"My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2

Paizocon took place over the weekend. Over the event, dozens of cards with snippets from the final Pathfinder 2 rules were distributed, tagged with "#MyPathfinderSpoiler". There are too many to share here, so here's a few samples and a link to the hashtag on Twitter where you can see them all.

D7ebtb_VUAI01Fk.jpg

Ben Burch

D7d1uyXUEAE8RJp.jpg

Starfinder Facts

D7d6qhbUIAEmRXt.jpg

Squiddish

D7d1TKJV4AAoO7w.jpg

Roll For Combat

D7d1iLWU8AA-OH6.jpg

MetroBostonOrganizedPlay

D7d1t4TVsAUMV-1.jpg

Dustin Campbell

D7gUXP9V4AAKubC.jpg

Dragons and Things​
 
Russ Morrissey

Comments

Aldarc

Adventurer
Bear in mind, Gary Gygax publicly apologized for including psionics. There's a lot of people who don't like psionics (and have been vocal about it since they were introduced)
I was under the impression that it was more about how they were implemented rather than psionics per se.
 

Keefe the Thief

Adventurer
AD&D psionics and later version almost have nothing to do with each other. And thank god. Reading about them in a Dark Sun novel made me exited. Reading about them in a rulebook made me scream.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Bear in mind, Gary Gygax publicly apologized for including psionics. There's a lot of people who don't like psionics (and have been vocal about it since they were introduced)
There was also lots of support for psionics over the years including articles about working with the Deryini series by Katherine Kurtz and, of course, Dark Sun. So, after a point, who really cares what Gygax thought? It was no longer just his game.
 

JesterOC

Explorer
Given all this information. To those familiar with PF2 Beta, do these options represent much of a change from beta to now? I wanted to like the Beta but it seemed overly complicated (especially the skill DC calculations).
 

Staffan

Adventurer
Given all this information. To those familiar with PF2 Beta, do these options represent much of a change from beta to now? I wanted to like the Beta but it seemed overly complicated (especially the skill DC calculations).
DCs in particular have changed. Instead of having a big table where you cross-reference level with expected difficulty, you have a much smaller level that specifies what DCs a trivial, trained, expert, master, or legendary task is (I think it's 10, 15, 20, 30, 40). Individual skills then reference that doing X would be a Y type of task (e.g. climbing a ceiling would be a Master-level Athletics check).

It still appears to be a very crunchy system, but it seems to flow somewhat better than 3e/PF1 does. We'll see if it can fill the role for those who are looking for something D&D-like but with more crunch.
 

JesterOC

Explorer
Thanks Staffan! That is a relief that they even addressed it. I think that might be enough for me to give it a more earnest try.
 
Oh noes! The comment police!!!

Well, first of all, yes. Yes, I do. My opinion of the entire situation surrounding Pathfinder 2e and how Paizo is pretty much abandoning a large part of its fan base who play Pathfinder because they didn't want a new game is indeed relevant.

Second, I am quite sure that you completely miss the irony of your commenting not on the actual conversation itself but rather the validity of another participant's contribution to said conversation is, in of itself, an even better example of vacuousness than that which you seem to be implying I am guilty of.

Third, when trying to sound like, all superior and stuff, you should probably spell check to ensure you don't misspell a simple word like "conversation"...unless that was a play on words, like a portmanteau of (Gola)rion and conversa(tion) in which case...nah, never mind. No way you're that witty.

Finally, in case my tone for this comment doesn't translate well into Arrogantdickish,

Funny shirt, not the place to post it.

While we’re at it, it’s fine to disagree here, just don’t be disagreeable while doing so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jimtillman

Visitor
Oh noes! The comment police!!!

Well, first of all, yes. Yes, I do. My opinion of the entire situation surrounding Pathfinder 2e and how Paizo is pretty much abandoning a large part of its fan base who play Pathfinder because they didn't want a new game is indeed relevant.

Second, I am quite sure that you completely miss the irony of your commenting not on the actual conversation itself but rather the validity of another participant's contribution to said conversation is, in of itself, an even better example of vacuousness than that which you seem to be implying I am guilty of.

Third, when trying to sound like, all superior and stuff, you should probably spell check to ensure you don't misspell a simple word like "conversation"...unless that was a play on words, like a portmanteau of (Gola)rion and conversa(tion) in which case...nah, never mind. No way you're that witty.

Finally, in case my tone for this comment doesn't translate well into Arrogantdickish,
I thought not but thank you for confirming my belief, it's a weight off my shoulders. But you make one valid point, my post did not add to the conversation , my thoughts on this thread is that I like the glimpses that we have seen but prefer larger more complete information. I am curious about the changes from beta to final product and on how many more character options we will see in the 1st year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dave2008

Legend
Some of these spoilers are amazing.

View attachment 106676

Don't piss off a 20th level Ranger, he'll track you through time and space for revenge, lol.

Reading a few dozen of these has gotten me pumped up again for the release in August.
Hmm, this seems to tread very close to a lot of complaints I've heard about D&D 4e: martial characters actions being magic. I'm not really familiar wit PF, so maybe that is not an issue with the PF fan base, or maybe it is 'OK' at level 20.
 

Lylandra

Explorer
Hmm, this seems to tread very close to a lot of complaints I've heard about D&D 4e: martial characters actions being magic. I'm not really familiar wit PF, so maybe that is not an issue with the PF fan base, or maybe it is 'OK' at level 20.
It is most likely intentional as there are legendary skill uses that are quasi-magical in beta. Which is very much fine by me as magic shouldn't be the gatekeeper to being supernaturally awesome. And PF is all about going from zero to WTFBBQ.
 

mewzard

Explorer
Hmm, this seems to tread very close to a lot of complaints I've heard about D&D 4e: martial characters actions being magic. I'm not really familiar wit PF, so maybe that is not an issue with the PF fan base, or maybe it is 'OK' at level 20.
I played 4E for a while before switching over to Pathfinder, and I wouldn't say that was the problem. At least, not for me and my group. Honestly, choice felt super limited in 4E, and all techniques, magic, melee, etc, all felt too samey.

It is most likely intentional as there are legendary skill uses that are quasi-magical in beta. Which is very much fine by me as magic shouldn't be the gatekeeper to being supernaturally awesome. And PF is all about going from zero to WTFBBQ.
Yeah, I'm super fine with martial characters going full Greek God by the time they hit level 20. Let your Cleric become an Avatar of his god with a tenth level spell, I want to drop kick a Dragon from the top of a mountain, and cool down by following it up with a nonstop swim across an entire Ocean like I was Beowulf.

Closest I ever got to that was when I later did some retraining to make my Unchained Monk into a Serpent Fire Adept. Getting up to the Seventh Chakra (thanks to the party Sorcerer for the buff to hit that DC38 Will Save in the earlier levels), where I was rocking advantage on all d20 roles with my 8-10 attacks a turn, high skills and saves, and could heal with a touch, breath quasi-fire, have a third eye of true seeing on my forehead, etc. Crazy end game, I tell you.

But yeah, I like that skills can help close the Martial-Caster gap a little in some regards, especially with the right skill feats.

Let the caster play Elminster so long as the Barbarian can go full He-Man and destroy some fools.
 

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
Looks interesting. Success or not now depends on the implementation.
The 3 action economy, the skill, heritage and combat feat distinction all seems clever. Same goes for skill levels.

Most interestingly skill leves were discussed in 5e playtest too but didn't really stick.

PF2 looks in some parts as a 5e that took a different direction from the playtest.
 

JesterOC

Explorer
PF2 does seem to be the child of 5e and PF1.
I was the most worried about skills and how they are handled. Being trained at all in a class give you a plus one for every level you are. Coming from 5e that was hard to grasp. Luckily if you are untrained you only rely on attribute bonuses.

I was reading a post that explained that the level increments was their version of bounded accuracy. The logic goes that instead of a ton of feats and abilities that give various bonuses, the players are guaranteed these boosts and can concentrate on abilities that differentiate each character.
Sounds good on paper, hope it works in practice.
 

Staffan

Adventurer
I was reading a post that explained that the level increments was their version of bounded accuracy. The logic goes that instead of a ton of feats and abilities that give various bonuses, the players are guaranteed these boosts and can concentrate on abilities that differentiate each character.
Sounds good on paper, hope it works in practice.
That's not quite what bounded accuracy is for in 5e, though. The main point of it is that threats will remain threats for longer. A level 1 fighter probably has AC 16 (chain mail) or 18 (with a shield), so if they are fighting a bugbear the bugbear will hit on a 12+ or a 14+. At level 10, that's probably more like AC 18 or AC 20, maybe with 1 more point from magic somewhere, so the bugbear still hits on a 14-15+ or 16-17+. That means the bugbear is still a reasonable threat - maybe not a lone bugbear, but they can be dangerous en masse, or when added as minions to a larger encounter.

But in PF2 (using playtest values because I don't have finished numbers to work with), the 1st level fighter probably starts with the same AC 16-18 (depending on shield use), but a bugbear is a 2nd level monster and has an attack bonus of +8. So the bugbear will hit on an 8 to 10 (and if they hit on an 8, they crit on an 18), so they're a huge threat to 1st level PCs. But by 10th level the fighter has increased their AC to 29-31, so now the bugbear will only ever hit on a 20. It is no longer in any way a relevant threat.

These approaches both have their merits. 5e PCs feel more grounded at higher levels, and it expands the options for the DM about what sort of monsters to use. PF2 PCs feel more like superheroes against lower-level foes.
 

JesterOC

Explorer
5e PCs feel more grounded at higher levels, and it expands the options for the DM about what sort of monsters to use. PF2 PCs feel more like superheroes against lower-level foes.
Agreed.. And I'm actively trying to be ok with that concept. So far I'm viewing it as combat experience trumps armor. In 5e armor trumps everything, the player has very little to no influence on AC (generally limited to Max Dec modifier). Your ability to survive a fight is mainly the provence of hit points.
In PF2 a PCs level effects both hp and AC, at the same time a monster's attack bonus is also effected by their level which should even out if they are right the same level.
It makes sense but I'm not sure why it is needed except for making the heroes feel like superheroes. Which is not a bad thing... Just different.
 

mewzard

Explorer
Agreed.. And I'm actively trying to be ok with that concept. So far I'm viewing it as combat experience trumps armor. In 5e armor trumps everything, the player has very little to no influence on AC (generally limited to Max Dec modifier). Your ability to survive a fight is mainly the provence of hit points.
In PF2 a PCs level effects both hp and AC, at the same time a monster's attack bonus is also effected by their level which should even out if they are right the same level.
It makes sense but I'm not sure why it is needed except for making the heroes feel like superheroes. Which is not a bad thing... Just different.
Honestly, PF2E having its own place to exist distinct from 5E is a good thing. Finding a healthy ground of complexity between 5E and Classic Pathfinder, a place where Martials can feel more potent, and a game where you can truly feel powerful, those that can enjoy that can find a place to take advantage of it. Sometimes you want to feel like a hero straight out of a Greek myth.
 
Honestly, PF2E having its own place to exist distinct from 5E is a good thing. Finding a healthy ground of complexity between 5E and Classic Pathfinder, a place where Martials can feel more potent, and a game where you can truly feel powerful, those that can enjoy that can find a place to take advantage of it. Sometimes you want to feel like a hero straight out of a Greek myth.
I am glad more people are coming around to my belief that PF2e is a game where characters are essentially the fantasy MCU avengers. Not my thing, but certainly a niche that hasn't been filled yet and one that could be popular (certainly fits the Wayne Reynolds art) However, if the playtest and revealed rules are anything to go by it has very little 5e in its mechanics even if it uses similar terminology in many places. My best explanation of the system would be cohesive interconnected rule systems with the number scaling of PF1e but with bounded scaling (to make up a term to help differentiate it from the made up term of bounded accuracy) For everything Pathfinder 2e simplified it added another that was more complex than 1e. It is easier to teach thanks to the coherent system design though. [For whatever reason Enworld isn't letting me add linebreaks to this comment]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CapnZapp

Hero
The caster-martial divide is never going to be bridged by mere tweaks, skills or otherwise.

5E conclusively proved it is possible to bridge it without destroying the soul of D&D.

I fear Paizo has missed this lesson, because I do not believe many 2019 gamers will be impressed with a game where it is only "fixed" and not fixed.

(Does this mean I think fighters are equal to casters at high level. No, and 4E showed us that this would not be a good thing. But the feeling of just being a meat shield for the caster is entirely gone. In our high level fights almost any given character is likely to gain the crown of any particular non-trivial combat. In one fight it might be the Barbarian who instagibbs the dragon with two vorpal crits in a row, in another it's the Sorcerer filling the room with Meteor Swarm. What it is not, is a game where the casters feel like entire tiers above the martials.
 

In Our Store!

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top