It’s LAUNCH DAY For The Pathfinder 2 Playtest!

Today’s the day! You can now download the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playtest book!

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

Its tinged with a little sadness for those of us who preordered the hard copy, as issues with Amazon means that our copies have been delayed by an indefinite amount.

’’When Paizo was planning this year's Pathfinder Playtest, we expected to exceed our own ability to fulfill orders on a timely basis, so we decided to use Fulfillment by Amazon. Unfortunately, Amazon's reports indicate that most customers will not be receiving their orders by tomorrow's release date. They shipped 3 orders on July 28, 3 more on July 29, and no orders on July 30 or 31. Today, they have shipped almost 10% of the outstanding orders, and they are continuing to ship through the night and into tomorrow. They have so far been unable to tell us when they will complete shipping.”

However, at least the PDFs are still available for free in the meantime.

Adventure chapters are also available alongside the rule book, with the first being available today. They are as follows:

1. The Lost Star, Aug 7 - Aug 26 (Also available at Gen Con on Aug 2.)
2. In Pale Mountain’s Shadow, Aug 7 - Sep 9
3. Affair At Sombrefell Hall, Sep 10 - Sep 23
4. The Mirrored Moon, Sep 24 - Oct 8
5. The Heroes Of Undarin, Oct 9 - Oct 21
6. Red Flags, Oct 22 - Nov 4
7. When The Stars Go Dark, Nov 5 - Nov 18

 

[Maxperson]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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.