Pathfinder Second Edition

Basically, what D&D 3.X did...

I'm not sure how they can set up 1000xp per level at every level without basically removing any need for the experience points themselves. How would the system differentiate between a party of four characters at level 1 doing a level 1 encounter versus a party of five characters at level 5 doing a level 1 encounter? The suggestions of making it based on CR seem likely, but as was said that makes the experience points themselves irrelevant.

Why not just create the new system to use milestone leveling. It's a better system anyway, and I don't remember the last time I played in a game that did something other than milestone leveling. Even the explanation of the playtest material suggests that it will function like milestone leveling.

I'm curious to see how the XP will work in the new system. I imagine it will be as previously stated in this thread. Somehow comparing CR vs Party level and assigning XP that way, but I HOPE it'll be intuitive and streamlined.

My hope for the XP system is that its more intuitively to calculate what CR would match the party. I've found with my home brews that I'm always super nervous that I have either made an encounter to overwhelming or underwhelming even though I've calculated the CR of the encounter to be appropriate.

That calculation makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

I've never used any of the clunky encounter building tools supplied to me in either Pathfinder of D&D. I always just eyeball it and then I can adjust on the fly as needed.

I'm a fan of Sly Flourish encounter building chart. It's for 5e specifically though. But I've found it very useful and accurate.

http://slyflourish.com/5e_encounter_building.html

Article about Proficiency in 2e

I think I really like the proficiency system they've outlined. I think they're doing a good job of getting past the skill bloat of 1e while separating that the skill check modifier itself doesn't define what you can do with the skill.

I love the proficiency system in 5e DnD, but it feels super binary. You're either good or you're not. I prefer this way of simplifying it while retaining the ability to specialize a little bit :)

We'll see how it plays, but frankly I'm not a fan of skill proficiencies. They usually only serve to derail a group from performing a task.

And really, players rely too much and defining tasks with specific words that they can roll. Perception, for example, should not be in the game. Nor should investigation. If a player says they are looking for something, then the DM should just say what they find as it relates to plot. F..K rolling some arbitrary number.

I like the binary nature. Being 2nd best at something in D&D doesn't pay off too often. Some skill redundancies can be good (like stealth) but having the 2nd best skill in the party often means nothing. For example, a fighter's +4 in survival is often ignored because the ranger with the +5 is going to do the tracking and foraging, etc. I find this encourages people to specialize and not step on each others' toes, which is a good thing. Also makes the party dependent on each other, glues them together.

I'm mostly speaking from an individual point of view. If I want my barbarian to excel at climbing, but still have some competency in being sneaky, I can do that rather than doing all-or-nothing.

I can see both, but I like the customizability of being able to specialize a bit more or have a more broad skill set. Survival is one of those skills that doesn't benefit a lot from having more than one person good at it (though it can if someone gets knocked out or the team splits, etc.). But things like perception, stealth, athletics, and acrobatics don't fall as much into that trap.

Customization does seem to be the hallmark of Pathfinder so maybe you'll get your wish!

Pathfinder 2e Fighter Preview has been posted!

Fighter, eh? Not sure how I feel about the preview. Debilitating Shot feels a little like 4e, what with applying status effects on others. That's not a bad thing necessarily. I like the shield mechanic, raising your shield to improve defense makes more visual sense to me than, say, fighting defensively.

I really like the giant feat tree forest, especially: "These paths are pretty open, allowing you to mix and match with ease to create a fighter that matches your play style."

I'm hopeful that they'll handle it well. Reminds me of the old talent trees in World of Warcraft, actually, or the skill trees in Diablo 2

I didn't play much pathfinder not because it wasn't a good system but more because of the munchkini side of it (I include d&d 3.5 in it as well) that wasn't my preferred style of play. But I'm still curious as what will come out of pathfinder 2nd ed.
I personally feel like the archetype and the subclasses systems are inspired by the ad&d 2nd edition kits.

Yeah, it seems to have started with kits in D&D 2e, and then expanded on in Pathfinder, and then refined in D&D 5e. The 5e version is far better than the core Pathfinder version, in my opinion, because it's a straight addition to your class and not a sacrifice of core class features.

Total side note.... welcome back deadpool!

I agreed. Many of the archetypes in Pathfinder seemed to immediately sacrifice too much; most of the rogue archetypes replaced Trapfinding... whaaattt?