Pathfinder 2 Release

[malloc]

Pathfinder 2 was released yesterday, and all the materials are hosted for free online, with the publisher's blessing.

You can find all the relevant information here:

http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx

Here's a good summary of the basic overview of the system (not my work):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2...erent_from_5e/

While the comparison is from 5e to PF2, I think it highlights most of the core features of the system that I've read through so far.

I've gone through most of the rules so far, and I'm loving it. In particular, I'm a fan of action point systems, of which this is one; multi-layered hit-points (HP and "wounds", which act as a sort of counter for how many times you run out of HP); and the more flexible 'multiclassing' options they've brought in.

I haven't made it through the classes or spell lists yet, but so far it looks super promising.

[stack]

My first impression is that the framework seems solid and has a lot of interesting design space to work in (3-action system, condition tracts, etc.), but so many of the individual abilities you get to fill in a character look minor/trivial. I have not really encountered many feats of any type that make me want to build for them. Spend a focus point to increase healing to a creature by a small amount. Heal yourself 1 HP/spell level when healing someone else. Medicine to heal someone in combat, 1/day per target. Lots of small bonuses and level gating.

[NomGarret]

My first impression is that the framework seems solid and has a lot of interesting design space to work in (3-action system, condition tracts, etc.), but so many of the individual abilities you get to fill in a character look minor/trivial. I have not really encountered many feats of any type that make me want to build for them. Spend a focus point to increase healing to a creature by a small amount. Heal yourself 1 HP/spell level when healing someone else. Medicine to heal someone in combat, 1/day per target. Lots of small bonuses and level gating.

My thoughts exactly. While plenty of things changed over the course of the play test, (resonance, proficiency scaling, etc) the one thing I really wanted was abilities that were ... cool. And a lot of the level-gating and somewhat arbitrary niche protection pushes things in the opposite direction. I haven’t had a chance to look too deeply at the finished product, but that’s where I want to see improvement over what we were shown before. Otherwise I’ll wait until other products realize the potential the system really has.

[Divine Susuryu]

... so many of the individual abilities you get to fill in a character look minor/trivial.

... a lot of the level-gating and somewhat arbitrary niche protection...

That was my impression during the playtest too, although the playtest was in a much worse position in terms of how little the Untrained/Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary levels were differentiated numerically. Generally, I see no use case for this game over any other - not even 5e, which was my previous "no use case game". I also don't agree it's somewhat arbitrary - I think it's entirely arbitrary. Niche protection is something that should be done at the table level, not the system level.

[ThatMoonGuy]

I can see some good third party taking this system and making something interesting with it. As it is, however, I don't think there's much point to 2e. Sure, you need to make a lot of choices when creating your character but those choices aren't exactly what I'd call 'good'. Most skill and general feats aren't exactly great and the class feats, while arguably better, are given out at a very sparse progression. It also doesn't help that multiclassing is very feat intensive.

[StevenC21]

I personally don't much like the new action system. I understand the flexibility, but I still prefer the d20 style.

[Eldonauran]

I remain critical of the new system until I have had a chance to really play it. However, starting from the point of just viewing it as a new game system, it is quite good. Everything seems fairly clean cut and, even with the mutliclass archetypes, every class has something going for it that makes it fun to play. I especially LOVE that the sorcerer can access either of the four casting spell lists. Bard = occult, Cleric = divine, Druid = primal, Wizard = Arcane, ... Sorcerer = um, you pick!

I've already reviewed most of the classes in detail and the spell lists. I havent run too much into the pure combat mechanics and status effects, but I've already seen quite a few interesting combination of abilities that get my attention as a player who enjoys being versatile.

As for races, I kind of like what they did with each of them. Don't like the goblin being a starting race but that's just personal preference, so I won't judge the system based on that at all.

[Kurald Galain]

My first impression is that the framework seems solid and has a lot of interesting design space to work in (3-action system, condition tracts, etc.), but so many of the individual abilities you get to fill in a character look minor/trivial.

While that is certainly true, bear in mind that it is also the case for 5E, 4E, and even 3E. Yes, an expert forum like this knows where to find the non-trivial 3E abilities, but frankly most of 3E's feats are pretty minor/trivial too.

Overall I'd say it looks fairly solid; I like the three-action and crit/fumble system, and there are some standout abilities like how dwarves push people around, halflings heal faster by eating food, and paladins get to counterattack each time an ally is attacked. I probably won't be playing this any time soon because none of my groups have an interest in switching, but yeah, there's a lot of tactical depth here and the gameplay appears faster.

[Segev]

The "the power choices are all kind-of lackluster" complaint puts me in mind of what I dislike about d20 modern. Is that a valid comparison? d20 modern is...bland.

One of the big strengths of 5e, I think, is that they were unafraid to make some really cool, powerful-seeming abilities that were handed to various subclasses. Malleable Illusions, the Conjuror's item-creation, Telepathy from Awakened Mind, the Zealot's ability to be Raised without expensive material components... all of these and more give ideas around which cool character builds can be constructed that feel like they have unique tricks that are actually worth investing in.

How well does PF2 stand up in that regard?

[stack]

Well, a level 20 monk gets three new feat options. One gives you an extra action for movement stuff (extra actions don't stack, so hope you didn't have another source that overlaps too much). Once lets you use a reaction to reroll a save or force an enemy to reroll an attack. One lets you use two [stance] abilities at the same time...which means you have to have previously spent feats to gain multiple stances that you couldn't use at once.

Whirlwind attack is locked to barbarian and fighter and required 14th level.

These are just examples I've noticed in the last few minutes.

On the other hand, barbarians at 20 can cast earthquake with a single action every ten minutes by stomping, so at least that is cool.

[johnbragg]

While that is certainly true, bear in mind that it is also the case for 5E, 4E, and even 3E. Yes, an expert forum like this knows where to find the non-trivial 3E abilities, but frankly most of 3E's feats are pretty minor/trivial too.

But 3E came into a very different environment. 3E let you customize your character in ways that earlier editions never dreamed of. (2E Skills and Powers and Players Options and Complete X Kits pointed the way, but 3E systematized it all). We're looking at what feats are as good as Power Attack--when 3E came out, the fact that your Fighter 1 had Power Attack and Cleave and mine had TWF and Dodge was revolutionary for D&D.

4E was "More Balanced Than 3E." Nobody argued that the classes weren't balanced. Pathfinder was "3E, and more of it.", which was a great selling point against 4E. 5E was "More Streamlined than 3X, and Actually D&D unlike 4th".

I have the Playtest trade paperback, and I really don't know what the one-sentence pitch for PF2 is. If I were running Paizo, I'd have just gone through the supplements and released a Greatest Hits book with 8-12 new Core classes (the Unchained versions of some, swap out various others), and 500 pages of the best stuff they've done over the last 10 years. Longtime paizo fans would have a single volume to lend to their relative-noob players, instead of them shuffling through 4 borrowed splatbooks.

[MisterKaws]

I think pf2 discussions should be in the 5e forum, seeing as it's based on the 5e srd.

[StevenC21]

I find that unlikely.

Source?

[Segev]

I think pf2 discussions should be in the 5e forum, seeing as it's based on the 5e srd.

I think that'd be more technically off-topic, there, since the 5e forum isn't a mixed system forum, while pathfinder talk is for this forum, and until we get a PF 2e forum, PF 2e is still a pathfinder system and fits here. Plus, more people are likely to look here for PF2e discussion since they'll be branching from PF 1e.

Having glanced through the "What's different?" link from the OP, is it weird that I think cribbing the proficiency levels from 5e for skills was a mistake for PF, specifically? I get it in 5e, but it feels like the customizability of skill points is not something a crunchy system like PF should really be losing.

[Kurald Galain]

I have the Playtest trade paperback, and I really don't know what the one-sentence pitch for PF2 is.

Hm, that's an interesting one. How about "Fast and consistent rules, highly customizable characters"?

I think that's what they're aiming for; by contrast, 3E has way too many complexities and subsystems to be "fast and consistent", whereas 5E characters really aren't all that customizable (as the article in the top post points out).

all of these and more give ideas around which cool character builds can be constructed that feel like they have unique tricks that are actually worth investing in.

At a first reading, it strikes me that P2 has substantially more mechanically different unique tricks than 5E does.

Having glanced through the "What's different?" link from the OP, is it weird that I think cribbing the proficiency levels from 5e for skills was a mistake for PF, specifically?

Did they, though? In 5E you're either trained or you're not, except that two classes (and only those two) can be experts, and equipment explicitly doesn't stack with training. P2 has untrained / trained / expert / master / legend, plus equipment, plus assurance (aka "take 10 even under stress"). So that's three dimensions of growth instead of just one...

[Segev]

Did they, though? In 5E you're either trained or you're not, except that two classes (and only those two) can be experts, and equipment explicitly doesn't stack with training. P2 has untrained / trained / expert / master / legend, plus equipment, plus assurance (aka "take 10 even under stress"). So that's three dimensions of growth instead of just one...

In terms of granularity in which there's an actual choice, you've got untrained, trained, expert, master, and legend. Equipment I'll leave aside. That's better than 5e's "proficient or not," but I don't count "you're level 3, so that's 2 higher than the guy who's only level 1."

Compare to 3e/PF, where you actually decide just how dedicated you want to be to a finer degree.

Now, that said...neither PF nor 3e ever really explored much in the way of alternate ways to use SP, so maybe the simplification still is for the best. 3e tried briefly in Complete Scoundrel with skill tricks, but that never went very far.

Eh, I just often find myself, in 5e and in some of the experimental off-shoot d20 systems that use a variation on "trained or not," feeling like I lack options for customizing just what my PC is good at. Or am fixed in them. (I do like 5e's training rules for downtime - spend gold for new proficiencies - in Xanathar's. Maybe PF2e cribs something from that.)

[Morty]

I haven't really dug into it yet, but apparently the "shield block" reaction that lets you absorb damage with your shield as a reaction if you've raised it is a general feat now, that fighters and paladins champions get for free. This feels like a really roundabout way of doing it and doesn't bode well.

[stack]

They don't get shield block for free, they get it as part of the chassis. If it wasn't included, they would presumably get a different option. If you want to play a fighter, paladin, or warpriest cleric and not use a shield, you get a wasted ability. Cleric of gorum, warpriest doctrine, you get saddled with shield block (gorum grants greatsword proficiency, which uses two hands) and martial weapon proficiency (fine as an option, but you don't get to opt out).

[Rynjin]

Hm, that's an interesting one. How about "Fast and consistent rules, highly customizable characters"?

When I asked on the Paizo forums months back, the general consensus seemed to be "to make life easier for Pathfinder Society GMs and Adventure Path designers".

That's mainly what the new ruleset accomplishes. Much like 5e it pigeonholes every class into 3 distinct roles with very little (if any) wiggle room out of them. You can have a TWF Ranger, an Archer Ranger, or a Trapper (lol) Ranger. You can have a Blaster Druid, a Summoner Druid, or a Wild Shape Druid. Etc., etc. for every class.

This makes it easy for them to design adventures and modules because each class is easily predictable in what challenges it can overcome, and for the same reason makes it easy to run said adventures.

[MisterKaws]

I think that'd be more technically off-topic, there, since the 5e forum isn't a mixed system forum, while pathfinder talk is for this forum, and until we get a PF 2e forum, PF 2e is still a pathfinder system and fits here. Plus, more people are likely to look here for PF2e discussion since they'll be branching from PF 1e.

Having glanced through the "What's different?" link from the OP, is it weird that I think cribbing the proficiency levels from 5e for skills was a mistake for PF, specifically? I get it in 5e, but it feels like the customizability of skill points is not something a crunchy system like PF should really be losing.

Fair enough. Still, I think the system is different enough from 3.x to warrant a different place for it. We'll have to see what the mods decide to do.

[Segev]

Fair enough. Still, I think the system is different enough from 3.x to warrant a different place for it. We'll have to see what the mods decide to do.

I suspect it will eventually get its own subforum. For now, the 3e/Pathfinder forum is the best fit. Maybe the general RP forum.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
When I asked on the Paizo forums months back, the general consensus seemed to be "to make life easier for Pathfinder Society GMs and Adventure Path designers".

Was this the consensus from the devs themselves, or just general forumites?

I haven’t been following the 2E development process very closely, just wondering if this is something the devs have acknowledged, or if it’s been presumed on their behalf.

One thing I find interesting about the Paizo forums is that developers and other staff are fairly frequent posters, which is an interesting dynamic. The downside is that sometimes Paizo staff don't mind letting you know just how disinterested in your feedback they really are.

[Rynjin]

Was this the consensus from the devs themselves, or just general forumites?

I haven’t been following the 2E development process very closely, just wondering if this is something the devs have acknowledged, or if it’s been presumed on their behalf.

One thing I find interesting about the Paizo forums is that developers and other staff are fairly frequent posters, which is an interesting dynamic. The downside is that sometimes Paizo staff don't mind letting you know just how disinterested in your feedback they really are.

No, it's not from the devs themselves. They stopped actively participating in playtests years ago, and there was little to no dev feedback to the playtest this time at all (they were at GenCon for the critical first week, and "recovering" for the week after that). It was kind of a ****show.

There were actually quite a few threads asking what the basic design philosophy for the system was/who it was made for, but there was never a real response and they started just locking any thread about it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Has anyone given these rules a go yet? It appears at a glance that they've ironed out a lot of what I didn't like about the playtest and the fundamental math looks structurally sound on the surface. But at 640 pages for a PHB, learning it enough to GM it seems incredibly daunting without having some faith in the system first.

I just have a few big questions. Like, how often do you end up searching for obscure rules? How long does that take on average when it happens? How's the balance feel at the table? What sort of adventure does it lend best to? Is there a good example?

[Morty]

Unless the SRD linked up there isn't up to date with the final version, rather than the playtest, the Monster Hunter feat for 1st level rangers is still... not worth taking ever.

[Kurald Galain]

Unless the SRD linked up there isn't up to date with the final version, rather than the playtest, the Monster Hunter feat for 1st level rangers is still... not worth taking ever.

Why not? Recall Knowledge is normally an action that reveals useful information about an enemy. This feat lets you do it for free whenever you activate your Prey ability. Generally speaking, in any game with an action economy, any ability that gives you actions for free is at least worth considering.

[Segev]

A quick hot take: A lot of the grab-bag of relatively weak benefits that dwarves got as racial perks in PF1 (and 3.5 D&D, etc.) are now feats...and you only get to pick one of them. This feels like a not-so-stealth nerf of an already lackluster race. Am I missing something?

I'm noticing a lot of stripping out of cruft that's being re-assigned as feats to races, but the net effect isn't buffing the races or leaving them on par, but rather nerfing them to heck and making them pick one of the ribbons they would have otherwise had. In some cases, the ribbons are competing with real useful looking choices; in others, they're just all...lackluster.

[stack]

Feats are weak across the board, but I suppose that is a form of balance. Takes a bit to reset expectations.

As someone who is working on a big 5e 3pp project, PF2 has almost made me weep for joy by having clearly defined globally tagged properties for things.

[pabelfly]

globally tagged properties for things.

Mind explaining what you mean by this?

[Elkad]

Am I just blind, or are there no rules for generating ability scores?