Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
It’s LAUNCH DAY For The Pathfinder 2 Playtest!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arakasius" data-source="post: 7756496" data-attributes="member: 6944960"><p>From Paizo's post gencon twitch stream. I copied some text from the reddit article.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/96eoiz/paizos_post_gen_con_twitch_stream_upcoming/" target="_blank">https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/96eoiz/paizos_post_gen_con_twitch_stream_upcoming/</a></p><p></p><p><em>A few notes not mentioned in another text comment.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Bows might have some changes coming. Particularly the volley ability being removed from long bow and agile getting added to short bow.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arakasius, post: 7756496, member: 6944960"] From Paizo's post gencon twitch stream. I copied some text from the reddit article. [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/96eoiz/paizos_post_gen_con_twitch_stream_upcoming/[/URL] [I]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.[/I] 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
It’s LAUNCH DAY For The Pathfinder 2 Playtest!
Top