Second edition Pathfinder?

[Henrico Do]

Interesting.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest

[JasonS]

I know. Wow. Kinda wish they waited another year or two.

[Craig Tierney]

...10th level spells
Oh boy, that's just what was needed

[Craig Tierney]

To be fair I barely ever see spells above 6th-7th level anyways, and a few exceptions aside (gate, time stop, wish) most 9th level spills aren't that game-breaking. The FAQ at least acknowledges a caster/martial disparity.
Still, it seems an odd choice to me.

[Paul Jackson]

The whole thing is big on hype but very small on detail. I get absolutely zero feel for what it will be.

Incorporating lessons learned in Starfinder could mean just about anything :-).

And I, for one, do NOT think the Starfinder books are very well organized :-).

Oh well. There will now be 6 months of unremitting hype. Followed by something that will NOT live up to expectations :-).

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Craig Tierney <petissedi...@gmail.com> wrote:

To be fair I barely ever see spells above 6th-7th level anyways, and a few exceptions aside (gate, time stop, wish) most 9th level spills aren't that game-breaking. The FAQ at least acknowledges a caster/martial disparity.
Still, it seems an odd choice to me.

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/2cc6f854-8822-4c8d-99ea-f0830e1617b6%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[JasonS]

I was kind of surprised by 10th level spells too, especially considering Starfinder stops at 6 or 7th level spells.

But maybe 0 level spells don't exist anymore and everything is bumped up one level. So maybe... there is no change at all. Maybe.

[JasonS]

Love Paul's take on things. But I think it's important to note, especially in the early days, that we the players have a chance to strongly affect the new edition during the playtest. I'm guessing we have between August and October.

[Paul Jackson]

No, the playtest will last longer than that. Playtest comes out at Gencon 2018, although I don't think they've stated it the final product is obviously planned for Gencon 2019.

So, probably a REAL playtest until something like Jan 2019 at which point things will be nearly frozen. Then tweaks only until something like Mar or Apr. Then they'll pretend its a playtest but they won't really be looking. Then, sometime in June or July they'll make 2 to 5 totally untested changes that will destroy the entire system. The released book will have 2 to 5 glaring problems that were never playtested and 2-6 things that the players almost all hated but Paizo refused to change.

Followed in Mar 2020 with huge Errata document fixing those problems and only introducing 3 new problems.

What. me. cynical? I'm pretty much describing EVERY product they've ever released :-(

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:44 AM, 'JasonS' via OntarioPFS <ontar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Love Paul's take on things. But I think it's important to note, especially in the early days, that we the players have a chance to strongly affect the new edition during the playtest. I'm guessing we have between August and October.

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/d57f14a7-a67f-4535-8b6f-626acf59b9cc%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Jackson]

Note that the pdf versions are going to be free.

But I agree its weird. If the playtest is even vaguely real (as opposed to just a marketing ploy) then the physical books are even LESS appealing. If the playtest is real then significant changes should be happening more or less constantly (certainly every month or so), some of which will completely invalidate huge sections of the rules.

Maybe they think that there are lots of people who will want to buy SOMETHING at GenCon?

But as long as I get a free pdf I don't really care all that much.

It's also weird to me that they're planning on selling the Playtest Rulebook. The art and style so far does look quite nice, but buying a rulebook that is intended to go obsolete, particularly a "deluxe hardcover version", seems quite odd.

[Jason Dawe]

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkl9?First-Look-at-the-Pathfinder-Playtest has a few details about changes in PF2

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-5, Henrico Do wrote:

Interesting.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest

[Craig Tierney]

Edit: it's super annoying that I can't actually edit my posts, and have to delete and repost every time I notice I missed soemthing.

It's also weird to me that they're planning on selling the Playtest Rulebook. The art and style so far does look quite nice, but buying a rulebook that is intended to go obsolete, particularly a "deluxe hardcover version", seems quite odd.

Going into a little  bit of analysis, because I've got to much time in my hands, and ignoring all the meaningless buzzwords (more customization, heroic storytelling, etc)

             10th-Level Spells and 4 Spell Lists 

Not sure whether this includes cantrips/0 level spells, as mentioned by JasonS this might just be phasing them out or renaming them. 4 spell lists is interesting, core old pathfinder had 6 class spell lists; bard, cleric, druid, ranger, paladin, and sorcerer/wizard. The simplest interpretation is that rangers/paladins will no longer receive unique spell list and will instead either use a limited version of their "parent" caster classes spell list, or not cast spells at all (and that an extract list is not a spell list).

             Alchemists in Core

Hmm. I am a big fan of alchemists, but I don't really think alchemists add that much extra play options that core classes don't already have. Bombs and mutagen, I guess? The ability to reliably hit touch AC for big damage? It certainly has a different aesthetic than any class except for maybe wizard.

             Archetypes and Multiclassing 

K. I've got problems with all the useless archetypes, but the system is nice. Multiclassing is fun, and I don't think it needs much change at all. No mention of prestige classes, but even outside of society play not many people have ever seemed to care much about them, advancing your class features is a lot more important for most classes than it was in 3.0-3.5. They might show up in the final product, but I think it might actually be a better idea to phase them out of the core rulebook even if they aren't getting removed for good.

             Class Changes 

This tells us absolutely nothing. I'm not sure how to balance classes like wizard or cleric (or even if ttrpgs need "balance" as most people think about it), but hopefully they give rogue, monk and fighter some of the nice things they got from archetypes/alternate class features/unchained.

             Combat Maneuvers that Rock

Again, this doesn't actually tell us anything. One of the things that I dislike about combat maneuvers is that you need to spec into them if you want them to be viable at low levels outside of total joke encounters, and you need to proper twink out if you want to use them at higher levels.

             Goblin Player Characters 

I don't care much either way, but some people will like this and some people will consider this a bad thing. If Paizo replaced gnomes or halflings and tried to make golarion a bit less default fantasy that might be cool, but I doubt that that's going to happen.

             Innovative Initiative

No details at all again. I do wonder if they might go for something different than the standard d20 initiative system. I hope they don''t actually stray too far, high initiative modifiers are good enough in normal pathfidner without going for something like, for example, shadowrun, where initiative scores determine how much you can act in a round.

             New Background System 

This tells us that there will be a background system included in the new core. I hope that Paizo can find a balance between background traits from Pathfinder and themes from Starfinder. Aside from the +1 to a stat, most of the themes are super general. Traits, on the other hand, (can) have a lot more of a connection to the setting and your characters backstory. Even combat traits like reactionary, usually less infomrative than setting or social traits, imply some specific things about your character. I don't mind more general background systems like themes or dnd 5es's backgrounds, but I'd like a bit more ability to tinker with it.

             Race Changes and Feats 

Since we don't know what these changes are, this tells us nothing. Hopefully they get rid of the "mandatory" feats; power attack, weapon finnese, point blank shot>precise shot, and so forth. They did remove weapon finnese in Starfinder. I'd also like it if they tried to make feats all have a similar power level, without making most of them rather boring, which is (in my opinion) what ended up happening to feats in Starfinder.

             Rebalanced Magic Items 

Hopefully they phase out mandatory belt of X/headband of x/cloak of resistance. Beyond that, no details means speculation isn't very useful.

             Simplified Actions

Maybe this is just because I was used to 3.x, which was super inconsistent, but 1 standard (that can be used as a move), 1 move, 1 swift (that can be used as an immediate outside of your turn) isn't to complicated. Free actions can be a bit confusing sometimes, true, but that's really the only area that I've ever foudn anything less than crystal clear. I would say I hope paizo doesn't "dumb it down", but I'm not actually certain how it could be. Starfidner changed what you could do with your actions, but if i recall correctly it still didn't actually change what actions a player can take each turn.

             Streamlined Proficiencies

Hmm. Simple>Melee>Exotic and Light>Medium>Heavy isn't that complicated, is it? Once again, no idea what they're going to change in this area, and I'm not really sure how they could "streamline" it further. Remove medium armor?

Also, while maintaining a single unified artstyle is nice, and I'd love it if it was feasible to have one artist per supplement, but Wayne Reynolds art isn't a selling point Paizo.

[Craig Tierney]

summarizing the link jason d posted

instead of race, you select ancestry. this covers "where you come from, and basic statistics"

then you select background, which is how you were raised and what you did before becoming an adventurer

then you pick your class

each choice affects starting ability scores, gives you different proficiencies and trained skills, and opens up feat chains

you also decide skill proficiencies (??), pick an ancestry feat, buy gear, and decide on class options

then you figure out your bonuses, which are based on a uniform system of proficiency, based on the characters level (that sounds familiar)

the game has three compenents

encounter mode, measured in seconds, combat

exploration mode, measured in minutes and hours, represtnting travel, investigation, and similar activities. exploration mode is the most flexible mode of play

downtime, meausered in days, allowing time to flow passin an instnat

what you do in exploration mode effects how encounter mode will commence

encounter mode begins with rolling initiative 

initiative rolls are skill rolls (perception and stealth are the listed options), and what you decide to roll can give other effects than turn order (you can draw a weapon or look for magic using perception, you can hide before combat begins with stealth)

you get three actions on your turn

most things (moving, drawing a weapon, attacking) take one action

most spells take two, with some exceptions (magic missile costs 1-3 actions, you get 1 missile per action spent)

between turns, you get one reaction

an attack of oppurtunity is a reaction

monsters and classes can do wierd things with reactions (a red dragon can redirect fire spells cast near it)

monsters have lest strict construction formulas based off type and hd

they get (automatically?) statted based on their rough level, and role in the game

2 different 7th level creatures should be able to play very differently at the table (well, of course they should?)

this should allow them to give monsters unique abilities and tactics and worry less about statting out every little detail (hp, ac, touch ac, flatfooted ac, fort, ref, will, skills, cmb, cmd, and so on and so forth)

for example,a t rex that gets you in its jaws can spend an action to fling you 20 ft through the air and deal a bunch of damage

hazards should be more important

rangers can create snares 

traps will be a threat to the lives of characters

poisons, diseases, and curses should all be more serious and have varied effects

magic items are important

you'll still need good armor and a powerful weapon, but you shouldn't need a bunch of trinkets to boost savees/scores

you'll be finding and making magic items that give you new things you can do

...considerer me tentatively excited, expecting disappointment

[Jason Dawe]

Having skill proficiencies instead of skill ranks + "one unified system of proficiency, based on your character's level" sounds almost identical to how D&D 5e does skills.

[Craig Tierney]

As I said, it sounds rather familiar.

[Craig Tierney]

multiple attack actions in a turn gives a penalty to hit

mark seifter and a couple other paizo employees have been playing damage control for people who are still super opposed to change, while simultaneously drip feeding information

of note:

the ability to increase your skills as suits your vision is fundamental to their "goal of empowering you to make choices", but raising things up skill rnak by skill rank are likely going to be left behind

feats may (or may not) work in a different way than in 3.p, and should generally be providing more options. skill feats have been mentioned numerous times in a positive light

apparently mark seifter has, in an in-house playtest game, been playing a character which, with existing options and the new action economy, functions similar to how many magus characters play

also, from the FAQ

[Valeros, for example, has a shield now, and Harsk will more often appear wielding two melee weapons instead of his trusty crossbow]

Hahahahahaha!

[Craig Tierney]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/82j4ua/glass_cannon_crew_sits_down_for_the_first_ever/dvarlin/

For those interested, this post in the pathfinder reddit has a full breakdown of all the info from the recording a podcast did of them having a go at the playtest. No idea if it's the same version we'll be getting our hands on in August.

[JasonS]

Even if the new version is "perfect", there are several problems with it:

1) Character creation options will be limited since we're "back to basics". There are a lot of classes and races I still want to play, so for me, this sucks.

2) Limited scenarios. Like Starfinder, there will only be so many scenarios available. So limited options at conventions. Evergreens will help but it's still not like having 10 seasons of scenarios behind you.

3) Teaching new players the game. It's awkward now to introduce people to the game when it's about to change so much and if they buy anything, will have limited use. I just bought my brother Beginner Box and now it's feeling like a waste seeing as it's redundant in a year.

I can see 1E being played at conventions for the next 2 years. At least, this is what I hope.

Yeah, I don't want to see them mess with skills, it's one of my favorite parts of the system.

[Paul Jackson]

They're at least claiming that it is almost trivial to run old scenarios with the new rules. Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it too. If nothing else, that requires that the power curve remain approximately the same (presumably, characters will be about the same power as moderately optimized martial characters ( In one of their FAQs they came close to admitting that there IS a Caster/Martial disparity problem :-) ;-))

If that actually happens the transition will be nicer. Lots of old material run with the new rules.

In fairness, it IS time for a new edition. 

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/1d90c4d2-f018-4e57-a49b-7c0530e893f3%40googlegroups.com.

[Craig Tierney]

It is supposedly possible to mimic classes like the magus with core PF2 material, which you couldn't really do in core PF1. If thats true, then the core material has enough depth that I wouldn't mind waiting a while for "weird stuff".

Given that PF1 will no longer be getting new first party material come Gencon 2019, I'd like to imagine they plan on at least releasing scenarios at the updated "we fucked up" Starfinder release speed.

I'm not a huge fan of the SWS/dnd5e skill system that comes to mind when I hear skill proficiencies (well, comes to mind after thinking briefly about me and a couple of friends failed attempts to play a relatives copy of, iirc, adnd 2nd). I like variety, and like being able to decide how much I want to invest in a thing, and focus on non traditional skillsets for my class (my numerous no charisma beatsticks usually invest in diplomacy regardless, for example). On the other hand, I do think the way that the 3.p handles it isn't super great either. Ranks are often the least important part of a skills make up, because your wizard's got a familair and a feat and a magic item that makes him leagues better than the fighter who has been investing one of his few skill points each level. A bunch of skills (climb, swim, escape artist) become more and more useless as levels grow higher, and some of them start out that way (appraise). If you think about PFS scenarios from about level 5 up, skill checks are (usually) either a joke or ridiculously hard. With a well built bardic/rougish type in your party skill checks become almost pointless. There's defintly going to be some degree of "investment" into skills (and maybe also specific weapons and armor) based on the mention of levels of proficiency, but since the playtest so far was people playing with 1st level pregens its to soon to say if it's better or worse than ranks.

[Craig Tierney]

another blog post went up, covering the action system

most things in the game take one of your three actions (attacking, opening doors, drawing a weapon, pulling out a potion, drinking a potion, moving, readying a shield)

you can take any combination of actions you want

you can still ready action

alchemists can have the ability to draw multiple items with a single action

iterative attacks have -5/-10 penalties

readying a shield boosts your ac

spells take different amounts of actions based on the spell, usually at least two

reactions are different than immediate actions

what reactions you can take is based on your class, your feats, and possibly other factors

if you have a shield readied, and you get hit by an attack, you can reduce the damage by the shields hardness

attacks of opportunity are no longer universal. fighters learn to take them as part of their class, some other unnamed class can spend a feat to get the ability to take them, and other classes can invest a bit more (feats?) to get access to them. no information on whether monsters can take them

monsters can do weird reactions. an earth elemental can turn to rocks and drop into the ground as a reaction (no information on what mechanical effect this has)

I'm very curious as to what a round of combat is going to look like in PF2, what class based reactions people will have, and if there will be any reactions that are standard. if you can't punish people running away from you this will be a very very different game, and in theory that's kind of cool

[JasonS]

Well, I'm glad they're changing actions from what we had, it's almost impossible to teach it to kids (I'm already telling them they can have 2 actions per round...) and even some veterans who only play once every few months still get confused. So this is great.

Attacks of opportunity are also confusing. In the Beginner's Box, they don't exist. It simplifies the game. I can't see how monsters won't have that ability though. You're right, it will be weird.

[Lucian Carter]

I'm considering just playing until the changeover then walking away for good.

Any word on what happens to the core campaign? I assume it switches too?

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:20 AM, 'JasonS' via OntarioPFS <ontar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Well, I'm glad they're changing actions from what we had, it's almost impossible to teach it to kids (I'm already telling them they can have 2 actions per round...) and even some veterans who only play once every few months still get confused. So this is great.

Attacks of opportunity are also confusing. In the Beginner's Box, they don't exist. It simplifies the game. I can't see how monsters won't have that ability though. You're right, it will be weird.

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/9370590a-5bc3-4758-aaa4-b5f4c88dc9a5%40googlegroups.com.

[JasonS]

Everything will be core in version 2. :)

For the version 1, they will continue letting us play and report. I'm going to guess that for the 1st year, it will be a 50/50 split between V1 and V2. I certainly will be playing V1 quite a bit, I have several character classes I want to play and things to try.

I can't imagine giving up roleplaying just because of a system change. Been playing 40 years, 20+ systems at least. V2 of Pathfinder will be great and we can enjoy V1 for awhile longer too. This is the best hobby.

[Lucian Carter]

I didn't mean I'd give up RPGs altogether...

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/2bd00d1f-6cb2-4d63-acfb-42db0917839f%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Jackson]

I haven't seen anything on the Core Campaign but I'd guess that they'd just let it run in the background like the FE one. No reason at all not to. 

But I'd also imagine it would very quickly die a natural death as nobody would bother running or playing it.

Unless, of course, PF2 is sufficiently divisive that it loses a lot of players.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/CAAW_CErUqYWD7coPrMuPgWTbO5zGV%3D%2BSs7bOimHjjxw8oGiKtw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Craig Tierney]

There is a lot of people who are upset, but a most of them are talking about Paizo "dumbing down" and all the content they've purchased being invalidated. I doubt that there's that much crossover between them and people who'd be playing Core only PFS.

[Craig Tierney]

Haven't really been taking the time to update with every post, because the class and race posts feed tidbits instead of rule changes, but the blog post on spells is interesting.

Spells take some combination of Verbal Casting, Somatic Casting, and Material Casting (it's mentioned that the most common combination is Verbal and Somatic, which takes up 2 actions). You can meet those requirements in different ways depending on your class; the Material component can be met by holy symbols for clerics, sorcerers can use their blood as a component, and bards can change up aspects (it's unclear precisely what this means) of spells by using different instruments as components.

Heightening spells is a thing, although metamagic in general is not confirmed, and it isn't a PF1st metamgic thing. It should be effective with all spells, and I quote "replace the need to learn long chains of spells that are incrementally different and each require you to refer back to the original spell". In the playtest we'll likely have a system, similar to how Starfidner spells scale, replacing the Cure/Inflict chains and the polymorph subschool chains. As was mentioned in previous playtest peaks, level interaction between spells matters; high level illusions are harder to detect/effect with spells like detect magic or dispel magics. Creatures with constantly active spell affects that would give immunity to certain types of spells will apparently be able to be affected by high level heightened spells. Two examples of heightened spells are given: magic missile can be heightened up to 15 missiles, and animal form (likely the name for the all-in-on version of beast shape) can be used to turn yourself into a huge animal while.

Cantrips are still free to cast, and again taking a cue from D&D 5th edition, scale with level, counting as the highest spell elves you can cast. Two examples are given; a 5th level ray of frost is a 3rd level spell and deals more damage, while light is better at countering magical darkness.

All those 3+casting stat class abilities (domain powers, school abilities, bloodline powers, and apparently a couple of "similar abilities") have been standardized. These powers are now a unique type of spell, and you cast them with a "new" resource called Spell Points. This does sound a bit dumb, but it's mentioned that certain abilities will be able to have extra Spell Points put into them to be more effective, and classes will be getting new abilities that scale off them.

10th level spells are basically taking the old super 9th level spells like miracle or wish, "balanced" by GM discretion and expensive material costs, and putting them on a higher tier (of classification, they don't imply they're amking formerly 9th level spells more powerful). They lsit two new 10th level spells, and give basically no details: fabricated truth, and nature incarnate. The latter spell maybe can act as some sort of debuff that immediately zaps the targets mental stats down to 1 if they critically fail a save.

Rituals from Occult adventures are coming back, as a downtime specific thing. They'll let characters with no spell slots, who have high ranks in magic related skills, cast spells. You can do a ressurection ritual, or a planar binding ritual. You can fail or critically fail (and presumably succeed or critically succeed) rituals, and if you fail bad shit happens (critically failing planar binding summons someone a bignasty that tries to kill you).

A couple of example spells are given:

Heal is a 1st level (healing, positive energy, necromancy) spell.
It heals 1d8+your casting modifier hp, or does that sane damage to an undead target.
You can cast it at touch range as a somatic spell (touch attack required to hit undead), from 30 feet away as a somatic/verbal spell (undead makes a Fortitude save, standard PF2nd saving rules applies),  and as a 30 foot aura that targets all living/undead creatures, and only heals/deals damage equal to your spellcasting ability score modifier.
You can heighten it +1, which increases the healing or damage by 1d8 per level, or by 2d8 per level if you're healing with the 1 or 2 action versions.

Heighten +1 means you can heighten it up to as high a spell level as you can cast.

Regenerate is a 7th level (healing, necromancy) spell.
Somatic and verbal casting, range of touch, targets one living creature, lasts one minute.
The target gets regeneration 15, healing 15 hp at the start of each turn, and while the spell lasts they can't die from damage, and their dying value (whatever that is) can't exceed 3. Fire or acid damage deactivates the regeneration until the end of the targets next turn.
You can heighten it to a 9th level spell, which increases the regeneration to 20.

They also debuted a new spell

Vampiric Exsanguination is a 6th level (death, necromancy, negative) spell.
Somatic and verbal casting, 30 ft cone
Do a cool sweeping motion with your hands, deal 10d6 damage to all creatures in the area of the cone, gain temporary HP (lasts 1 minute) equal to half the damage you rolled if at least one creature takes damage. Standard PF2nd save rules apply, the specific save isn't listed.
You can heighten it +2 to increase damage by 3d6

They also name a bunch of new spells: Alter reality,Collective transposition, Crusade, Disappearance, Divine inspiration, Duplicate foe, Energy aegis, Mariner's curse, Moment of renewal, Moon frenzy, Nature's enmity, Primal phenomenon, Punishing winds, Revival, Soothe, Spellwrack, Spiritual epidemic, Spiritual guardian, Tangling creepers, and Unfathomable song.

So yeah, this all seems like good quality of life improvements. Heightening spells saves space in the rulebooks. Splitting 9th level spells up doesn't affect the level of play I play at in or out of PFS, so I don't care much. Scaling cantrips increases power of casters a bit, but it should only really make them a bit more useful after burning all their spell slots.

[JasonS]

I went to Origins and I did the 2 hour demo and the 5 hour scenario (Revenge on Rose Street) and the new edition seems to be really good and very familiar to anyone that knows how to play Pathfinder as well. It was only 1st level and didn't cover character creation, but it was still straightforward.

My main concerns are they nerfing the low levels too much and only giving "fun stuff" to the higher levels.

It will be interesting to go more in depth into character creation and upper level play (levels 7-15). For now low level play seems fine, actually more than fine, I love how even a standard monster like zombies play out now, so much fun!

[Paul Jackson]

There will be level 1 and 5 scenarios at Gen Con. My plan is to run all of the available scenarios at Fan Expo. In case people were curious 😃😃

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/cef44908-f680-4d69-bc70-876ab7160343%40googlegroups.com.

[Craig Tierney]

...that's pretty bad news, at least to me. One of the problems with Pathfinder is low level play being a huge chore, and not being able do to do anything cool until I sink a bunch of time into a character. Having to take a bunch of useless feats and skill ranks to get actually useful feats is one example. Having to wait till second level to draw a weapon as you move doesn't really make the game any more fun; having slight advantages in combat over 3/4 and lower bab characters doesn't make playing a full bab character more fun.

[JasonS]

When I said the low levels are nerfed, I wasn't talking about basic things like drawing a sword and moving, but only if your BAB is +1 (like in the current game). You can still do all of the basic things in version 2, in some ways they give you more power because of things like:

- Finesse is no longer a feat, you just need to use a finesse weapon to use Dex instead of Str to hit

- Everyone has Perception

I was complaining more about stuff like monks need to use a feat to learn monk weapons now. But who knows, maybe at 1st level they give you 3 monk feats and there are more options now? It just seems like some of the things classes could do at 1st level are now feats.

Another example is alchemists. For a bomb throwing alchemist it seems like the things I could do at 1st level take a lot of feats and it isn't until 5th level they are on par. I remember Rogue getting Debillitating Strike at 7th level as well.

I think we should wait until the playtest to jump to any conclusions. If classes are too nerfed in the playtest, then you should scream about it. I know I plan to.

[Paul Jackson]

I have been paying next to no attention to 2nd edition so the following may be totally out of whack.

One of the major differences between 5th edition and 3rd edition is that in 5th edition, despite there being 20 levels, the levels are really MUCH flatter than in Pathfinder. Level 1 and 2, especially, are "trainee" levels for inexperienced players. Experienced players are apparently expected to start at level 3 and NOT level 1. And the power spread is much, much less with there being WAY less difference between level 1 and level 20 than in Pathfinder.

I get the fairly strong impression that second edition Pathfinder is quite deliberately and consciously "being inspired" by lots of things from 5th edition.

So, level 1 MAY be kind of like L0 in Pathfinder and L5 more like L3 or so :-).

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/622de05b-cb7a-4b57-94c0-df530ced20f2%40googlegroups.com.

[JasonS]

I think you are right Paul. The designer basically said they are making it easier for people to learn and start playing Pathfinder, incorporating the lessons they learned from the Beginner Box, D&D 5E, Unchained, and Starfinder.

For example, at low levels I don't think there are many monsters with attacks of opportunity, and no PCs.

Everything is simplified, in a good way. For example, you know how at high level, when you're at 5 hit points, you'd rather be unconscious because the next hit is going to kill you? Well that's fixed.

So you might be right about starting at level 3, but the thing is, in PFS they will start us at level 1. I wonder if the intention is to play until level 20? I think it is, I just wonder if PFS will support it. So many questions...

[Paul Jackson]

I find the fact that they have level 1 AND level 5 scenarios at Gencon (and at Fanexpo :-)) interesting. Kind of vaguely implies to me that they expect those levels to play significantly differently AND that you need to get to level 5 BEFORE things play dfferently.

In Pathfinder 1, I'd probably choose level 1 and 3. I wouldn't inflict L5 on brand new players playing with brand new GMs. The fact that they're willing to speaks volumes as to how simple Paizo thinks the game.

Of course, I have next to no confidence in Paizos ability to actually create good games :-(. I am firmly of the opinion that they have exactly one employee (Mark Seifter) who ACTUALLY understands how Pathfinder 1 works :-).

And Starfinder has lots and lots of totally unnecessary fiddly bits and foolish inconsistencies. The more I play it the less happy I get with it :-(

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/1d02e9a2-57e3-4dee-b2c8-24be7dd2e486%40googlegroups.com.

[JasonS]

Interestingly, it was Mark Seifter who did my demo. He's a very smart and capable guy.

I don't know, I think Pathfinder is a pretty good game considering we've been playing it for 10 years now. :-)

Pathfinder 2E stays more true to Pathfinder than it does to Starfinder, so there is hope. At least level 1 is good?? lol

The way I see the playtest is the way I see voting. If you don't vote, you don't get to complain who is in power. If you don't give them feedback in the 1st two months of the playtest, you don't get to complain about how the system turns out. 

I'm sure your Starfinder feedback would be valuable to them.

[Craig Sutherland]

Hey guys, I used to play PFS regularly back in the heyday of OPFS. It's been a long time since I have been out as I have stuck to mostly home games now. I just wanted to pop in and say that I also went to Origins this year and got to play the demo and the Rose Street Revenge Scenario (mine was run by Jon Compton).

I also play a lot of 5e, and while there are definitely a number of "similarities" and obvious cues taken from there, there is also a lot to set it apart in my experience so far. It still felt like Pathfinder to me, and there felt like there was a lot of options. Although we played pre-gens, I got the impression that there is a lot of customization to be had. The main thing I wanted to address though is re: the power level between level 1 and 20. In 5e Paul Is right, the math is much flatter and there isn't a huge increase in power from a numbers perspective. However in PF2 their intention is to have a similar power level increase as seen in PF1. They say they want to go for the more heroic feeling of having powerful high level characters represented by higher numbers.

That said, there was a number of 5e-isms that were plainly noticeable (they had something that boiled down to a limited version of advantage and disadvantage) and even some parts reminded me of D&D 4e surprisingly. HOWEVER! It is important to note that it still felt like Pathfinder to me so far, and I am optimistic about the direction it is going. Like Paul noted though, I think there are some things that they have included in the playtest that they have no intention of changing. You can hear how defensive they get on certain subjects in their numerous panels they have done since PF2 was announced. Time will tell of course, but given that they are printing these playtest books, I doubt we will see iterative updates to the playtest like was done with 5e. Here's hoping they are able to get something together in the end!

Off topic, I have been considering lately about coming out to PFS in Toronto. How is the scene looking right now? Will 401 continue to be a location for PFS play after their move later this month?

On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 18:09:45 UTC-5, Henrico Do wrote:

Interesting.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest

[Engineremy]

Hi Craig,

Awesome to hear the Playtest is coming across as both easy to play and uniquely Pathfinder. I am eager to get started. For those of you who are not aware, we have a Facebook group for the Toronto playtesters... check it out below. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/209925656419999/

Regarding 401 Games, I am hoping Paul can weigh in what's happening re The Future of Gaming at 401 Games. Your posting here was actually the first I've heard... I am running PFS at Sword & Board (formerly Dueling Grounds) every 4 weeks, although we have had other GMs (go Lauren go!) running just about every week. Turn out has been pretty steady, new faces are becoming regulars, and the incentive for store credit ($5 per GM scenario run!) is great.

Hope to see you out there eventually!

Cheers

Jeremy

[Paul Jackson]

Wrt 401 Games - My current plan is to continue to run games in the new location. If that doesn't work, my backup plan is to see if we can play at Sword and Board on Tuesdays.

Wrt Pathfinder 2 :

1) We are currently planning on running all 3 playtest scenarios at Fan Expo. Drop by :-)

2) I certainly hope to run at least 1 or 2 (ideally all 3) session 0 runs of the 3 before Fan Expo. Times and dates TBD. As session 0, obviously the people scheduled to run PF2 at Fan Expo will get priority but there aren't that many of us so we'll definitely be looking for others to fill the tables

i

--

For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/bf04aadc-311e-4802-a3e1-d2b4ecb512a1%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Unterberger]

I would love to be part of the Playtest session 0. It would be great to get a feel of the new version. I will surely also be at Fan Expo for at least one day so ill be glad to join there aswell.

let me know.

-Mark (squidmarx)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/bf04aadc-311e-4802-a3e1-d2b4ecb512a1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/CAAj_9GfVorfiaQfOraZo4zWxn_2oTjaeDLbRh98f7MbrpA28UA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Engineremy]

It has begun!!!

[Craig Tierney]

There's a couple interesting ideas here and there, but whew lad. Most race feats are just the stuff races used to get at 1st level drawn out over a characters entire career humans are still the best race,  most class feats are terrible so you'll see hordes of similar builds because people don't want to pick bad options, and general and skill feats are mostly both bland and almost useless (it gives off the impression paizo thought feats like Athletic and Alertness were good). A lot of spells have been nerfed, but most of the level 15 legendary skill feats still are easily replicated by a much lower level caster, giving you bonuses like  a climb speed, or a swim speed, or the ability to digusie yourself as a full round action. I think how weapons fucntion is a bit better, but heavier armours are a lot worse than they used to be, and to hit doesn't seem to have scaled down to match.

[Paul Jackson]

Still reading and processing it.

I like some and dislike some. They've made some things MORE complicated and gnarly which seems a bad idea. Concealment, for example. Or Crits on a super success meaning that you can no longer just note that you hit, you always have to check if you critted

Hate fumbles.

Like spell nerfing.

Not yet sure about bounded accuracy, need to play some

Definitely they're reducing the overall power level which is probably a good thing

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:39 PM Craig Tierney, <petissedi...@gmail.com> wrote:

There's a couple interesting ideas here and there, but whew lad. Most race feats are just the stuff races used to get at 1st level drawn out over a characters entire career humans are still the best race,  most class feats are terrible so you'll see hordes of similar builds because people don't want to pick bad options, and general and skill feats are mostly both bland and almost useless (it gives off the impression paizo thought feats like Athletic and Alertness were good). A lot of spells have been nerfed, but most of the level 15 legendary skill feats still are easily replicated by a much lower level caster, giving you bonuses like  a climb speed, or a swim speed, or the ability to digusie yourself as a full round action. I think how weapons fucntion is a bit better, but heavier armours are a lot worse than they used to be, and to hit doesn't seem to have scaled down to match.

--

For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/a999837c-7f99-4649-96b4-59aa183c41f5%40googlegroups.com.

[Nicholas Dawe]

Had a quick scroll through the playtest rulebook and whilst there's a couple cool ideas namely the barbarian totems (especially the improved titan mauler) and the paladin retributive strike imo nothing here legitimizes a new "edition" most of this could have been added through archetypes and maybe an unchained 2 book. It will take a closer look for any real judgements of course but...

TL:DR cool ideas but not worth a whole new game

P.S. Rogues got nerfed HARD (despite being a weak class already) and fighters are still boring

On Thursday, 2 August 2018 09:15:30 UTC-4, Engineremy wrote:

It has begun!!!

[Nicholas Dawe]

oh and correct me if im wrong theres no mutliclassing...if im right that alone makes it a hard sell for me.

[Jason Dawe]

Page 279. It more like variant multiclassing from Unchained than anything else.

[Paul Jackson]

I actually like the multiclassing. It seems a reasonably elegant solution. I disliked 3,5 where you "had" to take a different class every level or 2 to remain competitive :-).

Also makes the game substantially simpler and Class A/Secondary Class B really does do a good job of creating lots of character types.

--

For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/e3ec9940-ded0-4cb1-82b3-b85cb1a79108%40googlegroups.com.

[Geoffrey Peart]

I’ve run it twice now, and I think my first impression is that it really isn’t an easy step from current but a true edition change. To much changed in play and rules to be dismissbale as something small. Now that most of us are happy with pathfinder as is doesn’t nessessarily make that good, but it is different. 

It also explicitly pushes back on GMs a lot of work that might have been implicitly GM work to begin with but we let players do. All the skill checks marked “secret” are now the domain of the GM to roll. 

It also can get crunchy with stuff like dents for damaging objects. I actually like the feel of the mechanic but it is crunchy, especially the shield block. 

The DCs for checks in the material I ran can be ambiguous, like what are basic DCs for climbing a wall for example. 

I find the spell casters feel more powerful earlier but are resource limited, and the other classes feel closer in power in to the wizard then they did before. Like the game has more balance (again your opinion of if that is good or bad is thing may vary). 

I do really  like the new initiative approach, the idea that there were modes of play was always implicit, not it is explicit, and it lets the transition between them work a whole lot more effectively with variety. 

Overall I think because it is a different game (whose ancestry  shines through) I feel you have to play it to appreciate how it plays, and use the surveys to give feedback. 

Geoff

--

For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/a9866900-c052-431d-8d43-a6162b9ecc9b%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Geoffrey Peart

<cliché remark/>

[Paul Jackson]

Just reading it, not yet run it or played it.

But spell casters still look like they're going to rock. They clearly utterly dominate the "I can do stuff out of combat" game :-). I'm seriously unimpressed with the skill feats right now. 

And, in combat, even nerfed they're still pretty cool. They can spam decent cantrips and when they pull out their big guns (fireball) they're still going to do LOTS more cumulative damage. 

But they're definitely weaker than in PF1 and thats a good thing.

Building a druid I is and seeing how that fares :-)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/CAD_AB6MPLnMzDnhP7rEkxQQCrd%3DAaMH%2BdLHvh1D%2BtxF7FRQGkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JasonS]

Until you've actually playtested, it's very hard to tell anything. Certainly not by glancing at the book.

I haven't made enough characters, leveled enough characters, or actually playtested beyond level 1 to have an opinion. Having said that, I skimmed the monsters and they look very interesting. Like Shadow.

I like the new conditions. I want to test out grappling.

I actually think fighters are much more interesting now with the shield, there is now the role of a tank. With less healing, this role might be just as critical if not more than a healer. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing yet, I want to see how it plays out.

During the level 1 playtest the Rogue certainly did not suck, it was the top damage dealer. We'll see how everything plays out at level 10?

Not sure about the feats being useless, I certainly hope that's not the case because the multi-class feats are far too good (for 4 feats you can cast as a wizard of your level).

Just FYI the multi-classing is pretty powerful and has a lot of people excited, but I'm not one of them. Was never a fan of multi-classing and this version it seems everyone will do it.

I like how everything is streamlined and I think it certainly deserved a new edition. Everything "seems" similar but it has changed significantly. I'm finding I need to read every detail, especially as a GM.

Checking for crit success or crit fails shouldn't be hard, but we'll have to see how it plays out.

I like how easy it is to make a character now, I can do it in a few minutes already.

For campaigns, there is a chance that I'll go back to rolling stats.

Like Paul, I'm also looking forward to trying the Wizard and Druid classes, which is strange because I don't usually like Druids.

Lots of exciting stuff, I've spent most of the day reading and there is a LOT more to go. So far, I'm excited by the changes.

[Paul Jackson]

I completely agree that my current impressions are just that, impressions. Need to playtest.

But I'm pretty sure that my druid, for example, will NOT multiclass. Despite the manifold attractions she will need her druidic class feats more.

My martials very likely WOULD multiclass, just for the extra utility. 

I suspect fighter will be one of the key "multiclass INTO" classes. Lots of goodies to pick up there.

For those who care, I've scheduled a game at S&B a week from tonight :-). Tuesday at 401 seemed a little TOO soon :-)

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/2e6c38fa-d8fe-4d5d-a72d-cc8056706e1a%40googlegroups.com.

[Nicholas Dawe]

Oh i also intend to do some playtesting...thinking ill pop by next thursday as a Gnome Titan Mauler or maybe play a wizard to compare.to my usual

[Engineremy]

I am part-way through creating a Level 1 Cleric. Trying to create a similar character to a Core campaign concept I developed but did not play. Still have a long way to go to form opinions. I am more excited that the game will flow more easily than being able to create a particular character/race/class/feat/spell.

In any event, apart from crunch, one thing that struck me is that the introduction of the book talks a lot about being welcoming of other ages, ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations/identity, etc. as well as making sure that people feel comfortable to play during the game. While those messages have appeared in various forms in previous editions, in the Roleplaying Guild Guide, etc. having it right up front makes a statement. For this reason, I am impressed.

[Paul Jackson]

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:02 AM Engineremy <jer....@gmail.com> wrote:

In any event, apart from crunch, one thing that struck me is that the introduction of the book talks a lot about being welcoming of other ages, ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations/identity, etc. as well as making sure that people feel comfortable to play during the game. While those messages have appeared in various forms in previous editions, in the Roleplaying Guild Guide, etc. having it right up front makes a statement. For this reason, I am impressed.

I partly agree and partly disagree. I'm very unsure about the prohibition from Characters being prejudiced against other characters based on race, ethnicity, etc.

On the one hand, the old "snooty elf who looks down on other races" trope can be quite fun.

On the other hand, I'm white,male, CIS gendered, etc etc etc. So I've never really been on the receiving end of prejudice in real life. It seems quite possible that, if I had been, I wouldn't appreciate being talked down to by the snooty elf anywhere near as much

[Craig Tierney]

It strikes me as odd, and I think it limits the already small RP possibilities in PFS play if you enforce it strictly. A character from Taldor, who is traveling with a character from Qadira, for example, assuming both of them buy into their respective nations politic, will obviously have certain biases and beliefs about the others, and at least in PF1 PFS play I would think it perfectly acceptable for the players to have the characters bicker, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. A lot of the organized non-human races have pretty monolithic cultures, and even aside from that RPG races are very different than real life human "races", given, you know, actual major physical and intellectual differences; but racial stereotypes exist IRL regardless of the lack of those, I suppose.

While NPC sexual preferences comes up occasionally, either because Paizo brings it up or a pc has one of those abilities that only work/work better against beings that can be or are sexually attracted to the pc, I can't recall a time where a player has actually brought up their pc's sexual orientation. Gender come sup in character introductions and when getting rooms at inns, and that's about it.

Personally, I haven't really noticed anything in any PFS games that have made me uncomfortable or remind me of experiences in my personal life, but given the whole incident with Phantasm in February I suppose incidents do occur in our area.

To be honest, more than anything serious, the thing that comes to mind when I think about this, particularly the mention of character race, is "you can't shit on my character just because they're a goblin".

[Engineremy]

My comment, and i feel Paizos intent, is more to do with players being made to feel welcome rather than characters. Players are real people.

Theyre not expecting every party of pcs to be as welcoming as Drizzt, Wulfgar, Cattibrie and thorin (and the halfling whatever his name was). The point is its more important that you consider how the real people at your table are responding to your behaviour (incl your characters actions) because you can have a very real and negative impact on those real people. If you create a character that will naturally have a lot of conflict with other characters (because they are racist, biased, etc) then you have to be very careful about roleplay rolling into real life.

Obviously a character that thinks/acts out that Garundi people should all be enslaved because they are an inferior ethnicity would be raising some pretty high eye brows. However there are all kinds of non visible differences (sexual orientation and identity, mental health and stigma, learning disabilities, it goes on) that people often make biases against. While a white player in the aforementioned example probably would be very cautious if a black player was also at the table, just because you dont see a difference doesnt mean it doesnt exist, and doesnt give you free reign to do whatever you want "because its what my character would do." If those racist hateful characters are out there the heroes should be the ones putting them down, not playing them (at least in organized play).

Maybe thats a bit too Libertys Edge or Silver Crusade for some people but thats my perspective. And im glad Paizo is bringing it to the front of the playtest book. It is a real issue, and ignoring it will only alienate more people.

[Geoffrey Peart]

Jeremy, well said.

I think I just want to add that this message has always been explicit in PFS through the community behaviour policy, now we are just seeing it move from organized play into the product, and probably what is their most important product.

I have a lot of respect for Paizo’s efforts to integrate into their product a broad representation of diversity.

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/21be43f0-ddb3-41b1-a6ed-c04d3fa74fc1%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[JasonS]

I’m on the same page as Paul, but I’ll go a step farther.

 

I think this section is a bit of a joy killer. This think RPGs should focus on fun, not political correctness.

 

Yes, don’t be a jerk. Be considerate of other players. That’s all that needs to be said.

They talk about “racist tropes”. I love doing accents and mannerisms from other cultures/genders/ages/walks of life, and I like hearing other players as well. Geoff does great accents as well. At Origins this one guy had this hilarious Russian accent and made the table great. I think as long as it’s not done in a mocking way (except for French accents, I can’t resist), this is OK. But according to this section, it’s not OK.

 

With regards to content, I think that anyone that is disturbed by content in PFS has something else going on in their life and they would have been disturbed by doing basically anything else. Honestly, the news (and real life) is more disturbing than anything that could be written in a PFS scenario.

 

Also, the following section contradicted itself. It says 

“If another player tells you that your character concept or roleplaying style makes them uncomfortable, … you should simply stop.”

 

But then says:

“People of all identities and experiences have a right to be represented in the game, even if they’re not necessarily playing at your table.”

 

Ugh. That section is so vague that it could mean basically anyone (even the most vile human being on the planet) and directly contradicts everything that was said above it.

 

It also says:

“A roleplaying style in which a player or character is constantly interrupting others or treating certain players or characters with condescension is similarly unacceptable.”

I disagree. Again, it's about not being a jerk. I've seen characters like this, if done mildly, can be entertaining.

Sorry, I think this section is too long and I'm personally not a fan of it. And that's the last that I'll speak of this.

Btw, the playtest document is really hard to read, they changed terminology for no reason, and they have a lot of work to do on PF2.

[Paul Jackson]

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 10:48 AM 'JasonS' via OntarioPFS <ontar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

“A roleplaying style in which a player or character is constantly interrupting others ,,, is similarly unacceptable.”

I disagree. Again, it's about not being a jerk. I've seen characters like this, if done mildly, can be entertaining.

I disagree with some of what you said but I want to very, very explicitly call out  the above.

Interrupting others (players or characters) is NOT acceptable at any table that I run or event that I organize. 

It was recently (quite politely) pointed out to me that one of my flaws as a GM is that I can let some players override others too much. Its an easy trap to fall into (the trap of doing nothing). But I was absolutely, totally wrong to let it happen and I intend to very strongly try to not let it happen again.

Some players are much shyer than other players and can be very easily shut down by the louder and more boisterous players. Speaking as one of the louder and more boisterous players this is a bad thing.

[JasonS]

Yeah you're right, interruption is not good, every player should have a say and have a turn to speak. I make a point of that when I'm GMing. Controlling other players too or telling them what to do is a problem too. Help is OK but when it crosses the line it has to stop.

I was referring to the condescending part of the sentence. Again it needs to mild and tasteful, but it can be fun. But apparently that's badwrongfun now.

Like I was saying, I find this section very negative and not fun, even as your response is negative and yet we agree on the interrupting players aspect. And it threatens to almost completely derail the thread.

This section means well, but I don't like how it was done.

[Jonah Horowitz]

A few thoughts, and a couple of specific responses:

It is very easy for people who have a lot of experience with pen-and-paper roleplaying games (especially those of us who played them before it became widely socially acceptable to do so) to miss the fact that many players, especially new players, will have a great deal of psychological difficulty separating themself from their character. I assume that the vast majority of people commenting in this group have at least a moderate amount of experience with RPGs, and I know that's certainly true of several of the people who have weighed in on this topic (myself included), so I think we need to keep in mind that those of us discussing the matter here are not necessarily a representative sample of people who might want to play PFS and are certainly not a representative sample of the people Paizo wishes would play PFS (i.e. virtually everyone).

The way that people naturally tend to identify with their own characters - especially when they're not yet practiced with the type of selective dissociation most of us learn to do with RPG experience - means that many new players will wind up getting a bad impression of the community and possibly of RPGs entirely if another character in one of their first tables is bigoted towards their character. This sort of reaction is the sort of thing that can only be reduced (in my experience) through long-term positive experiences with the game and community, and I've never seen it significantly mitigated through the person playing the bigoted character explaining to the other player(s) how their character's views don't represent their own views.

This essentially means that, in my view, bigoted characters (and really any significant amount of in-party conflict - verbal or otherwise) should be restricted to home games where the players all know each other reasonably well already.

That said, if you happen to be at a PFS table where everyone already knows each other fairly well and knows that everyone else is comfortable with, for example, the snooty elf character who is bigoted against half-elves, then you also know that nobody will complain if you play that character at that table. Just be aware that if there's anybody you don't know at the table (including the DM), you should probably have a different character ready.

I think Jeremy said it very well: "If you create a character that will naturally have a lot of conflict with other characters (because they are racist, biased, etc) then you have to be very careful about roleplay rolling into real life."

Craig: Yes, roleplaying opportunities are few and far between when it comes to PFS scenarios, but that is a necessity of the format. Every scenario has to work reasonably well with almost any party of characters, and has to approximately fill 4 hours - this means that most actions your character takes could have also been taken by a character with a completely different personality (so you can't do much to roleplay through actions), and the amount of between-PC chatter will be significantly limited by time (so you can't do much to roleplay through dialogue with other player characters). I don't mean to sound down on society play here, but if you're looking for a wide variety of roleplaying experiences, you need a format which either places significant requirements on party composition or allows for significant variability in length of play, and PFS scenarios can't do either of those things.

Jason: I don't think they're saying it's badwrongfun, I think they're saying it doesn't work well in a socially open format that welcomes new players of differing backgrounds and sensibilities. In other words you need to know it'll be fun for everyone who is actually involved before it becomes acceptable fun in those circumstances.

[JasonS]

Could we take that topic to another thread? I won't be addressing it here anymore.

[JasonS]

Important question. Has anyone understood how PF2 will work in PFS without a healer?

In their blogs, they were telling us how they were healing their party with only a barbarian who had the medicine skill. Looking at the rulebook, I don't know how that was possible.

These are the only ways to heal I've found:

1) Rest (8 hours): 1+ CON MOD per day per level

2) Medicine skill: With the Battle Medic feat, 1d10 + WIS MOD damage per day on a DC 20 check (wow bad).

3) Nature skill: With the Natural Medicine feats, 1d8 + WIS MOD damage per day on a DC 20 check.

4) Multi-classing into cleric for 2 feats so you can use CLW wands for Resonance (level + CHR MOD) times per day (minus any magic items you have) for 1d8+1 damage. Wands only have 10 charges now and are relatively expensive (double the cost before).

There is no UMD either from what I've seen.

I thought there was a "short rest" mechanic similar to 5E (or so I've heard), but I haven't seen anything.

Is anyone has seen anything, I'd like to know.

[Jason Dawe]

There's been a post-Gen Con rules update (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vawh?Post-Gen-Con-Update)

• All PCs are trained in being unarmored
  
• Both Alchemists and Druids should be trained in 3 skills (+ Int Mod) each (instead of 2 and 4 respectively). 
  
• Alchemists can use Quick Alchemy for any alchemical item in their formula book.

[Craig Tierney]

The first point is good, previously Mage Armour was a bit trash, since nobody but monks had unarmored training, meaning your AC with it would be calculated as the ten base plus (scaling bonus here) plus Dex mod, minus two for being untrained, so .

[Engineremy]

After last nights game, we had the following general comment. if you dont have a printed copy, it would help to print off the following sections from the Rulebook: skills, actions, and conditions.

Obviously indivial pcs should have their own abilities, feats, spells, etc readily available.

[Paul Jackson]

For what its worth,I'll be printing about 36 pages of stuff and bringing those pages to games from now on

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:07 PM Engineremy <jer....@gmail.com> wrote:

After last nights game, we had the following general comment.  if you dont have a printed copy, it would help to print off the following sections from the Rulebook: skills, actions, and conditions.

Obviously indivial pcs should have their own abilities, feats, spells, etc readily available.

--
For game/event sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/greater-toronto-pfs
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OntarioPFS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontariopfs+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontariopfs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontariopfs/e96c138a-f251-4f13-98e4-da2fa5c40661%40googlegroups.com.