Pathfinder Second Edition

load previous
Apr 9, 2018 2:50 am
Hmm. Interesting. I'm kind of excited that they seem to want to give you diversity in the racial backgrounds through feat selection. It seems like you COULD take the option to pick up the dwarven weapons, but you may not.
Apr 9, 2018 12:52 pm
Dramasailor says:
Hmm. Interesting. I'm kind of excited that they seem to want to give you diversity in the racial backgrounds through feat selection. It seems like you COULD take the option to pick up the dwarven weapons, but you may not.
One of my biggest pet peeves with Pathfinder and D&D was that, no matter what your background was, certain races just KNEW how to use certain weapons and armor.

I'm glad they're making this change
Apr 9, 2018 2:27 pm
Exactly! I mean, sure, making it available makes sense (yes, elves would make longswords/longbows available to all), but clearly not all of them would pick them up and study them.

Put this one in the pro column. :)
Apr 9, 2018 8:54 pm
A little bit about the Alchemist, which is now a base class in Pathfinder 2e!
Apr 18, 2018 2:45 am
Interesting changes to spells. I really like the automatic scaling of cantrips, and the multi-action economy.
Apr 18, 2018 12:53 pm
Free spells at your highest casting level means the ridiculous imbalance between full-casters and non-casters will be virtually intolerable unless they also focused on increasing the utility and options of non-casters. No one can compete with a full-caster that is creative with spells.

Limiting it with component rarity, cost, and spell slots helped keep it within reason (though the imbalance still existed). Cantrips were brought in to give them a low-power option to use freely. If that low-power option is now just a normal-power option that's also free, then I hope it's because they saw a reverse imbalance in playtesting. I hope it wasn't because their full-caster playtesters whined louder than non-caster playtesters.
Apr 18, 2018 12:55 pm
I love the action improvement kind of method. Gets a little bit away from Vancian magic (not a huge bit away, just a slim tiny bit). I really enjoyed the Heal example (Strong close heal if you just use your hands, long range heal if you start babbling, weaker area-wide heal if you use some materials). And the ability to heighten for impact is a welcome change as well.

Some of the changes are pretty similar to the 5e changes (cantrip scaling as one example, though they handled it a different way, heightening adding extra effect, etc).
Apr 18, 2018 1:26 pm
Linus says:
Free spells at your highest casting level means the ridiculous imbalance between full-casters and non-casters will be virtually intolerable unless they also focused on increasing the utility and options of non-casters. No one can compete with a full-caster that is creative with spells.

Limiting it with component rarity, cost, and spell slots helped keep it within reason (though the imbalance still existed). Cantrips were brought in to give them a low-power option to use freely. If that low-power option is now just a normal-power option that's also free, then I hope it's because they saw a reverse imbalance in playtesting. I hope it wasn't because their full-caster playtesters whined louder than non-caster playtesters.
Cantrip scaling is something that D&D 5e does as well, and I've found that it does not overpower the casters at all. It really depends on what they do with the other spellcasting rules that will determine if it makes them that much more powerful than the martial classes.

I would assume they aren't as powerful as spells that have a cost at all, just that they improve with levels. A possible example:

Level 1 spell does 2d6 damage to a single target - Uses a spell slot
Cantrip at level 1 does 1d6 damage to a single target - Is free

Level 3 spell does 5d6 damage in a radius - Uses a spell slot
Cantrip at level 5 (when you get level 3 spells) does 3d6 damage to a single target - Is free

I imagine that this is the sort of scaling that we will see in the game. Something to make casters better when they don't want to use a spell slot, but not enough to come anywhere near overshadowing a real spell. Obviously I don't have all of the details, but I think it's a good guess, at least as far as design philosophy is concerned.
[ +- ] Quote from Devs - RE: Cantrips
[ +- ] Quote from Devs - RE: Spellcaster Scaling
[ +- ] Quote from Devs - RE: Example Cantrip
[ +- ] Quote from Devs - RE: Multiple Spells Per Round
Apr 18, 2018 1:28 pm
Dramasailor says:
I love the action improvement kind of method. Gets a little bit away from Vancian magic (not a huge bit away, just a slim tiny bit). I really enjoyed the Heal example (Strong close heal if you just use your hands, long range heal if you start babbling, weaker area-wide heal if you use some materials). And the ability to heighten for impact is a welcome change as well.

Some of the changes are pretty similar to the 5e changes (cantrip scaling as one example, though they handled it a different way, heightening adding extra effect, etc).
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the multi-action method that they're using as well! It seems like a really cool way to do it

I also noticed that a LOT of this is similar to 5e, but that's fine with me. 5e made a LOT of good, much-needed changes to the way the game works and I think that following their lead on some things is a good move.
Apr 18, 2018 2:20 pm
Naatkinson says:
I imagine that this is the sort of scaling that we will see in the game. Something to make casters better when they don't want to use a spell slot, but not enough to come anywhere near overshadowing a real spell. Obviously I don't have all of the details, but I think it's a good guess, at least as far as design philosophy is concerned.
I think your instincts are correct, or at least I agree that it's the most likely thing we'll see. My issue is that they worded it specifically as scales to your highest spell slot and not "damage scales appropriately for level" or something like that. As I mentioned, it's the creative full-casters that are incredibly imbalanced. Full-casters that focus solely or even primarily on damage are not the problem. For example, using a cantrip to dispell magical darkness is imbalanced. That should cost a spell slot.
Apr 18, 2018 3:03 pm
Linus says:
Naatkinson says:
I imagine that this is the sort of scaling that we will see in the game. Something to make casters better when they don't want to use a spell slot, but not enough to come anywhere near overshadowing a real spell. Obviously I don't have all of the details, but I think it's a good guess, at least as far as design philosophy is concerned.
I think your instincts are correct, or at least I agree that it's the most likely thing we'll see. My issue is that they worded it specifically as scales to your highest spell slot and not "damage scales appropriately for level" or something like that. As I mentioned, it's the creative full-casters that are incredibly imbalanced. Full-casters that focus solely or even primarily on damage are not the problem. For example, using a cantrip to dispell magical darkness is imbalanced. That should cost a spell slot.
I agree that it's odd to allow a cantrip to dispel something that has a cost, but there may be more to it than that (I hope). I remain hopefully optimistic :)
Apr 28, 2018 10:01 pm
Naatkinson says:
Cleric Domains
These are interesting. The domain powers should be relevant, and free skill in the gods favored skill adds deep, recognizable flavor to the clergy.

But mostly, I think the anathema and edicts are really important. Not sure if there is a gameplay mechanic attached or just RP flavor.
May 1, 2018 2:35 am
The weapon design is a concept I haven't seen before. Seems like it could be difficult to balance, but if they manage to do so then it'll be a really great way to make martial characters feel different just by going different weapon routes.
load next

You do not have permission to post in this thread.