Pathfinder 2 Playtest Preorders, Podcasts, & "Pathfinder 1.5"

In today's Pathfinder 2nd Edition news roundup, the playtest book preorders go live, Bulmahn and Radney-McFarland appear on a podcast, and what it would take to make "Pathfinder 1.5". As always this information will be added to the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!

In today's Pathfinder 2nd Edition news roundup, the playtest book preorders go live, Bulmahn and Radney-McFarland appear on a podcast, and what it would take to make "Pathfinder 1.5". As always this information will be added to the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!


Screen Shot 2018-03-28 at 12.11.39.png





  • The Pathfinder Playtest book preorders are now open! You can per-order your playtest book, adventure, and flip-mat between now and May 1st. Of course, you'll b able to grab them for free in August as PDFs if you don't want the physical playtest books.
  • At Gary Con, Jason Bulmahn and Stephen Radney-McFarland hosted a seminar about Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You can listen to it on the Plot Points Podcast. The podcast is about 90 minutes long.
  • In response to how much information the Paizo preview blogs contain -- "The blogs are not going to be dropping huge excerpts of the book. There is a very simple reason for this... it is still in edit, and layout. Then it needs to be copy fit and go through a few more rounds of edit. To top it off, we are still making changes and will, much to our publishers chagrin, continue to do so until the very last moment. That said... we also had to announce it if we were going to let retailers and stores have a chance to participate in the release. Thats just how the distribution system works. So... the best we can do right now is to give everyone an idea of how things work. We've already leaked things that have been changed and I am trying to keep that to a minimum so that the game we are talking about is the game you are going to get to playtest. It's not ideal... but it is the best we can do right now. I hope that helps understand where we are at." (Bulmahn)
  • Vic Wertz talks a little about what it would take for a third party publisher to use the OGL to produce a "Pathfinder 1.5" (or "D&D 3.85") -- "There's an inherent difficulty in that concept, though. If you've been reading playtest feedback—or even if you haven't, but you just know a bunch of gamers—you will know that there's a spectrum of desire here. On one end, there are players want no changes whatsoever; on the other, there are players who want changes to anything and everything to be considered. Most people are somewhere in between. Paizo has staked out a spot on that spectrum. Playtest feedback might move us one way or the other a little bit, but as far as broad strokes go, the playtest will show you where we stand. (In our opinion, it's not all that far from 1st Edition.) Any "3.85" concept has to have SOME changes—otherwise, it's just First Edition, and there's no point republishing that, because we're keeping it in print in softcover and PDF. So 3.85 cannot capture the "no changes" audience. A successful 3.85 publisher would therefore need to capture a viable number of people who think 1E needs to change, but who also think that 2E is changing too much. Are there enough of those to form a viable audience for your work? Even if there are enough, here's where it gets really challenging: By definition, that group of people has strong opinions about what they want. But they will not be of a single mind—that is, even if they generally agree on how much things should change, they won't necessarily agree on what should change, or on how each of those things should be changed. There's not some magic set of precise changes you can make to capture them all. Some of the choices you make will lose some of them. Can you make enough of the right decisions to keep enough of them (assuming there were even enough of them to start with)?"
  • Mark Seifter on "flipping" enemy criticals -- "The best part comes when you're cruising along doing pretty well with your combo and punishing enemy crits (maybe even with a paladin buddy to also hit and debuff when they crit your druid), only to come across an opponent who does something extra and really nasty on a critical hit! Flips it back around for a double flip. Jason was the main designer of these kinds of flips, where you punish an enemy critical."
  • Seifter talks some more about rules language and terminology -- "We want language that can both be quite precise, with rules terms used consistently, but also sound plain, natural, and elegant rather than clunky. We think we've figured out a way to have our cake and eat it though, thanks to Logan's masterstroke of making certain rules elements act as nouns, certain rules elements (like actions) act as verbs, and certain rules elements act as adjectives and then allow natural language usage. So for instance, the blog mentions the Stride action, so we can say "whenever you Stride, you ignore difficult terrain" or "While Striding, you gain concealment against any reactions" or "Whenever an enemy in your reach Strides" or any other form of the verb. Like many of these wording-based decisions, this is the kind of thing that might seem like it could be "obvious" in hindsight but still takes inspiration to realize."
  • Seifter comments on the rogue's Instant Opening ability -- "Instant Opening might not seem as cool as it actually is because it might be easy to assume that it requires some kind of check (or a failed save, or a roll of some kind) in order to work. But it actually works automatically. So one action from you equals two rounds of AC debuffs and all your sneak attack-related favorites. And it's not flanking, so all-around vision-type abilities won't help them."
  • 30-40 class feats to choose from? "Compared to '3 or 4' class feats, the fighter alone has more than 10 times that number (not going to be more specific because, as Jason has said, we aren't through with copyfitting, so we don't know how many are going to fit)." (Seifter)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Hmmm... I always thought most 4e fans had issues with 5e on a system/philosophy level vs. just the amount of options but I could be wrong.
Well sure, it’s not just lack of options we’re dissatisfied with, but that is one of the big problems with it. I can’t speak for all 4e fans, but my biggest gripe with 5e is that it has no creative vision or identity. It’s just design by popular vote. The lack of options is also a problem though. Luckily PF2 seems to have both a clear creative vision and lots of options.

If we assume that is the case though I wonder how many options WotC will have published by the time PF 2 is released... I know the claim that 5e is bereft of options is popular but a ton of options have already been added with Elemental Player's Companion, SCAG, Volo's and Xanathar's... on top of those we have MToF right around the corner.
The issue isn’t that there aren’t enough options being released in supplements. In fact, I prefer the slow release schedule over the bloat of PF1 and 4e. The issue is that every character feels the same. Sure, there are lots of subclasses in SCAG and XGTE, but all they give you is like four minor features over 20 levels. There are lots of races and subraces between VGTM and soon to be MOTF, but they hardly do anything. Sure, there are a few Feats in the core rules and a few more in XGTE, but you only get five of them over 20 levels. And most games only go for around 10 anyway. Every martial character just attacks for damage every turn, so you have to playba caster if you want to do anything interesting. I know “every character felt the same” was a popular complaint about 4e, but you had choices to make every single level, and they had a real impact on how your character behaved. In 5e there are very few choices to make after character creation, and none of them have much of a significant impact on how your character behaves. But PF2, with its Feat choices every level, active shield use, spells and combat maneuvers that eat up multiple actions to do something more impressive than you could with a single action, etc. looks like it has a lot of what 5e lacks for me as a 4e fan. And it will probably have a much bigger player base than 4e does, not to mention active support with adventure paths and supplement books.

I liked PF 1 in the beginning but never got deep into buying all the sourcebooks, it was just too many for me to keep up with and the pace (at least for me) was crazy. On top of that most of my players are not the type to sift through numerous sourcebooks while creating or leveling their characters so PF1 didn't serve me well after a certain point. Honestly if PF2 has the same type of proliferation of options at an increased pace it will probably be a pass for me.

Honestly I wish they had gone with a simpler Pathfinder game based of their Basic Box set rules... now that is something I'd buy in a heart beat. Of course sadly this preference probably means I'm not their target audience anymore.
I don’t blame you there. The supplement treadmill and out of control bloat are put-offs for me too, and one of my concerns for PF2. But at the end of the day, that’s not a deal breaker for me. I can always say core rules only, or vet specific options I want to allow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arakasius

First Post
Yeah I would not call new subclasses that 5e has to be much in the way of options. They are mostly minor changes that slightly alter how a character play. Sometimes you get something cool like Battlemaster, but for most of the classes the difference between Fighter A and Fighter B is negligible, heck even like Charlaquin says on the difference between different melee classes is just the source of where they're getting their bonus from. It's a great beginning game for a d20 system, but the game doesn't have much of anything in the way of customization or system mastery. Which leaves room for PF to take that crowd. Considering I've never played PFS and every game I have played of PF is house ruled crazily to take out tons of the stupid rules we don't want to deal with I definitely think there is a need for a PF reboot.
 


Imaro

Legend
Well sure, it’s not just lack of options we’re dissatisfied with, but that is one of the big problems with it. I can’t speak for all 4e fans, but my biggest gripe with 5e is that it has no creative vision or identity. It’s just design by popular vote. The lack of options is also a problem though. Luckily PF2 seems to have both a clear creative vision and lots of options.

Lol... any game put out by Hasbro is "design by popular vote" or do you think 4e was designed by a lone indie developer whose creative input and identity were allowed to flourish unbridled in his creation of this particular edition... :erm:

You just happened to like this committee designed game more than the next edition.

The issue isn’t that there aren’t enough options being released in supplements. In fact, I prefer the slow release schedule over the bloat of PF1 and 4e. The issue is that every character feels the same. Sure, there are lots of subclasses in SCAG and XGTE, but all they give you is like four minor features over 20 levels. There are lots of races and subraces between VGTM and soon to be MOTF, but they hardly do anything. Sure, there are a few Feats in the core rules and a few more in XGTE, but you only get five of them over 20 levels. And most games only go for around 10 anyway. Every martial character just attacks for damage every turn, so you have to playba caster if you want to do anything interesting.

Emphasis Mine:

Do you play 5e... serious question. A Battlemaster Fighter, a Frenzy Barbarian and a Swashbuckler Rogue are doing very different things each round... Of course anyone playing those classes can choose to attack over and over again but that's not a design issue.

I know “every character felt the same” was a popular complaint about 4e, but you had choices to make every single level, and they had a real impact on how your character behaved. In 5e there are very few choices to make after character creation, and none of them have much of a significant impact on how your character behaves. But PF2, with its Feat choices every level, active shield use, spells and combat maneuvers that eat up multiple actions to do something more impressive than you could with a single action, etc. looks like it has a lot of what 5e lacks for me as a 4e fan. And it will probably have a much bigger player base than 4e does, not to mention active support with adventure paths and supplement books.

Never really had that complaint about 4e, (though honestly I probably didn't play it long enough to discern if that was true or not, wasn't really a fan)... My greatest complaint about 4e was the slog that it's combat always managed to become (along with the inordinate amount of the game time we had to devote to a single combat) which is why 5e was a breath of fresh air with it's much more streamlined gameplay, especially in combat while keeping it's rules easy enough to modify foir a higher level of complexity if I wanted it for certain combats. you seem to buy into the notion that a large number of small impact feats is better than less feats that cover more ground... eh, I guess i can understand that but at a certain point it's overkill for me (and becomes a monster to keep even a semblance of balance going between these numerous discrete pieces... but to each his own.


I don’t blame you there. The supplement treadmill and out of control bloat are put-offs for me too, and one of my concerns for PF2. But at the end of the day, that’s not a deal breaker for me. I can always say core rules only, or vet specific options I want to allow.

But then this seems to go back to your reasons for wanting PF vs. D&D... without those endless splats you loose out on that ton of customization that seems to be the impetus for choosing it... or are you saying the corebook would be enough?
 


Imaro

Legend
Yeah I would not call new subclasses that 5e has to be much in the way of options. They are mostly minor changes that slightly alter how a character play. Sometimes you get something cool like Battlemaster, but for most of the classes the difference between Fighter A and Fighter B is negligible, heck even like Charlaquin says on the difference between different melee classes is just the source of where they're getting their bonus from. It's a great beginning game for a d20 system, but the game doesn't have much of anything in the way of customization or system mastery. Which leaves room for PF to take that crowd. Considering I've never played PFS and every game I have played of PF is house ruled crazily to take out tons of the stupid rules we don't want to deal with I definitely think there is a need for a PF reboot.

Ok... not sure what to even say here. If you really think say a Swashbuckler Rogue and a Battlemaster Fighter... only difference is "the source of where they're getting their bonus from"... I have to assume you have never played 5e or even watched someone play 5e and just leave any discussion of 5e at that. Now, all that said I'm sure PF2 will definitely work out for you... unless of course it still has (or adds different) tons of stupid rules you don't want to deal with...
 

Imaro

Legend
The corebook alone will have more customization options than 5e will likely ever have.

Good on you for having peered into the future and taken a gander at the PF2 rulebook, can I ask was it the playtest or finished product you took a look at? With that type of precognitive data I'm sure you've already made your mind up.

EDIT: Mind giving us some undisclosed spoilers on the final product?
 

Arakasius

First Post
I've watched a good deal of 5e and I do own the books and have read them and played a little, but not nearly as much as PF. I did make the comment on the battlemaster being an option that gave actual different things to do. But yeah most martials in 5e is just move somewhere and whack something. There really isn't that much else to it. It does what 5e needs to do but it's pretty dry after a while. PF made its thing on character customization so I don't think it takes any oracular knowledge to presume that character customization is a big part of PF2. All the blogs/details they've released reinforce this.

As for the comment on rules, PF1s problem was never the character customization. That was it's strength. It's weakness was mostly the 3.5isms like maneuver rules, flying rules, animal companion rules and so on. To me a game that combines PF1's character customization with 5es in game flow would be mostly what I'm looking for. And it seems that is mostly the direction PF2 is heading by keeping the complexity up in character customizations but cleaning up the combat flow.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top