Pathfinder Second Edition

Interesting concept. I'm excited to see exactly how they are changing things. Some of it certainly have a strong 5th edition feel to them.

I literally was just coming here to post this! I am so excited right now

General Mechanics and Miscellaneous
Playtest Announcement
Actions
Leveling Up
Proficiency
Modes of Play
Critical Success and Failure
Spellcasting
Backgrounds
Building Monsters
Monster Stat Blocks
Downtime
Skills
Skill Feats
Conditions
Archetypes
Traps

Seminar About Pathfinder 2e

Classes
Fighter
Rogue
Alchemist
Alchemist Pt 2: Items
Cleric
Cleric Pt 2: Domains
Paladin
Wizard
Barbarian
Monk
Ranger
Sorcerer
Miscellaneous Class Information

Races
Goblins
Elves and Dwarves

Equipment
Weapons
Adventuring Gear
Treasure
Potency and Potions

I haven't watched the announcement but I'm pretty comfortable taking a strong original-is-better position in the ensuing edition war, haha.

http://paizo.com/PathfinderPlaytest

Personally, I think 3.5 belongs in the past and PF with it. I've never been a huge fan even though it's so hugely popular in my in-person group. The rules are just too complex and convoluted. I know they are trying to simplify, but PF 2E is not likely to change my opinion much.

Their proposed changes sound a lot like 5th edition, except they will have all the experience of what has and hasn't worked in 5e to go from.

That's a good point. Pathfinder was really just house rules for 3.5. Maybe PF2 will be their "house rules" for 5e.

That's kind of what my thought is. I'm really excited to see how they approach Ancestry, honestly. I'm curious if they will maintain the pluses and minuses to stats or if they are going more 5e style with all pluses. In addition to that whole "proficiency based on level" as the sole addend for stuff instead of the myriad things PF1 used (because 3.x used it).

Well, we might as well start planning the playtest session! I'm a fan of Pathfinder, but the game has been around long enough that the frayed edges are very visible. A 2nd Edition is a good idea, but it makes we wonder how they'll handle the first edition. Hopefully they keep supporting it. They'd have to right, since most Pathfinder players picked up the game after a D&D edition change. At any rate, this could be very cool.

I'm curious why people feel that it's going to mimic D&D 5E. My first thought when reading was that it was going a way that is very unlike D&D. "Race" and "Background" are the prime generation method as opposed to Ability Scores, Race, and Class. In fact, it read very much like Ability Scores will be predetermined, which is antithetical to D&D.

I can see some of the Ability Scores being a bit pre-determined by your Ancestry/Race and then getting modified by your class selection, background selection, feat selection, etc. But that's the only part that seems to be not in line with D&D. They are moving away from complicated formulas towards a single character level based proficiency based formula, like 5e did. They are introducing the concept of a "pre-adventuring" background (more than just 1 or 2 traits) to give more definition to the person you are now, like 5e did. The reading of selecting skill proficiencies feels much more like a 5e model as opposed to the ever-swelling skill ranks model that PF1/3.x used for skills.

Beyond that creation aspect, the ongoing leveling process with your class selection opening up specific feat chains for you to consider is much closer to the subclass feel in my head than the PF1 version of feats that made creation super crunchy and such.

Finally, with the game-play style, they are moving away from different categories of actions and instead going into a pooled theory. 5e moved in this direction a bit from the 3.x days where you had movement, action, full round action to Movement, Action, Bonus Action, Reaction. PF2 looks to have 3 actions per turn. Anything you want to do will use 0-3 Actions. Want to move? Spend an action. Want to run far far away, spend three actions moving. Want to focus on just beating on someone, spend three actions to attack. I'd be surprised if something like the fighter class didn't get a feature that allows you to swing twice with an attack Action.

I'm really intrigued by the change to the initiative system where it seems like your initiative is based more on what you are doing than a flat dexterity based thing.

Obviously a lot of this argumentation is based purely on two posts with not a ton of content. But I definitely got the same kind spirit of change for PF1 -> PF2 that 5e offered: streamlining gameplay, lowering the barrier of entry to playing through simplification of some aspects, making choices in the game more meaningful in some way. Not quite sure how this will impact the normally very math/crunch heavy feel that PF1 had. Hopefully there is still that spirit of highly configurable characters.

Thank you for the well thought out post, Dramasailor. I appreciate that explanation. I guess my problem is just one of perspective. Many of the things you've associated based on the info (which we both agree is not much so far) I see many of the same things as differences.

The change to initiative being another example that you brought up. Also, what you call subclasses came across to me as a furthering of the archetype system that was already PF. In fact, I felt that D&D only added it because it was one of the most popular parts of PF.

Also, I don't correlate background in PF2 with the one from D&D because in my experience backgrounds in D&D are largely inconsequential. They offer some proficiencies with tools or instruments or open up skills that perhaps were not available for some classes. The PF2 version, to me, came across as vital during character creation and very defining for the character throughout.

In any case, after reading your very informative post from that perspective I can see where people make the comparison now. I still am not a PF fan, so I can't say that I'll follow future news releases closely. It will be interesting to see how it develops as more info comes out, though.

Blog post about actions in 2e Pathfinder

Personally, disgruntled by the many inequities of AD&D 2e, I switched in the mid-1990s to other, more crunchy and flexible fantasy systems like Rolemaster where your character on paper could be radically altered from another similar implementation.

3.0/3.5/PF brought me back into D&D, but 4e and 5e seem to have moved away from that flexibility in exchange for other considerations, and so my IRL troupes have stuck with 3.5/PF.

What I want from PF2 is maintaining that very high level of meaningful customization, rather than picking a couple things from a couple lists. A dozen feat trees per class instead of one or a handful of fully fleshed out subclasses; weapons with vastly different effects than just damage dice, etc.

We'll see what they do. If it moves toward the simplicity of 5e rather than away, I'll save a lot of money not buying books, haha.

This blog post was pretty illuminating on what to expect in terms of mechanics.

Another Paizo blog post. This time about Leveling Up

Hmm. I'm interested to see how the same XP every level part works out. Will they lower the XP that individual monsters give at higher levels to keep the inverted pyramid of leveling speed?

Feats at every level sounds intriguing. I'm really excited for some of that information to start flowing.

Here's what I've seen other games do and what might possibly end up happening in PF2.

For same XP every level, maybe they'll drop the monster XP altogether and go with session XP instead.

The whole feat every level sort of reminds me of Dungeonslayers' talent system. Perhaps feats will be in a "stacked" format, where most, if not all feats ca be taken more than once, with better effects, or more uses per day per rank of feats taken? For example, let say they make multiple ranks of Power Attack, perhaps each rank of that feat could allow for a -1 attack roll for a +2 to damage roll, with a BAB requirement for each rank taken?

They had mentioned that fighting monsters was a source of XP still. Granted, I wouldn't put it past Paizo to leave the experience gain as a super mathy formula (even if everything else seems to be simplifying).

For example: Monster gives X experience to the party. Divide the experience up by how many people (P) there are. So you get (X/P) per player. Then, check the differential of monster level to player level to see how much of that you get. If you are within a level or 2, you get 100% of (X/P). If you are more than that above it, you get 50% (X/P). If you are more than that below level, you get 150% (X/P).

I am, of course, making all of this up out of nothingness, but leaving that level of crunchiness wouldn't surprise me. :-P

---

As a side note, it also looks like they may be doing away with 1dX/level of hit points and going to a flat amount (reading from the 8+Con for Clerics, rather than 1d8+Con for Clerics)

They could instead just award xp based on the Challenge Rating as related to they party level.

For example, CR same as party level, 300 xp. One or two less, 150 xp, one or two more, 600 xp.

Something to that effect. It would make static monster xp irrelevant.

That would make sense Qralloq. I like that quite a bit, actually.

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?

I don't remember much about 2E kits. I remember doing most of my character creation ad hoc via the Skills & Powers book. It was like creating your own class every time you made a character. I liked it.

About the 'modes' in PF 2e

Rogue Preview

Interesting. Seems pretty similar to current rogue incarnations in a lot of ways (which is a solid thing, helps hold onto the class identity). I'm looking forward to when we get a chance to see a lot of the feat trees and such to figure out all the different ways that we can put people together.

I like that instead of just ramping up damage they also added feats that debuff enemies. I'm sure that adds a few customization options to the mix.

I think the thing that interests me the most is:

---

Finally, we have made retraining a core part of the game, allowing you to trade out a feat, skill, or even class choice for another equal option. Retraining occurs during downtime, and can take as little as a week, giving you the flexibility to go on your next adventures with the right tools to succeed.

---

This makes me feel like we will be able to change our characters that we might have made a bad decision with early on in the game. Hopefully its not just a gimmick and can actually be used.

That's already an option in Pathfinder 1e, but it's not in the core rules. I think it was added in Ultimate Campaign... Yep, here it is!

I don't understand why it needs to be a part of the official rules. If your character is gimp, then talk to your DM and remake it. Why do you need official rules for something like that?

If that's the logic, why have rules at all? Having rules for it makes it consistent and fair across the board.

The rules for character creation clearly would cover any redo actions that are required because a character is bad enough to justify "retraining" at all. I'm not sure why that implies not having rules at all. Rules for making a character, combat, dungeoneering, social situations, magic, and the rest are helpful when interacting with the game. If you don't want your character to pick locks anymore because you'd rather disable traps, then talk to your DM. If s/he agrees, then just swap it out.

I see a few things:

1) DMs that strictly adhere to RAW and won't allow players to do that which isn't written in the book.
2) With the increasing popularity of Pathfinder Society and similar structured 'drop in' games, if it's codified in the rulebook from the beginning, it standardizes how that can be managed when you play with a wide variety of DMs.
3) It adds depth to downtime activities, which seems to be a frequent request of players (what do I do when we aren't out adventuring?). Sure, DMs could offer this up on their own, but this helps guide it.

Retraining feats and skills goes back to 3.5. Hardly new, but always a GM option. Personally, I like characters to be able to change paths mid career, and the 3.5 prestige class system was unforgiving as written. With feats only every third level, PCs were often locked into paths.

Ah. Clearly my perspective is biased as someone that doesn't play in sanctioned games like PFS. I can see where people that are in those games would require official rules for it given that it's not a set game with a set DM. Thanks for pointing that out Dramasailor.

I agree, Linus, that it's not really necessary, but having it codified makes it easier to use and more consistent across the board without really adding much complexity to gameplay (retraining can be done between sessions or while others are doing different downtime things in town)

I see what you mean.

Recently heard that PFS wasn't supported initially in the rules, and was more of an afterthought. I think organized play in game shops and conventions is a fantastic way to get players to play your game and buy your books, and this is something that Paizo can do better than Wizards. Adventurer's league is okay, but lots of people complain about the lack of support from the top, especially lacking support for the game stores that execute it. If Paizo can deliver a fantastic organized play experience, including a tight rules system that codifies good DMing practices and incentives for game stores, then look out WotC!

Ultimately, I hope the competition helps improve all organized play, no matter what the game system.

About Critical Hits and Critical Failures!

Interesting on the Crits. I like the system, but like many, wonder how the probability curve works with save or suck attacks (turn to stone, etc). Whole new paradigm, probably takes experience to judge.

Not sure if this was already linked or not, but there is an audio recording of Paizo's Pathfinder 2nd Edition Seminar at GaryCon on the Plot Points podcast. 1.5 hours

A blog post about goblins in Pathfinder 2e. A little bit of lore and flavor and then a small snippet that gives a preview of races and their design philosophy

Blog post about elves and dwarves

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

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. :)

A little bit about the Alchemist, which is now a base class in Pathfinder 2e!

A post about spells in Pathfinder 2e

Interesting changes to spells. I really like the automatic scaling of cantrips, and the multi-action economy.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 :)

More alchemy stuff!

Cleric preview

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.

Weapons in Pathfinder 2e

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.

Armor and other gear in Pathfinder 2e

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.

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

The rage mechanic changes are certainly interesting. I'll have to look again (unless they just haven't given it out yet) about fatigue and its impact. Depending on how that goes, every 4th round of being fatigued could be brutal in the midst of combat. If everything is keyed/balanced off assuming a barbarian can be raging, I can see that being a kind of sucky round.

The totem bit is really cool, and I really like the implications that certain totems provide ridiculously cool things (what was that about somehow a barbarian being the primary healer in a group!?).

Conditions

Drama, this specifically goes over the Fatigued condition :)

Monk class preview!

Archetypes

Treasure

Missed a couple weeks, wow!
Potency and Potions
Ranger
Traps
Sorcerer

I just had to revisit this post by me after having read through a good bit of the material. Boy was I wrong. The system for skills has changed my mind for sure. :D

I was already excited for it to begin with, but I'm even more excited now that I can see how everything works together!

Does anyone want to run Doomsday Dawn on here? I would be very interested to play!!! I'm loving the playtest content that I have read so far!

Things I love:
- Simplicity that was missing in Pathfinder 1st edition
- Character Customization that was missing in D&D 5th edition
- Golarion (I love Paizo's campaign setting)
- Feats at each level, associated with each component of the character's makeup
- System for encumbrance is simple

I have already built a couple of level 1 characters for the system.

I know that there are a couple games of Doomsday Dawn running on here already. I really hope that you can get someone to start another game of it, though. I want to see as many people as possible get into the playtest so that the product can be great :)

I have to say that I 100% agree with you on all of your reasons for loving the game. One thing that you didn't mention that tops the list: Action Economy. The three action system works very well in theory and in practice and I look forward to spending a lot of time with it.