Pathfinder Second Edition

I think defences vs saves boils down to "players like rolling dice". It's the same outcome, but if you save, you roll the dice (as opposed to the other guy), and you feel like you're in control of the outcome (not the other guy).

I understand this perspective, and I think I remember reading it as the reason they gave for why it was changed. However, I think that was just a dismissive answer that they knew people would accept instead of the actual reason. Let me explain.

For starters, NAD are a better mechanic design-wise. NAD work exactly like AC. "I want to hit that zombie with a firebolt. I got a 14 vs Dex." DM says "The zombie moves too slowly to avoid the mote of fire that you flung at his chest. Roll damage." You see how that conversation is the same as attacking vs AC? It's a mechanic that people know and can figure out intuitively. That's good design.

The conversation is different for saves. "I want to hit that zombie with a firebolt." DM says, "What's your DC, and what's the save?" "Player says, "Um, it says Dex save, but I don't know my DC. Don't you tell us what a DC is when we roll something? Why am I picking the DC? I mean, if I'm setting the DC then it's 99." DM then has to explain why DCs are different in this one instance compared to how they are used everywhere else. DM also has to explain how to calculate the character's DC when it casts a spell at something." It's not intuitive, and anyone that has played 5E has had that conversation before - with people completely new or people that have played previous editions.

Another benefit of NAD is that they make more use of ability scores than saves. Saves in 5E go directly to ability score modifiers themselves, but the same powerful abilities are prevalent as in other editions - Dex, Wis, Con. The outcome is a heavier value on those abilities when making any character. In 4E (which used NAD), people could select ability scores that meshed well with their character concept and not sacrifice survivability.

Specific to the rolling rationale, AC would not be in the game if they reached the conclusion that saves are better because people like to roll. Armor would, instead, provide bonuses to Physical Saves or STR ability checks. As explained above, the better design is the one that is intuitive. In that case, NAD don't just go away. So does AC. I think it's obvious why they didn't change that - people would revolt. AC is an iconic part of the system.

And that's where I think we touch on the real reason they removed NAD. They wanted to create a new system that is closer to the iconic system that people remember from the past. They were pandering to an audience. Or as Naatkinson mentioned earlier in this thread, they were cashing in on nostalgia.

I know I'm in the minority, but I think the 4E hate was misguided and if people are being fair, then they would see so many pieces of 4E that were great design choices. I listed the ones I liked best in my previous post. Still, 4E did have some aspects that were good choices but were poorly executed. Class powers - great idea, but the powers themselves were often easily broken or exploitable. Plus, the language was not clear enough on most, if not all, of them. Twin Strike in PHB is a good example. It was also too feat heavy, and some feats were just ridiculous. I'm looking at you, White Lotus feats.

I believe the real reason that they dropped NAD from the system was because they wanted to more closely mimic the older iconic system and also because people unfairly hated on 4E even though the 4E materials sold like hotcakes (who doesn't love hotcakes?). Of course, they can't openly say they are cashing in on nostalgia because that is like saying "We're repackaging something you already own in hopes that you buy it again." So they sell it on the "fun factor' and people don't often give it much thought after that.

Good post, Linus.

I've thought about modifying whatever version of D&D for player side mechanics. Give NPCs static attacks and defenses, and have players roll their AC and saves as defenses, plus their own attacks and offensive vs-save attacks.

It is funny how little interest my players have in that, though. Blank looks, even blanker when I start talking probability charts, haha.

I think a lot of that has to do with the D&D brand. A lot of systems utilize a mechanic like that and people don't seem to have any issue with it, but D&D has that so ingrained into its bones that it's hard to move past.

I think that a system should have a unified mechanic for managing offense vs defense and that's part of the reason that Saving Throws bother me. Attacking has a straightforward mechanic: Attacker rolls vs AC and then it's done. Saving throws make it kind of awkward: some things roll to hit you, some things you roll to resist... kind of odd.

I apologize for changing the nature of this thread. Let's be sure it doesn't stray too far from PF 2E. If we want to continue the tangent, then we can always start a different thread to discuss D&D editions, other TTRPG systems, iconic mechanics, etc.

In Pathfinder's Ultimate Combat book there are variant rules for AC. I've never seen anyone use them, but they definitely change things. They look a little bit like Shadowrun's rules for handling Armor and Damage. These variant rules would be interesting changes to incorporate wholesale into the new edition of Pathfinder though.

Blog about monsters and their design!

Monster stat blocks

Wizard preview

Interesting changes, once more. I like the new stat block presentation for monsters, even ignoring changes to the monster itself.

The wizard will take some puzzling. The metamagic feats seem like they have a lot of options, such as maybe adding action costs and/or spell level costs. The Magic Missile example was good, as extra actions otherwise would seem to limit spellcasters much more than melee or ranged attackers, but MM shows how they can allow a caster to double or triple down on the single attack.

Lots of random stuff (mostly classes)

I've been listening to the Glass Cannon Podcast episodes where they ran through a short run of the playtest and I have to say that it sounds pretty good so far. There are some interesting mechanics like Resonance that sounds pretty cool

Resonance is basically a pool of points that allow magical items to work. Worn items (armor, rings, cloaks, etc) take a certain amount for the day, whereas weapons don't require any, unless there's a special power in the weapon powered by the pool. Potions also consume resonance. Once you run out, you have to make a roll to see if you can gain any benefit from things like potions and whatnot.

There's a +1 dagger in the podcast. It adds +1 to attack, but a whole extra damage die for damage (2d4 damage instead of 1d4)

They also state that most items that just give a flat +1 bonus are gone, as that's not exciting and just makes the math more annoying to figure out.

Downtime

I'm actually very interested to see how they incorporate downtime and non-combat activities into the core rules. I know this drip-feed of information is just marketing, but I'm happy to see that they're making a point of treating downtime, not just in the core rules, but in the playtest as well.

Downtime is a big GM issue in many of my games. In my Victorian Age Vampire game, I just advanced the players 9 years. Awarded some random xp to cover character growth in the meantime, but more concrete guidelines would have helped.

I am also excited about downtime :)

Skills!

I like that they are trying to "make the non-magical extraordinary" I think is how they put it. Feats that make high ranks in a skill feel like special abilities is awesome. Level added to skills checks, even untrained, is cool. I HATE that a level 20 character is basically no better than a level 1 character except for a few points in a few skills. How would a level 20 fighter not be inherently better than a lvl 1 fighter in almost every skill?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Just from incidental usage, he would likely be far better at sneaking around or identifying strange plants and creatures that he sees and I think that's what they're trying to do.

Certain uses of skills require that you be trained in them and some even require skill feats to help you expand the use of your skills. I think it's a great idea!

Skill Feats

Barbarian class preview