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!

​

• 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)

 

[Sunseeker]

So, last night I missed a PF game. My character was not in great shape (level-drained at level 2 sucks). I get a message that my character died. Now I knew that they were probably messing with me (they were) but there was a non-zero chance that my character was actually dead, and I was going to have to make a new one.

Because I wasn't sure if this was real or not, I didn't start making a new character... but it did make me think about the process of making a new character. And one of the thing that made me kinda loathe the idea wasn't just the overwhelming amounts of options there are in PF, is how "forward looking" you have to be. In 5e (or some older editions, retroclones etc), you don't really have to think about what your character will be doing at level 9 when making a low-level character. The most you may have to do is consider what subclass you will take at level 2-3 to guide some of your choices (the exception I guess would be a more complicated multi-class build I suppose). But in pathfinder, because of all those choices at almost every level, and how these all interact, forming feat chains, trait-feat combos, etc etc, you have to start laying the foundations at level 1-3 for what your character will be at level 9! Make the wrong feat choice now, and that cool combo may only become "live" at level 12 instead of 9 (for example).

I dunno, I disagree that this is really a problem.

Now, I admit I'm something of an optimizer, but hear me out. Once you give any given character build handbook a read, you've got the information in your head. You've learned what a good options, and what are bad options. Now, for certain classes the list of "good options" is certainly larger by virtue of that class having more support and more general versatility. And maybe a second read is required but honestly...I don't see the problem. All of the initial work doesn't even require looking at the rules.

Decide what sort of character you want, up-front fighter types, support types, defender types, etc...
Generally work out in your head how you want that character to play out, are they fighting with a polearm, sword and board, spells?
Once you've got all that laid out, you basically have all the "forward thinking" done.
Now, you go to any given handbook for build advice and look at the best options to make how you want to play, play well. Go with the 2nd or 3rd best option if those are closer to the playstyle you want.

In the end, you're looking at 3, maybe 4 options for any area of your character that is an actual choice. (As opposed to a false choice where option A is "do something badly" and option B is "death".) You'll probably have 3, maybe 4 major decision points across your character's "future". This future may certainly change, but while Pathfinder has a bazillion options, only a handful of them are actually worthy of consideration for any given character design. A spellcaster for example is not really going to consider martial combat feats if your goal is to be an awesome spellcaster.

The thing about a "build" is that generally speaking it should never be anything more than a rough outline. A hard-fast build is going to suffer under the rigors of actual play. A soft build with 3-4 real choices at any the appropriate moment is going to present you with the playstyle you're looking for, but the flexibility to adjust if your experience does not live up to the expectation.

Realistically, everyone knows where they would like to end up in 10 years. They may even have a general idea of how they want to get there. A smart person accounts for bumps in the road and prepares for alternatives. A PC is no exception. They know where they'd like to end up, they have an idea of how to get there, and a clever character plans for the unexpected.

 

[Lost Soul]

I am very excited about what I have read about Pathfinder 2. I preordered the softback, gaming map & intro adventure. I think that it is a great idea that Pathfinder will be releasing 2nd edition. I am glad for D&D 5E success as D&D will always have a special place in my heart. That being said I think that WOTC & Paizo need each other to keep game desingers competitive and creative. Pathfinder caused WOTC to look past the errors that people like myself felt were an issue with 4E and caused them to design 5E. I feel this is a good thing since it is more important to me that the HOBBY survive instead of just dying a slow death. I hope that Pathfinder causes WOTC to look at ways to innovate 5E & vice versa. Healthy competition brings out the best in all of us.

 

[Ancalagon]

I dunno, I disagree that this is really a problem.

Now, I admit I'm something of an optimizer, but hear me out. Once you give any given character build handbook a read, you've got the information in your head.

... what are these "character build handbook" you speak of? Just before I reply so I am sure we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Sunseeker]

... what are these "character build handbook" you speak of? Just before I reply so I am sure we are talking about the same thing.

Ya know, stuff like everything found here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ction-of-Guides-A-Library-of-Character-Builds

 

[Ancalagon]

Ya know, stuff like everything found here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ction-of-Guides-A-Library-of-Character-Builds

So I have to find these guides, read them (because there are probably more than one) and then evaluate if they are good, match our playing style, and if they are current/legal - some of the combos have been nerfed, or are based on incorrect interpretation of the rules. Then I have to consider which one I want to take, and if it has pitfalls I want to avoid.

For example, I was working on a magus a while back (level 7 - this was a ridiculous amount of work) and one of the build is centered around the use of rime spell, frostbite, the trait Magical lineage (to lower the level cost of the megatmagic), the feat enforcer, and the trait bruising intellect.

So whenever the PC hits a foe, they get a tripple debuf - from frostbite itself, from rime spell, and from enforcer (because frostbite does non-lethal damage). But that would mean that for almost every attack, the target would have to make a check vs intimidate. That's great mechanics wise (triple debuff woooot) but it's annoying and it slows the game down. So I didn't go with that.

So yeah, I do have to "look forward". Reading those guides and making decisions is not trivial.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, it’d be nice not to need a guidebook on the internet to tell me how to build a character that doesn’t suck.

 

[Arakasius]

Sadly too many PF1 players find this a feature of the game. Like I am quite a master at doing this in PF, but I know everyone doesn’t work like this. Like my inquisitor has the combat expertise/shared teamwork feats/pack flanking/outflank/paired opportunist combo so when either me or my animal companion crits then each of us gets a free attack. It’s a lot of fun but having to build a synergized set of feats like that shouldn’t be a requirement to make a functional character. And too often in PF1 it is, especially with things like all the feats necessary for archers. (Precise shot, point blank shot, rapid shot, deadly aim, manyshot, clustered shot)

To me an ideal game system should have a strong baseline for characters independent of feats that allows everyone to contribute, but then have some deep synergies or options to allow a character to specialize. Not the baseline sucks, must take feat chain to contribute. Too often PF characters are forced into reserving their feat choices til they get to level 9 to maximize things. So far what we have seen for something like fighter/rogue is a lot of exclusive actions. We’ve not seen any mention of the glut of +passive hit/damage feats that were so necessary in PF1. Maybe they’re removing bunches of those for the same reason they’re removing the big 6? That’s a hope anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sadly too many PF1 players find this a feature of the game. Like I am quite a master at doing this in PF, but I know everyone doesn’t work like this. Like my inquisitor has the combat expertise/shared teamwork feats/pack flanking/outflank/paired opportunist combo so when either me or my animal companion crits then each of us gets a free attack. It’s a lot of fun but having to build a synergized set of feats like that shouldn’t be a requirement to make a functional character. And too often in PF1 it is, especially with things like all the feats necessary for archers. (Precise shot, point blank shot, rapid shot, deadly aim, manyshot, clustered shot)

For sure. And like, I do understand the appeal of a game rewarding a player’s system mastery, and the fun of finding those really strong Feat synergies. A little room for real, meaningful character optimization can be a good thing in moderation. The problem is when the difference between a character that you build up level by level and a character that you had planned out from the beginning is so vast that they don’t work at the same table.

To me an ideal game system should have a strong baseline for characters independent of feats that allows everyone to contribute, but then have some deep synergies or options to allow a character to specialize. Not the baseline sucks, must take feat chain to contribute. Too often PF characters are forced into reserving their feat choices til they get to level 9 to maximize things. So far what we have seen for something like fighter/rogue is a lot of exclusive actions. We’ve not seen any mention of the glut of +passive hit/damage feats that were so necessary in PF1. Maybe they’re removing bunches of those for the same reason they’re removing the big 6? That’s a hope anyway.

That appears to be the idea, at least when it comes to the Class Feats we’ve been seeing. For me, the ideal situation would be one where system mastery is a matter of what an MMO player might call “skilled over build.” Where sure, your choice of Feats is going to have an impact on how powerful your character is, but not nearly as much of an impact as making the best choices turn-to-turn. Where a player who just picks the Feats they think sound cool won’t be left in the dust by the player who just looks up a build online and copies it exactly. Especially if the former player has better tactics in the actual game.

 

[Ancalagon]

And those online guides defeat the purpose of system mastery ...

You know what? This just made me realize something. It's like EVE Online, or Dwarf fortress. The game is so complex that most people can't just figure it out, they need an online wiki or something just to learn how to play the game well...

 

[Sunseeker]

So I have to find these guides, read them (because there are probably more than one) and then evaluate if they are good, match our playing style, and if they are current/legal - some of the combos have been nerfed, or are based on incorrect interpretation of the rules. Then I have to consider which one I want to take, and if it has pitfalls I want to avoid.

I don't understand the casual mocking attitude. It doesn't really help the conversation or improve your argument.

For example, I was working on a magus a while back (level 7 - this was a ridiculous amount of work) and one of the build is centered around the use of rime spell, frostbite, the trait Magical lineage (to lower the level cost of the megatmagic), the feat enforcer, and the trait bruising intellect.

So whenever the PC hits a foe, they get a tripple debuf - from frostbite itself, from rime spell, and from enforcer (because frostbite does non-lethal damage). But that would mean that for almost every attack, the target would have to make a check vs intimidate. That's great mechanics wise (triple debuff woooot) but it's annoying and it slows the game down. So I didn't go with that.

So yeah, I do have to "look forward". Reading those guides and making decisions is not trivial.

No, it isn't. Learning new things isn't trivial. But learning is always worth the effort if it's something you care about improving your skill in.

There's very little room to bemoan how difficult it may be to build a character, while refusing to read up on the subject, especially when much of the information is right here in this very board.