Pathfinder Second Edition

I've put together a comprehensive list of all of the blog posts thus far: here

Paladin preview

Interesting choices. Full disclosure: Paladin is my favorite class, and I'm not one of those who are super strict about behavior. What I find odd is that they spend the first few paragraphs imposing restrictions. One would expect that to compensate for the restrictions, a paladin operating within their ethos would be more powerful than a comparable person in another class. I didn't get that to be the case; just some vague alignment themed powers.

Paladin is also my favorite class, partially BECAUSE of the restrictions. I LOVE playing the Lawful Good Doer of Benevolent Things and am totally okay with these restrictions without any added power on my part. I think that, thematically, added power would be appropriate, but I can see why they don't do that from a game design perspective.

Agreed; game balance is usually in opposition to theme. It's too bad that they couldn't come up with gameplay mechanics for turning restrictions into temporary power reserves.

I.e., Telling the truth when it will be used against you? Free litany use.

Of course, that probably just means arguments at the table, haha.

That's what 5e does, basically, with Inspiration.

I'm reminded in the OP vows in the Book of Exalted Deeds (3.5). Here, characters could make their vows for real, sometimes overwhelming permanent benefits, permanent as long as they held to those vows.

A part of me wants a Paladin (or champion of a non-LG diety) to be as good as a fighter in every respect, yet have some divine powers in exchange for a strict code of conduct. Maybe that is just one of those places where fantasy fiction diverges strongly from fantasy games.

I wish for that on a thematic level, for sure, same as I want a high-level wizard to be able to (narratively) destroy 100 high-level warriors, which is kind of what they have done in older editions where magic was much more powerful than muscle. Fact is, though, that it's not fun to be so weak compared to another party member.

On the other hand, I feel like it would be okay for a Paladin to be somewhat stronger by following the codes, as long as the fighter stands a pretty decent chance against him and won't just be crushed.

I tend to play in games where the players create imaginative yet woefully underperforming characters. But I've certainly had my share of players who minmax the bejesus out of every obscure splat book to create horrors.

I think the 4e/5e method is to flatten the possibilities simply so every character shines its own discuss light. I am conflicted about that. I mean, it makes inherent sense for a game. But it makes your choices less relevant.

This is a completely legitimate concern. I'm very curious to see how they negotiate maintaining customization with a desire to simplify the rules. That being said...

As a fan of 13th Age, I can say that I genuinely appreciate having an incentive to play martial classes that won't eventually be overpowered by magic users. Maybe Pathfinder might take this approach? May have to wait and see.

Backgrounds

Aside from the 5e similarity in name, I'm reminded of this long tradition in RPGs going back to career's in Traveler.

I like that they have one of the ability score boosts being free since that allows Dex types to be blacksmiths or paladins to be street urchins, etc. Otherwise, all the characters would be the same class/background combo.

13th Age also eschews specific skills in favor of general backgrounds that stand in for the skills. I'd love to know what the developers have been playing prior to writing Pathfinder 2e. Has anyone seen any posts anywhere that discusses this?

Hey Qralloq, the designers had a great point to make about the 'flattening' of rules at their Gary Con Seminar. They used the example of comparing checkers and chess, which have roughly the same amount of rules. However, chess is such a deeper and richer game. Go has even fewer rules and is even more complex to play. Therefore, more streamlined rules do not have to mean less complexity in game play. I think they are really aware that this is a niche that 5e has left wide open, and they know their core audience demands that complexity. Whether they will get it right is anyone's guess.

Anybody else tempted to borrow some of the rules from the pathfinder 2e spoilers and stick them into their 5e game? Some of these ideas, like the differences between weapons, would slide in effortlessly.

Any other specific rules you'd like to borrow? I think borrowing ideas from other systems could really be cool

4E D&D has many rules that I hate were dropped in 5E - non-armor defenses instead of saves, minions, healing surges, and action points. Also, conceptually, 4E made some advances that I hate were dropped in 5E - general balance of classes at all tiers of play, more roles than just tank/dps/heals, and the most controversial (fewer rules for non-combat elements).

Some people get very up-in-arms about lack of non-combat related rules, and yet non-combat elements are the part that I don't want some mechanic to limit my imagination. Let the GM rule on whether my description is feasible, decide which roll and DC, etc. If a DM can't do this or doesn't want to, then why DM in the first place? From a DM perspective, I don't want a player to lecture me on how his stupid plan that is obviously impossible to everyone but him has an achievable DC because of certain rules. (I mean, I wouldn't play with a player that regularly behaves such a way, but we all have moments.)

I think the reason they didn't keep any of that stuff is because they wanted it to feel more like classic D&D to cash in on the nostalgia factor.

I wish they'd kept some stuff, like defenses rather than saves.

I think you're probably correct.