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

S

Sunseeker

Guest
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...

I can't "just figure out" an internal combustion engine either.

That doesn't mean it's too complex.

Look if you think games should all be simple so that anyone can pick it up and go "Ah okay I get it!" that's fine. But that style of gaming isn't for everyone. It's good that Pathfinder is sticking to the style their players generally prefer: a more complex one. 5E can be the game for folks who like simplicity. Or something else can be if 5E isn't simple enough for you, but the endgame is that it's good for different products to appeal to different groups. If you're not Pathfinder's target audience, that's A-OK.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Arakasius

First Post
I think niche customization builds should be available, but it should be more about giving you options you didn’t have. Not about pulling your character up to a baseline to be competitive at all. One of the biggest problems in PF1 was the difference in power between optimized and unoptimized characters. System mastery should give you new options and a slight power scaling. Not just huge power scaling, which is the problem with PF1 and feat taxes. We’ve already seen statements from devs that feat taxes are going away. They’ve also shown through their previews no mention of static bonus feats. Even the new proficiency system shows spread between trained and untrained is far more narrow than it used to be at high levels. Those are all positive signs that they’re reducing the spread in system mastery requirements. It’s still going to be a lot more complex than anything else out there though and that’s fine, but reading a guide shouldn’t be a requirement for making a functional character.
 

Ancalagon

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

Tone is really hard to do properly on the web - it's hard to read, or write, properly. So the tone I was trying to convey was *not* mocking (and I apologize that it sounded mocking to you). The tone I was trying to convey was *exasperation*.

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.

Now your tone, as I perceive it, is *condescending* - but I realize that may not have been your goal.

Anyway, to that, I will reply, that I *did* read up on it. What I wrote weren't hypothetical experiences. These happened to me. Multiple guides for one guides that contradict each other, multiple websites, "great" options that would slow down the game significantly, since nerfed options etc etc.

Is there a reason why you didn't believe me?

I think I have the right to say how hard it is to build a character. I speak from experience.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I can't "just figure out" an internal combustion engine either.

That doesn't mean it's too complex.

Look if you think games should all be simple so that anyone can pick it up and go "Ah okay I get it!" that's fine. But that style of gaming isn't for everyone. It's good that Pathfinder is sticking to the style their players generally prefer: a more complex one. 5E can be the game for folks who like simplicity. Or something else can be if 5E isn't simple enough for you, but the endgame is that it's good for different products to appeal to different groups. If you're not Pathfinder's target audience, that's A-OK.

I think that there would be room to make character creation more straight forward, and making the difference between an average and a fully optimized character not so tremendous.

I played both dwarf fortress and eve online for several years, so I am no stranger to complexity nor am I afraid of it. I think that the complexity is miss-placed. Ideally, you would have rich tactical combat options (but that are resolved reasonably quickly) *in game*.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I think that there would be room to make character creation more straight forward, and making the difference between an average and a fully optimized character not so tremendous.

Well, there is. It's called "make a new edition". Character building with little splat is always easy. Every edition had easy character building when it first launched.

It's also called nerfing casters! /personal rant :mad:
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Well, there is. It's called "make a new edition". Character building with little splat is always easy. Every edition had easy character building when it first launched.

It's also called nerfing casters! /personal rant :mad:

... I don't understand the nerfing caster comment...
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
... I don't understand the nerfing caster comment...

The "optimization problem" is a natural result of versatility, variety and generally speaking: options. The more options you have, the more powerful your character becomes, this is why Core Book fighter-types are typically underwhelming, while late in the lifetime of a game, fighter-types are substantially more powerful.

Casters, unlike fighters, start with a large array of options via spells. And much like the feats and class features that eventually become available to fighter-types, casters, some of these are good, some of these are bad, and some of them are broken. Unlike the fighter, the casters can choose the "good options" right away.

Fundamentally, much of the splat for non-casters is produced for no other reason than to bring them close in line with casters. Strangely, few game developers ever see the high power of casters as a problem that needs solving. 5E did it a bit. 4E did it A LOT.
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
I think this whole discussion turns on why the popularity of the split between PF and 5e exists in the first place. I am beginning to believe that the “sufficiently complex yet sufficiently simple” concept is impossible to exist in the same game. The Paizo staff might prove me wrong, but honestly the best of both worlds I think is not having either game mirror the other too much at all...
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I think this whole discussion turns on why the popularity of the split between PF and 5e exists in the first place. I am beginning to believe that the “sufficiently complex yet sufficiently simple” concept is impossible to exist in the same game. The Paizo staff might prove me wrong, but honestly the best of both worlds I think is not having either game mirror the other too much at all...

I fear you may be correct...
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
The "optimization problem" is a natural result of versatility, variety and generally speaking: options. The more options you have, the more powerful your character becomes, this is why Core Book fighter-types are typically underwhelming, while late in the lifetime of a game, fighter-types are substantially more powerful.

Casters, unlike fighters, start with a large array of options via spells. And much like the feats and class features that eventually become available to fighter-types, casters, some of these are good, some of these are bad, and some of them are broken. Unlike the fighter, the casters can choose the "good options" right away.

Fundamentally, much of the splat for non-casters is produced for no other reason than to bring them close in line with casters. Strangely, few game developers ever see the high power of casters as a problem that needs solving. 5E did it a bit. 4E did it A LOT.

Thank you for the clarification... but I fear I must ask for another.

... so were you making the angry face because you hate it when casters are nerfed, or you are angry it's not being done enough/properly?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top