. I mean really the simple solution was more unchained like stuff to fix weak classes and fixed Summoner to drop the Casters down a peg or two.

To fix the Martial vs Caster dynamic...I think one needs a full system overall. Basically I don't think Pathfinder 2E is ambitious enough...DnD 5e already has the casual market cornered with simple game more focused on DMs and Roleplaying so I don't think less depth was the right route.

[Faily]

Easier and more streamlined for who though? It's certainly easier and more streamlined for adventure designers.

I consider that to take a backseat to how the game is for the players. The players are the ones who will pay for the products if its good and they like it - if you design things only with the idea of "this will make it easier for us to publish adventure paths", well then, you might not get to publish said adventure paths because people aren't buying the game to begin with.

[Minion #6]

I consider that to take a backseat to how the game is for the players. The players are the ones who will pay for the products if its good and they like it - if you design things only with the idea of "this will make it easier for us to publish adventure paths", well then, you might not get to publish said adventure paths because people aren't buying the game to begin with.

I agree entirely, but I do think that many of the design decisions were made with this in mind, particularly things like heavy niche protection and lower success rates.

[Faily]

I agree entirely, but I do think that many of the design decisions were made with this in mind, particularly things like heavy niche protection and lower success rates/

All too true, man. Agreeing with you there.

I think so far, what our groups like the most about PF2 is combining Low-light Vision and Darkvision, and giving no limit to range. The old-schoolers like it because it's more like the Infravision of old, and us "newer" players (I say new but we've also been playing since like 2003 or 2004) like it because it feels like a boost as well as a useful fix.

Resonance, Focus Points, and that whole shebang just seems so unnescessary, complicated, and just a whole lot of book-keeping for everyone. Heck, some players we play with like to play regular straight-out-of-the-book non-casters (pure fighter, pure rogue) with no fancy stuff (doesn't like Tome of Battle/Path of War)... I don't think he'd like to have to keep track of Resonance or anything like that.

[Caelestion]

The new version of resonance is much easier to deal with and still does away with item slots and the like.

[Faily]

The new version of resonance is much easier to deal with and still does away with item slots and the like.

Resonance now is better than previous form, but it is still a system I do not like as it feels tacked on and is supposed to "solve a problem" that was never a problem for the groups I've played with. Item Slots was never an issue in our groups before, and I do not like this change to something that worked fine for all I know.


I am more of the mind that Resonance could have made for an interesting system of magic as a whole, if the entire structure was based around it (I believe I've seen others express as much in this thread too), which would've been to do away with Vancian casting and have Resonance be the power that fuels all things awesome kind of deal (similar systems that spring to mind I guess could be Scion's Legend, as using abilities and relics there often required Legend to be spent to activate). But as it is for what we've seen of PF2 now, it is a glued-on mechanic to be yet another thing to keep track of and deal with.

[Rhedyn]

Anyone have recommendations on systems to play while watching PF2 possibly implode? Is anyone in the know about successor games in development as a result?

We switched from Pathfinder/5e to Savage Worlds. They even have a Kickstarter up right now for their next edition.

It's not Pathfinder. Magic does not get remotely as crazy (though no power point magic is still stronger than PF2e magic). Savage Worlds is for people who want a quicker RPG (than even 5e) but something with more depth than 5e and an overall design philosophy that rules help creativity (like Pathfinder) and are not something that needs to "get out of the way". Also, you need to not really love classes or HP (This matter of taste can be really important for some people).

If you just want to keep playing more pathfinder, Grab some DSP or Spheres content and go from there.

[exelsisxax]

We switched from Pathfinder/5e to Savage Worlds. They even have a Kickstarter up right now for their next edition.

It's not Pathfinder. Magic does not get remotely as crazy (though no power point magic is still stronger than PF2e magic). Savage Worlds is for people who want a quicker RPG (than even 5e) but something with more depth than 5e and an overall design philosophy that rules help creativity (like Pathfinder) and are not something that needs to "get out of the way". Also, you need to not really love classes or HP (This matter of taste can be really important for some people).

If you just want to keep playing more pathfinder, Grab some DSP or Spheres content and go from there.

Does savage words have the tools necessary to make huge palettes of mechanically distinct, effective, and flavorful options whenever they make sense in the fiction?

And how does it not have HP? In my experience, that means only that it doesn't call its health mechanic HP.

[OgresAreCute]

Does savage words have the tools necessary to make huge palettes of mechanically distinct, effective, and flavorful options whenever they make sense in the fiction?

And how does it not have HP? In my experience, that means only that it doesn't call its health mechanic HP.

Some systems use saving throws in lieu of hit point damage (Mutants and Masterminds) or use a different mechanic to "soak" damage (Pretty much all white wolf systems). Both of these systems have something akin to a health track where there are different levels of damage which increasingly large penalties, but they are for the most part static and don't increase in levels. For example, all Vampire characters in oWoD have 7 health levels, only difference in tankiness is how good their soak pool is (and whatever defensive abilities they might have).

[Rhedyn]

1. Does savage words have the tools necessary to make huge palettes of mechanically distinct, effective, and flavorful options whenever they make sense in the fiction?

2. And how does it not have HP? In my experience, that means only that it doesn't call its health mechanic HP.

1. That depends. This answer is 100% yes if you use one setting book with the core book and then switch out that setting book between campaigns. These setting books can radically change how the game plays/feels and leads to very different characters from campaign to campaign. Using only the Core Book and the companions (Fantasy, horror, sci-fi, and supers) can eventually lead to characters that are only different in description. Like a master controller of bees and a necromancer may have the same mechanical powers with different trappings, which may have a minor mechanical effect (Fire spells can cause things to catch on fire, necromancy spells could make the target fatigued, etc.). Something our group is doing is taking a pirate setting like 50 Fathoms, adding in the Superpowers companion and playing a One-Piece campaign instead of the 50 Fathoms campaign. We just took those rules.
Now if you really want something that is like Pathfinder, in that I use a lot of books, you can take the more high powered settings like Savage Rifts and then allow the content from other settings books (like Deadlands, Rippers, Low-Life, Hellfrost, ETU, Flash Gordon, Shaintar, Crystal Hearts, Beast and Barbarians, Lanhkmar, etc).

If this question was more about if Developers have plenty to work with, then I think the ridiculous amounts of vastly different settings prove that answer to be yes.

2. So things like Armor and Constitution (Vigor) give you a toughness rating. Things like Parry, Shields (for melee they add toughness for range), Feats (Edges), tactics, and terrain govern how hard it is to hit you. When you get hit, damage dice are rolled (and if they roll max, you roll again and add that to the total) and if that damage value is your toughness or higher, you are Shaken. If you are shaken again you are wounded. If the damage is high enough you can just take a wound or multiple wounds. On the fourth wound, you are knocked out. Each wound adds a minus 1 penalty to basically all rolls, so it is best to just avoid being wounded (normally done by spending a resource to soak the wound).
Getting knocked out can lead to permanent injuries or even death (you roll a vigor checked with knocked out).
If you really need to do a little bit of damage each turn to feel like you did something, then this system will not provide that. If you enjoy the idea of spending some turns just setting up a good hit and being able to kill things in one hit, then this will be up your alley.
This changes a lot about how a typical D&D night goes. The "boss" could die in one attack, a mook could kill your legendary fighter. From the GM side, this makes having the players feel threatened a lot easier.
If you really need to "out level things" then that's when you pull out the Super Powers companion mid campaign and start handing out point. If you get Heavy armor (note this is not just putting on plate armor, We are talking about things like Tanks or Castle Walls), those mooks stop being a threat in fantasy (barring a lucky siege weapon strike).

[Rynjin]

Does savage words have the tools necessary to make huge palettes of mechanically distinct, effective, and flavorful options whenever they make sense in the fiction?

It's already a pretty setting agnostic system, but it has enough splat and popular settings that run off it (the most popular being Rifts and Deadlands) to play pretty much any game with it. I've used it to run and play in Fallout games, more standard fantasy or modern games, and even a modern take on the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen where I'm playing Bartimaeus the Djinn from the self-named trilogy, alongside my companions Mr. Spock, Roland Deschain, and Nemesis, the Greek goddess of revenge. That was a Mutants and Masterminds game, my bad. Still, the point stands. It supports everything but gratuitously high powered violence (Savage Rifts) to low powered, completely non-magical games and everything in between.

And how does it not have HP? In my experience, that means only that it doesn't call its health mechanic HP.

It has a damage and injury system instead. When you take hits, the first strike leaves you Shaken (unable to act, but unharmed) which can be powered through by force of will (the Spirit stat). Hits taken while Shaken (or taking more than enough damage in a hit to leave you Shaken and THEN some) add Wounds, which give penalties to actions while you're Wounded.

Taking the maximum number of Wounds either knocks you out or kills you, and often leaves you with a permanent Injury.

[FatR]

I'm writing here rather late, because no matter how many times I've tried to read through 2E's playtest rulebook, it put me to sleep.

I question whether its authors even play TTRPGs. I largely play with thirty-something nerds, not easily distracted teens, much less kids, and over the last several years I've yet to see a player who didn't struggle with complexity of character generation and ability lists in 3.5 or PF or 4E. I, myself, can just about handle that as a player, although at higher levels it definitely feels like a chore. But for me as a GM many moments, like tracking lists of buffs or round-to-round minor modifiers are just exhausting. So how writers of this books managed to decide that massive lists of fiddly character bits that give minor modifiers and powers that produce minor buffs or debuffs is what we need?

The game tries to be radical in all the wrong places. It tries to rewrite basic mechanics, and rewrite them in the direction suspiciously resembling the direction that already caused one edition to crash and burn, while firmly refusing to confront the fact that DnD is being strangled by incestuous self-referencing, so that you don't play DnD if you want to recreate current popular fantasy stories on the tabletop, you play DnD only if you want to play DnD.

Basic mechanics themselves are a dumpster fire. The crit system ensures that fiddling around with your character build to stack +1 bonuses to hit and AC will forever remain extremely relevant. Indeed, if you do not do so, monsters as they currently stand will swiftly overtake your character and eat him for breakfast. The three-action system will do nothing but slow down resolution. The legalese description format for powers, feats and everything is impenetrable and counterintuitive. Actions which need to produce probabilities greatly skewed towards success to even be considered, like Stealth (newsflash: you want to sneak around whenever foes are too strong to take them on directly) or combat maneuvers (an action spent on a combat maneuver is an action not spent on reducing enemy's HPs, and no combat maneuvers are anywhere close to doing anything tantamount to defeating the enemy) are set to succeed less than half the time against monsters of equal CR, except perhaps if a character heavily invested into them. Magic is nerfed once again, because giving fighters good things is apparently harder than taking good things from everyone else.

[FatR]

We switched from Pathfinder/5e to Savage Worlds.

In my experience of running a single campaign and then saying "enough", Savage Worlds is just another low-powered vanilla action hero game #4559 with rules that use new and unusual mechanics, like the card deck initiative, to disguise the fact that their underlying math is horrible, the non-combat rules amount to asking "May I?" from the GM (indeed the experience of running Savage Worlds was what made me realize that binary Y/N skill checks are an entirely unsatisfying system for most non-combat tasks, and when combined with vague difficulty guidelines it is not a system at all), and the game just doesn't provide much in the way of interesting mechanical options. If I'm to need a simple generic system capable of covering a wide variety of settings in the future, Fate is a clearly superior choice.

[Rhedyn]

In my experience of running a single campaign and then saying "enough", Savage Worlds is just another low-powered vanilla action hero game #4559 with rules that use new and unusual mechanics, like the card deck initiative, to disguise the fact that their underlying math is horrible, the non-combat rules amount to asking "May I?" from the GM (indeed the experience of running Savage Worlds was what made me realize that binary Y/N skill checks are an entirely unsatisfying system for most non-combat tasks, and when combined with vague difficulty guidelines it is not a system at all), and the game just doesn't provide much in the way of interesting mechanical options. If I'm to need a simple generic system capable of covering a wide variety of settings in the future, Fate is a clearly superior choice.

I personally find the card deck initiative far faster than writing down everyone's initiative roll. It works well, just because you are agile, does not mean you react fast in a combat situation, that's what some edges are for.

The math is not "horrible", the swingingness of "anything can happen" is part of the appeal of the game.

I'll have to disagree, binary skill checks are very much a system. Not a very expansive system, but it is a sacrifice to get things running fast. I do not personally use the GM difficulty mods, but they do exist for edge cases. I personally find the skill themselves very clear on what they do and the more complex skills like Climb and Stealth have the additional crunch required for that. Our group switched from PF/5e, so a system a tad more clear than 5e (with better math) but not as indepth as PF is just fine for our groups, especially since PF skills just stopped mattering after awhile and the d20 is a terrible mechanic to build a skill system around.

I'll also have to disagree about "a lack of interesting mechanical options", for me Pathfinder provides very little interesting options and most go into the trash Pile (a ratio that is only higher in PF2e to the point it seems like everything is a trash option). Savage Worlds characters start off with lots of interesting in-combat actions and then can further gain more edges that only expand them. A Savage Worlds mage isn't going to compare well to a mid level Pathfinder mage, but they do compare well to a PF2e caster. If using the no PP variant, my "level 1" Savage Worlds Druid can Wildshape all day into scout forms and summon "Elemental" bodyguards while being a decent combatant in his own right and having an animal companion. You have to be like level 10 in PF2e to accomplish that and you dealt with a lot more fiddly crunch to get there.
Of course my Super characters feel just fine even next to PF characters, but then Super games start feeling like PF games, a bit with less crunch and the martials aren't sad all the time.

Idk how you can complain about "Mother May I" and also like Fate, but sure. Fate's the only the rpg I have struggled to learn, so I cannot say too much about it. Not sure about the whole "simple" bit.