Feels like a pretty big oversight for this preview then.... I have not personally played but having looked at most classes and seeing what focus spells have to offer...... Would this be a problematic change? I feel like it would be fine but I'm not exactly qualified to determine if that would be broken or not.... I feel like the investment of feats to learn that many is enough of a drawback
I was hoping they would at least expand the limit for focus spell reliant classes, like the Psychic and Oracle. Itd be super cool for them to break that mold since its their specialty
My GM was questioning whether there is a reason that champions can't get a focus point from the deities domain feat. At level 2 my Champion is taking the psychic dedication, has the deities domain feat, and with the remastered rules would have three Focus points at level 2. He is allowing me to use the remaster refocus rules but limiting me to only two Focus points still.
Was something clarified by paizo almost immediately after the new refocus rules were shown. Also gets rid of the does this focus spell feat give a point - the answer is always yes
25:49 the auto grab felt bad when you take something the wrestler archetype that boosts your dc’s against grabs, but any creature that wants to grab gets it for free. I like it better when the enemy can hit me with any of the 4 tiers of success, making my investment(or lack thereof) in my defenses pay off
Regarding the grab, I believe that its there because creatures athletics scores and players reflex saves weren't being actually used for the most common way you'd be grabbed, instead its your AC.
For the change to creature grab, it's because monsters would hit with an attack, and then spend an action to automatically grab you. What it does now, is make the monster make a normal grab roll which allows player feats which can cause penalties to this to apply, which they did not before. It's a buff for players.
@@liawynn3479 it's a huge crutch to monsters with no strength score to speak of and no training in athletics. Quite a few monsters have the automatic grab for something like a tentacle attack but no strength score.
@@undrhil exactly, Having my players finishing up Abomination vaults, came against a creature and decided to try the new grab. He couldn't grab a character 3 levels lower (once was a nat 3 so thats whatever). Means the blocks of all the creatures have to be gone over to pay attention to the athletics or include some bonus specifically to grab
@@Pyroprogramer It also makes certain Animal Companions WAY worse. Wolves were nice because if they hit with their first attack they could knockdown without a roll. Now they'd have to use an action (of which they only get two) with no guarantee anything will happen, and their attack modifiers are shyte compared to PCs.
I feel like mithral was an unnecessary change, but, apparently "mithral" is a D&D thing while "mithril" is a Tolkien trademark, so I understand the change. Also, a tear for the loss of spell schools. True evocation wizards know what I mean, though the true diviners probably saw this coming.
@@josecruz8803 Same here. I was all "i'm going to change my build" and then the post crushed my dreams. Then again it might be a bit OP that way, not sure. Focus spells are typically a bit stronger than cantrips and it would make them effectively cantrips at that point...so yeah limiting them to 3 (or maybe 4 for psychics) makes sense. Loving the refocus rule though. Definitely makes a lot of focus spell centric builds (i.e. ki-monk) more viable.
@@Turnyourtruth42 Yeah, I was thinking of changing up some of my many builds on Pathbuilder too. The power of Focus Spells was never why I wanted them. I want them because they are just so much cooler and thematic than even the standard spells. But what killed Focus spells for me was the limit of only being able to recharge 1 before an encounter. I had a ki-monk build years ago and I scrapped it because it was really awesome in one fight a day and subpar for the rest of the day, which was saying something considering, you know, monk.
I'm excited for the, "wait I'm level 4, why can't I cast rank 4 spells? How do I increase my spell casting rank?" questions. 😂 I am totally fine with this change, but I'm fully expecting people to be just as confused. It was always the "why is it not the same level as me?" that confused all of my players, and not the name being the same.
I understand not liking the grab change. Though, to counter that, if you're a player that has abilities based around evading grabs, and a monster ability completely bypasses it, that feels pretty bad. Like it just kind of feels like you wasted a feat or god forbid an entire character.
Love PF2e. Best TTRPG system I've ever played - HOWEVER, the books are janky as hell so I'm looking fwd to the new core and will defs buy to support the good people.
I think the main thing with Grab requiring a roll is, like, if someone had an ability that gave them +2 to their defense against a grab. If there's no roll, that does nothing, and I suspect it's vanishingly rare that a GM has a monster without the Grab ability try a Grab.
I like the grab change, because there are quite a few options for players that give bonuses against grabs and shoves(for example) that just dont apply against the grab and knockdown abilities and it feels bad when those features don't get used.
The partial boost thing kinda sucks. I’d rather just say “starting at 10th level, once per set of boosts you may spend two boosts to raise +4 to +5. At 20th level you spend two boosts to raise +5 to +6”. It’s really that easy and I’m absolutely doing it this way at my table.
PF2 co-designer Mark Seifter explained why this is probably not a good idea, in a recent Roll for Combat stream: ruclips.net/video/7oYyR2OueW0/видео.html
It would just need a restriction like only one score can be increased from +4 to +5 at level 10, 15 or 20 using two boosts. At level 20 would also have the ability to use two boosts for a +5 to +6. This should keep the end array the same at the end, with the byproduct of being more diverse on the levels you would normally have an 19 or 21. Also that you could have a Warcleric or Wildshape druid etc that actually catch up on strength at level 5 and stay the same as a normal martial to 20, which I like.
5:15 god I also just remember PF1 when you had Caster Level as well. So you're a level 11 character and a level 9 caster with level 5 spells that factor in being a 9th level caster. 10:35 the idea that I had would be what you thought, you can only go to +5 at level 9, and +6 at level 17, but to boost a score above 4 you'd have to spend 2 boosts simultaneously. This would mean the same number of boosts, though it would be a bit more flexible overall. (E.g. can boost up your non-18 abilities at level 5, then spend 2 boosts to hit that +5 in your main ability at level 9.) It'd make it easier to 'catch up' if you decided to spread your boosts around more early on, but I don't think more flexibility is that bad of an idea; it'd mostly mean getting a +1lead to one non-primary ability at levels 5 and 13 vs. the current method, which would even out at level 9 and 17.
9:26 I agree with the attribute point increase feeling bad. I'm in the exact same boat where it just feels awkward that suddenly it stops being the same and the delineation doesn't seem to be as clear when you're not using actual numbers.
As we discovered in our game last weekend, the automatic grab is being replaced by a problematic ability score because some monsters don't have a strength score high enough for the Athletics check to do anything if they aren't trained. For our example we were going up against a creature with the attack would automatically grab and the GM was going to have it use the new rule but the creature didn't have an athletic score and it had a 10 straight. So, it would have been rolling just a flat D20 against a armored Champion with a high fortitude and probably would not have been grabbing it.
I think they should change it so you can spend 2 boosts to raise a +4 to a +5 and so on. Rather then the partial boost system. At the very least I think that'd be a good thing to allow your players to do, even if it's not an official rule.
I think the reason why the didn't go that way is because that would make it more min/max like, you would literally sacrifice another attribute to give that one a boost. That and it would mess up the curve of when, so you would have to add in that you could only do that at level 10 (more words and rules for something vs the partial explanation)
@@Pyroprogramer yeah I think the exact opposite would be better, where the levels you'd waste an ability increase for a 19 (just to increase it again later on if the game lasts that long), you'd instead just use all 4 on your secondaries, and increase the stat like normal when the level requirement allows it. this is only as complicated as proficiency levels, and in effect it would give you +1 to your third worst ability without feeling bad about "wasting" a point
Thanks for pointing out that everybody loves the Water Scamp, Nonat. Because we do. If we don't get a cuddlebug - sorry, a scamp - as an ancestry, a companion or a familiar I'll be VERY disappointed. Because they're cuddlebug-like puffballs. They're the Skittermanders of Pathfinder. This deprives us of yet another cannon fodder (I stopped using goblins and kobolds a long time ago), but who gives a damn? Theyì're adorable.
I was in a pf2e fight against an undead snake and I was playing as a paladin with cleric archetype and I was grabbed the whole fight as soon as I got out of the grab was grabed again, could not do anything at all. I like that change.
6:57 Focus components were basically 5e’s materials with a gold cost. They were the only components that weren’t auto covered by a component pouch. I like renaming them to Locus.
Not quite. Focus components/loci are stuff you need to cast a spell that doesn't get expended. They tend to be expensive though, because given how material components have been simplified to a component pouch the difference between trivial material components and trivial foci doesn't really matter. But there are also plenty of spells with material components that cost money.
12:00 it's called personality traits. You got to choose (or create) 2 general personality traits, an ideal, a bond and a flaw. ideals being associated with alignment but being decribed with a sentence like "*Might* If I become strong, I can take what I want - what I deserve. (Evil)" for the Folk Hero or "*Fairness* We all do the work, so we all share the reward. (Lawful)" for the Sailor Background. The Bond can be a person, an object or a promise you made from your past. For Example the Outlander: "I am the last of my tribe and it is up to me to ensure their names will enter legends" or "I am in love with the heir of a family that my family despises." for the Noble. A flaw can be something like "My piety sometimes leads me to blindly trust those that profess faith to my god." for Acolytes or "I'd rather eat my armor than admit when I'm wrong" for Soldier. honestly, I wish more DnD players, particularly the new guys I once DMed for, cared for those personality traits of their chosen background. Would have made for more interesting characters than they eneded up with.
Thanks for doing this review. I have decided to stay with the current version of this game and new the day would come when no new content would be available under the current rules. This happens with every edition but I kind of liked PF2e. This is a lot of changes and I knew without a doubt that when Paizo said that they were covered before with the OGL thing, that they were in fact not covered and this is them being fully covered or very close to it. So it will be weird now, in that my group has far more than enough content, characters, races (yes races), adventure paths etc to keep us going for more than 10 years. Probably longer if I am being honest. Then we will evaluate what game system to migrate to if we do it at all. I wish Paizo well and thank them for giving our group a system we can use for a long time!
Focus Points are still limited to 3, mentioned by one of the devs on Reddit. I do like the way grab worked before, but it made some grab defence options obsolete.
Postive energy plans is Creations Forge? Huh, I have a faction of gods that are called The Court of Creation, and are made up of creator and forge deity’s, so that’s useful.
Yay the fangs return. Thanks for covering this! I was actually waiting to hear your take on it was i trust and generally agree with your breakdown of stuff. I'm excited about the new changes!
I also had hoped that focus points had no cap anymore, but sadly they still cap at 3. Still a pretty neat change tho', indirect buff to magus action economy
About the ability boosts with partial, I say just decrease the attribute boosts at lv 5 and 15 by 1 and just state you can’t increase an attribute above 4 until lv 10, and above 5 until 20. Same power level with less jank, and will parallel raising skills above expert and master.
The focus changes absolutely destroy psychic. They lose their base focus pool of two. They don't get focus spells from their class, they get psi cantrips. So... They just don't get focus points at all, under the wording of this preview rule.
You know, unless the wording specifically breaks the rule and says they get two. They already have wording breaking the current Refocus rule, so what’s one more exception?
@@centurosproductions8827They might add an exception into the final printing, but as is, the rule says no focus points for psychic. If the argument is specific beats general, then every feat that gives a focus spell and focus point will give two, because the feat is specific and the rule is general.
@@Holydan27 The feats are being changed, so the actually feat would not say that it gives a focus point (maybe reminder text), rule of "if its to good to be true" and they could fix that by changing AMP feats to also increase your focus spell. -AMP trait counts as if its a focus Spell when towards the cap. Or just set the Psychic to 3 cap and call it a day since they are weird
With the new grab rolls, the GM could just roll 2d20 and assign one as attack and the other as grab. Cuts down the time it takes. (Obviously, they should've just kept it the same, but this is an option under the new rules.)
I think it's change to Locus to prevent confusing with Focus spells and they didn't want to call it Fetish because people think of "sexual fetishes" when they hear that word and not magical objects.
Actually, it will be nice if they leave just "attribute". Cause if there's no old system, there's no separation for "attribute modifier". As an example: d20+attribute+attack bonus. And name "attribute modifier" can be reserved for something in the future. Or to call "modifiers" a bonuses and penalties to attributes, cause it's a modifiers
I'm really happy about the spell rank change. Ive had that exact problem come up in 3 different dnd camps for kids. Considering changing my camps over to pf2e.
"Genie" isn't being changed. What's being changed is "djinni", "efreeti", "janni", "marid", and "shaitan" which are a mix of terms, some of which clearly applied to that kind of genie, some of which were terms relating to genies in general but the idea that they are a _type_ of genie with that _specific_ element is completely made up by WotC, and some which might be terms made up entirely.
It could have something to do with the Ifrit and other name changes.. They are probably making the monster set based on Arabic mythology. There is quite a lot "misused" terms in d&d
In the case of Silent Spell, it could just be a matter of shaping the spell to appear like a normal phenomena. You are taking what would normally appear to be an obvious incantation and weaving it in such a way that it is subtle and difficult to pick up on. This is technically shaping the spell, though during the casting process, not after.
Material Plane being changed to The Universe is confusing for me because I always thought of the universe as effectively the container of all planes, which resides in different dimensions of the universe. This might be a D&D thing though, I need to brush up on my Pathfinder lore.
I do wish they just made it so you have to, and can, spend two boosts to increase an attribute from 4 to 5. It would mean people can get a 5 at level 5 but at the sacrifice of having only a three boosts instead of 4.
As a player of a strength based monk focusing on athletics and having the Wrestler dedication, I hated that under the old rules I was just as easy for a monster to grab as anyone with equivalent AC and none of that skill and feat specialization. Especially because that was literally the only type of opponent who even attempted to grab me during the entire campaign so far; intelligent humanoid opponents would take one look at him and think "nope, not gonna try grappling *that* guy". So I welcome this change.
In 5e those are ideas, bonds, and flaws. But from what I have heard most tables don't use them. I feel that for Pf2e most tables/characters won't use edicts and anathema
@@XandiGThey definitely feel a lot more generalized and easy to use in game than ideals, bonds and flaws do. I know that you could make them up for your character, but the ones on the roll charts seemed really hyper-specific in an off-putting sort of way.
I never used those because they weren't about what your character beleived, they were little sentance long descriptors of how your character acts that no one else would read so there was no point. an edict or anathema has more weight because it's an actual moral code not just like "I like money uwu" and "I have anger issues"
I think if you consider the word “shape” as a verb instead of a noun the spellshaping thing makes more sense. You are reshaping the magic to make the spell silent. That makes more sense than if you think solely of the physical shapes of the spells.
I don't know much about pathfinder 2e aside from your two videos about the differences between it and 5e DnD, so i have a few questions. Is the Player Core all you need to run and play, or do you need other books like DnD does for monsters (Monster Manual) and DM only rules (Dungeon Master's Guide)? Is the remastered Player Core going to have a new starter set to go with it? I'm thinking about getting the starter set, but i don't want to rush into getting it if the remaster will be accompanied by a new one, ya know? Edit: answered my own question regarding necessary books by going to the Paizo website. Little worried that remastererd books include a Player Core 2. I don't think it's a matter of greed, probably just that if they mashed both remastered Player Cores together, it'd be a 700-800 page book.
The changes to Grab, Knockdown, and Push are great because until now, you were wasting your time trying to be a character who couldn't be caught, or couldn't be knocked down, or couldn't be moved; becuase the creatures who were the best at grabbing you, knocking you down, or pushing you would always automatically succeed. There was no room for PCs to prove themselves better; now there is.
The comparison of the new Wizard schools to 5e's bardic colleges is actually a bit of a misnomer, bardic colleges aren't necessarily literal colleges, and are instead more a series of teachings and knowledge shared by bards throughout the land.
The replacement for alignment feels so awkward to me, even though I understand wanting to replace the awkwardness of alignment. We decouple good from holy so you can have a deity lead a tyrannical holy purge.... but a character with a holy dedication is specifically described as having a powerful devotion to altruism & helping others. So the way its described here, a sanctified holy character would never participate in that tyrannical purge for the deity who sanctified them.
Hmmm, still no information on them fixing item DC. All items should use the Standard DC table, unless they were created using reagents in which case they should use class/spell DC. I also hate the rewording of flat-footed. The name still doesn't make any sense, and the condition doesn't make any sense in combat either. How can one be off-guard to someone directly in front of them? And if you're surrounded by enemies, the last thing you'd be doing is paying attention to random archers in the distance. Flat-footed should be a condition one gets when flanked, and it should apply to everyone targeting them. I agree with you in regards to grab and knockdown. Pathfinder 2e is already less lethal than 1e, this just makes creatures with these abilities even less of a threat.
Hi Ten days late to this episode! Can we call you Ten for short? Jest aside, I'm pretty sure that WOTC doesn't own the terms of the schools of magic, but good on Paizo for trying to cover all bases and try something new. It's going to take awhile to get used to the new terms. ...okay, Aquan didn't really need a change but whatever. Spell Ranks makes sense. Material plane as universe... Eh. It makes sense but is only technically accurate unless the cosmology is changing radically. Petran... Okay, just so long as Oreads are still Oreads. Not fond of changing positive damage to vitality damage. Negative with Void, sure. You can write it with a decimal point. 4.5 etc. This is going to open the gates for murderhobos... Spirit damage is neat. Eh, again the changes to spell schools is odd but good for them for trying something new that doesn't counteract the lore of one of their Icons. And having where you learned magic change the spells you learn. Here's hoping they have a mechanic to create your own. Is it easier or harder to homebrew pathfinder spells compared to 5e?
honestly i get most if not all of my pf info from u (nonat) so I really dont mind that ur a week late lo, and im sure there are others who could say the samel. Hope you're doing well
Im okay with most of the old terms being gone, but Im not sure I love some of the new names. A lot of them feel very "mundane". Like "the universe" is too normal. Reality would sound better to me. The physical realm too. I like Creation´s Forge, but "the Void" is sooo generic. something like "the Mausoleon" would be more poetic. The Abyss name Im gonna really miss. I´d prefer they just call it all Ishiar like the ocean.
A lot of this makes sense to me and sounds good. However, I'm confused by what they're doing with spells. They're getting rid of schools of magic and replacing them with colleges of magic. I always thought that colleges were schools. Maybe in the next edition they will replace the colleges with universities.
I'm not excited about the new class changes at all. I really don't want to remake my character without the guarantee it will be the same character. I don't even know how Archives of Nethys is going to adapt Pathfinder 3rd edition. Will they replace Pathfinder 2nd edition by removing it from their website, or will it be listed as a different system? And what about other websites like digital character sheets how will they adapt to the changes. Will they even continue supporting the old ones? P.S. I've spent way too much time planning out my character to see it go down the drain like this... And I even planned it out before the 3rd edition announcement...
Stop being so dramatic jesus. 1. you don't have to see it go down the drain, use the old system or make the *Extremely* minor changes required to update to "pathfinder 3rd edition" They changed names and a couple features, you'll survive
I understand if folks who are new get tripped up by spell levels, but honestly I don't think it's that necessary to change the name since after a few weeks of playing they'll get it in their brains. I understand why they are changing it tho, but still a bit of a nothing burger to me.
Dropping Attributes is incredibly stupid! It's a change just for change sake. There was no need for this and the "partial boost" dynamic is a fiasco. Not worth the hassle.
You can try all you want to be enthusiastic and claim that it’s simpler but it’s no simpler or harder than the original language… The only thing it’s doing is eliminating the possibility of getting sued by wizards of the coast that is the entire reason for changing the wording… And to try and say that it’s any other reason other than that is just being unnecessarily obtuse… The entire reason for this remaster was to avoid lawsuits that’s it end of discussion
Please at least change the thumbnail so it doesn't mislead a lot of people who don't read the comments. There's still a maximum of 3 focus points, that part didn't change.
I am fine with most of them but I don"t like some of them -A lot of the word changed from something that was easy to learn like aquan that fit with aquatic to something that is not related at all. -Djinni(that we see as giving wish and link to a lamp) to jaathoom(evil spirit or demon that appear in dreams which is defined a type of djinn ) also move something to somethine else for a word not proprieraty at all to the ogl which in used in Quran potentially creating more problem in the future. . -mythral, why not used mithril? word and concept aren't subject to copyright and you get away from the ogl with mithril -I was liking the idea that you could drain something to remove all their strenght or intelligence but now you will have a -42 bonus of intelligence
![D&D Character Conversion [RELOADED]: Ajani Goldmane (Magic: The Gathering)](/img/1.gif)
It was confirmed that there is still a maximum of 3 points in your pool.
Exactly. After so many pages it would have been better to have it right 😅
Feels like a pretty big oversight for this preview then.... I have not personally played but having looked at most classes and seeing what focus spells have to offer...... Would this be a problematic change? I feel like it would be fine but I'm not exactly qualified to determine if that would be broken or not.... I feel like the investment of feats to learn that many is enough of a drawback
I was hoping they would at least expand the limit for focus spell reliant classes, like the Psychic and Oracle. Itd be super cool for them to break that mold since its their specialty
My GM was questioning whether there is a reason that champions can't get a focus point from the deities domain feat. At level 2 my Champion is taking the psychic dedication, has the deities domain feat, and with the remastered rules would have three Focus points at level 2. He is allowing me to use the remaster refocus rules but limiting me to only two Focus points still.
Was something clarified by paizo almost immediately after the new refocus rules were shown.
Also gets rid of the does this focus spell feat give a point - the answer is always yes
25:49 the auto grab felt bad when you take something the wrestler archetype that boosts your dc’s against grabs, but any creature that wants to grab gets it for free. I like it better when the enemy can hit me with any of the 4 tiers of success, making my investment(or lack thereof) in my defenses pay off
Regarding the grab, I believe that its there because creatures athletics scores and players reflex saves weren't being actually used for the most common way you'd be grabbed, instead its your AC.
For the change to creature grab, it's because monsters would hit with an attack, and then spend an action to automatically grab you. What it does now, is make the monster make a normal grab roll which allows player feats which can cause penalties to this to apply, which they did not before. It's a buff for players.
I know. But also, now the monster can crit succeed potentially. Either way, that isn't what I was talking about.
@@liawynn3479 it's a huge crutch to monsters with no strength score to speak of and no training in athletics. Quite a few monsters have the automatic grab for something like a tentacle attack but no strength score.
@@undrhil exactly, Having my players finishing up Abomination vaults, came against a creature and decided to try the new grab. He couldn't grab a character 3 levels lower (once was a nat 3 so thats whatever). Means the blocks of all the creatures have to be gone over to pay attention to the athletics or include some bonus specifically to grab
@@Pyroprogramer It also makes certain Animal Companions WAY worse. Wolves were nice because if they hit with their first attack they could knockdown without a roll. Now they'd have to use an action (of which they only get two) with no guarantee anything will happen, and their attack modifiers are shyte compared to PCs.
I feel like mithral was an unnecessary change, but, apparently "mithral" is a D&D thing while "mithril" is a Tolkien trademark, so I understand the change.
Also, a tear for the loss of spell schools. True evocation wizards know what I mean, though the true diviners probably saw this coming.
My wife and i have been using spell ranks for years. Happy to see it officially printed.
*Focus Points are still limited to 3 max!*
This was confirmed by a designer on Reddit. They just messed up writing it down in that preview.
Sadge
Wishing they increase the limit for Psychics and Oracles at lwast.
Ok, yep, glad someone mentioned this as well. I was over hyped until I seen that Reddit post as well.
@@josecruz8803 Same here. I was all "i'm going to change my build" and then the post crushed my dreams. Then again it might be a bit OP that way, not sure. Focus spells are typically a bit stronger than cantrips and it would make them effectively cantrips at that point...so yeah limiting them to 3 (or maybe 4 for psychics) makes sense.
Loving the refocus rule though. Definitely makes a lot of focus spell centric builds (i.e. ki-monk) more viable.
@@Turnyourtruth42 Yeah, I was thinking of changing up some of my many builds on Pathbuilder too. The power of Focus Spells was never why I wanted them. I want them because they are just so much cooler and thematic than even the standard spells. But what killed Focus spells for me was the limit of only being able to recharge 1 before an encounter. I had a ki-monk build years ago and I scrapped it because it was really awesome in one fight a day and subpar for the rest of the day, which was saying something considering, you know, monk.
I'm excited for the, "wait I'm level 4, why can't I cast rank 4 spells? How do I increase my spell casting rank?" questions. 😂
I am totally fine with this change, but I'm fully expecting people to be just as confused. It was always the "why is it not the same level as me?" that confused all of my players, and not the name being the same.
I understand not liking the grab change. Though, to counter that, if you're a player that has abilities based around evading grabs, and a monster ability completely bypasses it, that feels pretty bad. Like it just kind of feels like you wasted a feat or god forbid an entire character.
I didn't even realize this was a thing so I'm glad. I would have done exactly this for years
Love PF2e. Best TTRPG system I've ever played - HOWEVER, the books are janky as hell so I'm looking fwd to the new core and will defs buy to support the good people.
I think the main thing with Grab requiring a roll is, like, if someone had an ability that gave them +2 to their defense against a grab. If there's no roll, that does nothing, and I suspect it's vanishingly rare that a GM has a monster without the Grab ability try a Grab.
I do it all the time, especially when it looks like the fight might be a bit too lethal.
I like the grab change, because there are quite a few options for players that give bonuses against grabs and shoves(for example) that just dont apply against the grab and knockdown abilities and it feels bad when those features don't get used.
Pretty much why no one grabs those feats. Me included.
The partial boost thing kinda sucks. I’d rather just say “starting at 10th level, once per set of boosts you may spend two boosts to raise +4 to +5. At 20th level you spend two boosts to raise +5 to +6”.
It’s really that easy and I’m absolutely doing it this way at my table.
Yeah
So would this be two boosts in lieu of one stat getting another boost?
If you let people start putting both boosts into the same stat then they'll be able to hit 20 several levels earlier and scale past 22 naturally
PF2 co-designer Mark Seifter explained why this is probably not a good idea, in a recent Roll for Combat stream: ruclips.net/video/7oYyR2OueW0/видео.html
It would just need a restriction like only one score can be increased from +4 to +5 at level 10, 15 or 20 using two boosts. At level 20 would also have the ability to use two boosts for a +5 to +6. This should keep the end array the same at the end, with the byproduct of being more diverse on the levels you would normally have an 19 or 21. Also that you could have a Warcleric or Wildshape druid etc that actually catch up on strength at level 5 and stay the same as a normal martial to 20, which I like.
5:15 god I also just remember PF1 when you had Caster Level as well.
So you're a level 11 character and a level 9 caster with level 5 spells that factor in being a 9th level caster.
10:35 the idea that I had would be what you thought, you can only go to +5 at level 9, and +6 at level 17, but to boost a score above 4 you'd have to spend 2 boosts simultaneously. This would mean the same number of boosts, though it would be a bit more flexible overall. (E.g. can boost up your non-18 abilities at level 5, then spend 2 boosts to hit that +5 in your main ability at level 9.) It'd make it easier to 'catch up' if you decided to spread your boosts around more early on, but I don't think more flexibility is that bad of an idea; it'd mostly mean getting a +1lead to one non-primary ability at levels 5 and 13 vs. the current method, which would even out at level 9 and 17.
as a new player, the remaster rule changes are clarifying SO MANY THINGS omg
paizo was really like "Wanna see me do D&D but better? Wanna see me do it again?"
9:26 I agree with the attribute point increase feeling bad. I'm in the exact same boat where it just feels awkward that suddenly it stops being the same and the delineation doesn't seem to be as clear when you're not using actual numbers.
3 Focus point maximum. Still really useful though.
Yep. Better than nothing.
As we discovered in our game last weekend, the automatic grab is being replaced by a problematic ability score because some monsters don't have a strength score high enough for the Athletics check to do anything if they aren't trained. For our example we were going up against a creature with the attack would automatically grab and the GM was going to have it use the new rule but the creature didn't have an athletic score and it had a 10 straight. So, it would have been rolling just a flat D20 against a armored Champion with a high fortitude and probably would not have been grabbing it.
That might change in monster core.
I think they should change it so you can spend 2 boosts to raise a +4 to a +5 and so on. Rather then the partial boost system. At the very least I think that'd be a good thing to allow your players to do, even if it's not an official rule.
I think the reason why the didn't go that way is because that would make it more min/max like, you would literally sacrifice another attribute to give that one a boost. That and it would mess up the curve of when, so you would have to add in that you could only do that at level 10 (more words and rules for something vs the partial explanation)
@@Pyroprogramer yeah I think the exact opposite would be better, where the levels you'd waste an ability increase for a 19 (just to increase it again later on if the game lasts that long), you'd instead just use all 4 on your secondaries, and increase the stat like normal when the level requirement allows it.
this is only as complicated as proficiency levels, and in effect it would give you +1 to your third worst ability without feeling bad about "wasting" a point
Thanks for pointing out that everybody loves the Water Scamp, Nonat.
Because we do.
If we don't get a cuddlebug - sorry, a scamp - as an ancestry, a companion or a familiar I'll be VERY disappointed.
Because they're cuddlebug-like puffballs.
They're the Skittermanders of Pathfinder.
This deprives us of yet another cannon fodder (I stopped using goblins and kobolds a long time ago), but who gives a damn? Theyì're adorable.
I hope they add the Minotaur as a player heritage!!!
BIG ANGRY MOO!!!!
:=8D
The next completely new rulebook is supposed to have it. It was in a blog post in june I think.
Minotaurs, Centaurs, Mermaids, Bugs, and Awakened Animals
In Spanish flat-footed was always called "desprevenido" witch means "being catch off guard" so... The point is Spanish predicted this change XD
I really like the Focus Point/Spell change. Always felt Focus Points were a bit under powered.
The focus point changes is also way easier to explain to new players.
I was in a pf2e fight against an undead snake and I was playing as a paladin with cleric archetype and I was grabbed the whole fight as soon as I got out of the grab was grabed again, could not do anything at all. I like that change.
6:57 Focus components were basically 5e’s materials with a gold cost. They were the only components that weren’t auto covered by a component pouch. I like renaming them to Locus.
Not quite. Focus components/loci are stuff you need to cast a spell that doesn't get expended. They tend to be expensive though, because given how material components have been simplified to a component pouch the difference between trivial material components and trivial foci doesn't really matter. But there are also plenty of spells with material components that cost money.
At Gencon the devs stated the maximum Focus Points would be 3. You get a focus point for every focus spell you have up to 3.
12:00 it's called personality traits. You got to choose (or create) 2 general personality traits, an ideal, a bond and a flaw.
ideals being associated with alignment but being decribed with a sentence like "*Might* If I become strong, I can take what I want - what I deserve. (Evil)" for the Folk Hero or "*Fairness* We all do the work, so we all share the reward. (Lawful)" for the Sailor Background.
The Bond can be a person, an object or a promise you made from your past. For Example the Outlander: "I am the last of my tribe and it is up to me to ensure their names will enter legends" or "I am in love with the heir of a family that my family despises." for the Noble.
A flaw can be something like "My piety sometimes leads me to blindly trust those that profess faith to my god." for Acolytes or "I'd rather eat my armor than admit when I'm wrong" for Soldier.
honestly, I wish more DnD players, particularly the new guys I once DMed for, cared for those personality traits of their chosen background. Would have made for more interesting characters than they eneded up with.
It’s been confirmed here and in other areas from staff, but the cap on Focus Points is still three!
Thanks for doing this review. I have decided to stay with the current version of this game and new the day would come when no new content would be available under the current rules. This happens with every edition but I kind of liked PF2e. This is a lot of changes and I knew without a doubt that when Paizo said that they were covered before with the OGL thing, that they were in fact not covered and this is them being fully covered or very close to it. So it will be weird now, in that my group has far more than enough content, characters, races (yes races), adventure paths etc to keep us going for more than 10 years. Probably longer if I am being honest. Then we will evaluate what game system to migrate to if we do it at all. I wish Paizo well and thank them for giving our group a system we can use for a long time!
Focus Points are still limited to 3, mentioned by one of the devs on Reddit.
I do like the way grab worked before, but it made some grab defence options obsolete.
the netherworld *LAHARL LAUGH INTENSIFIED*
I would actually like the shadow plane be called the nether region
Postive energy plans is Creations Forge? Huh, I have a faction of gods that are called The Court of Creation, and are made up of creator and forge deity’s, so that’s useful.
Yay the fangs return. Thanks for covering this! I was actually waiting to hear your take on it was i trust and generally agree with your breakdown of stuff.
I'm excited about the new changes!
I also had hoped that focus points had no cap anymore, but sadly they still cap at 3. Still a pretty neat change tho', indirect buff to magus action economy
About the ability boosts with partial, I say just decrease the attribute boosts at lv 5 and 15 by 1 and just state you can’t increase an attribute above 4 until lv 10, and above 5 until 20. Same power level with less jank, and will parallel raising skills above expert and master.
The focus changes absolutely destroy psychic. They lose their base focus pool of two. They don't get focus spells from their class, they get psi cantrips. So... They just don't get focus points at all, under the wording of this preview rule.
You know, unless the wording specifically breaks the rule and says they get two. They already have wording breaking the current Refocus rule, so what’s one more exception?
@@centurosproductions8827They might add an exception into the final printing, but as is, the rule says no focus points for psychic. If the argument is specific beats general, then every feat that gives a focus spell and focus point will give two, because the feat is specific and the rule is general.
@@Holydan27 The feats are being changed, so the actually feat would not say that it gives a focus point (maybe reminder text), rule of "if its to good to be true" and they could fix that by changing AMP feats to also increase your focus spell. -AMP trait counts as if its a focus Spell when towards the cap. Or just set the Psychic to 3 cap and call it a day since they are weird
With the new grab rolls, the GM could just roll 2d20 and assign one as attack and the other as grab. Cuts down the time it takes. (Obviously, they should've just kept it the same, but this is an option under the new rules.)
All I can think is how AWESOME the Psychic is going to be with the Focus and Refocus spell changes. I like all of this
I think it's change to Locus to prevent confusing with Focus spells and they didn't want to call it Fetish because people think of "sexual fetishes" when they hear that word and not magical objects.
Actually, it will be nice if they leave just "attribute". Cause if there's no old system, there's no separation for "attribute modifier".
As an example: d20+attribute+attack bonus.
And name "attribute modifier" can be reserved for something in the future. Or to call "modifiers" a bonuses and penalties to attributes, cause it's a modifiers
I will never hear Jathoom as anything but Jasoom, so need to make John carter to go meet them
"A holy God going on a humanity purging tyrade"
Ah yes
Holy Orders: Be Just or Be Dead
*The Emperor of Mankind wants to know your location*
New wizard schools must either give spells from other traditions or have better focus spells.
I'm really happy about the spell rank change. Ive had that exact problem come up in 3 different dnd camps for kids. Considering changing my camps over to pf2e.
Isn't genie a public domain term? Some changes make sense. Yet changing things that are already public domain to begin with is kind of strange.
"Genie" isn't being changed. What's being changed is "djinni", "efreeti", "janni", "marid", and "shaitan" which are a mix of terms, some of which clearly applied to that kind of genie, some of which were terms relating to genies in general but the idea that they are a _type_ of genie with that _specific_ element is completely made up by WotC, and some which might be terms made up entirely.
It could have something to do with the Ifrit and other name changes.. They are probably making the monster set based on Arabic mythology. There is quite a lot "misused" terms in d&d
It's not only distancing legally, but in branding as well. It's a stronger "we're not this other game".
The spell defenses sounds exactly like Dungeons and Dragons 4e
In the case of Silent Spell, it could just be a matter of shaping the spell to appear like a normal phenomena. You are taking what would normally appear to be an obvious incantation and weaving it in such a way that it is subtle and difficult to pick up on. This is technically shaping the spell, though during the casting process, not after.
Material Plane being changed to The Universe is confusing for me because I always thought of the universe as effectively the container of all planes, which resides in different dimensions of the universe. This might be a D&D thing though, I need to brush up on my Pathfinder lore.
I point per foc. Spell but stil a max of 3.
Gencon panel showed pages from the book and in the Wizard spread it says stil max 3 pt
I do wish they just made it so you have to, and can, spend two boosts to increase an attribute from 4 to 5. It would mean people can get a 5 at level 5 but at the sacrifice of having only a three boosts instead of 4.
As a player of a strength based monk focusing on athletics and having the Wrestler dedication, I hated that under the old rules I was just as easy for a monster to grab as anyone with equivalent AC and none of that skill and feat specialization. Especially because that was literally the only type of opponent who even attempted to grab me during the entire campaign so far; intelligent humanoid opponents would take one look at him and think "nope, not gonna try grappling *that* guy". So I welcome this change.
Your channel is goated! ❤
I've always called them Attributes rather than Abilities. Because that's what they are. Attributes are descriptive. Abilities are things you can do.
In 5e those are ideas, bonds, and flaws. But from what I have heard most tables don't use them. I feel that for Pf2e most tables/characters won't use edicts and anathema
I feel like edict and anathema are easier to understand, especially since they interact more with your role playing than ideals, bonds, and flaws.
@@XandiGThey definitely feel a lot more generalized and easy to use in game than ideals, bonds and flaws do. I know that you could make them up for your character, but the ones on the roll charts seemed really hyper-specific in an off-putting sort of way.
I never used those because they weren't about what your character beleived, they were little sentance long descriptors of how your character acts that no one else would read so there was no point. an edict or anathema has more weight because it's an actual moral code not just like "I like money uwu" and "I have anger issues"
Thank you so much for the sneak peak!!
I think if you consider the word “shape” as a verb instead of a noun the spellshaping thing makes more sense. You are reshaping the magic to make the spell silent. That makes more sense than if you think solely of the physical shapes of the spells.
We've called them spell circles at my table for more than a decade
Hopefully they're VERY clear about what does and doesn't have a spirit.
I would be very surprised if there isn't still a 3 Focus Point cap and they just failed to mention it.
Oh, btw Nonat... I am not 100% sure, but apparently one of the developers did make an errata post on the forum saying that the Max Focus is still 3.
I don't know much about pathfinder 2e aside from your two videos about the differences between it and 5e DnD, so i have a few questions.
Is the Player Core all you need to run and play, or do you need other books like DnD does for monsters (Monster Manual) and DM only rules (Dungeon Master's Guide)?
Is the remastered Player Core going to have a new starter set to go with it? I'm thinking about getting the starter set, but i don't want to rush into getting it if the remaster will be accompanied by a new one, ya know?
Edit: answered my own question regarding necessary books by going to the Paizo website. Little worried that remastererd books include a Player Core 2. I don't think it's a matter of greed, probably just that if they mashed both remastered Player Cores together, it'd be a 700-800 page book.
I remember seeing separately that the maximum of 3 focus somewhere
The changes to Grab, Knockdown, and Push are great because until now, you were wasting your time trying to be a character who couldn't be caught, or couldn't be knocked down, or couldn't be moved; becuase the creatures who were the best at grabbing you, knocking you down, or pushing you would always automatically succeed. There was no room for PCs to prove themselves better; now there is.
The comparison of the new Wizard schools to 5e's bardic colleges is actually a bit of a misnomer, bardic colleges aren't necessarily literal colleges, and are instead more a series of teachings and knowledge shared by bards throughout the land.
Also, attack of opportunity always feels awkward in my mouth. Reactive Strike feels so much nicer to say. Just me, and if not, any linguists know why?
The replacement for alignment feels so awkward to me, even though I understand wanting to replace the awkwardness of alignment.
We decouple good from holy so you can have a deity lead a tyrannical holy purge.... but a character with a holy dedication is specifically described as having a powerful devotion to altruism & helping others. So the way its described here, a sanctified holy character would never participate in that tyrannical purge for the deity who sanctified them.
I love the new RP association for wizards. My barbarian will call wizards. "Collage Boy" or girl of course. Sort of an OK Boomer.
Any news on Sinclair's Library? The lack of information about it is worrying to say it mildly.
I was also busy so I haven't had time to learn about the preview before. Your timing was perfect for me.
Netherworld is not nether regions.
Hmmm, still no information on them fixing item DC. All items should use the Standard DC table, unless they were created using reagents in which case they should use class/spell DC.
I also hate the rewording of flat-footed. The name still doesn't make any sense, and the condition doesn't make any sense in combat either. How can one be off-guard to someone directly in front of them? And if you're surrounded by enemies, the last thing you'd be doing is paying attention to random archers in the distance. Flat-footed should be a condition one gets when flanked, and it should apply to everyone targeting them.
I agree with you in regards to grab and knockdown. Pathfinder 2e is already less lethal than 1e, this just makes creatures with these abilities even less of a threat.
Everytime one of my characters gets sanctified and becomes Unholy, Im singing the song to set the mood.
Hi Ten days late to this episode! Can we call you Ten for short?
Jest aside, I'm pretty sure that WOTC doesn't own the terms of the schools of magic, but good on Paizo for trying to cover all bases and try something new.
It's going to take awhile to get used to the new terms. ...okay, Aquan didn't really need a change but whatever. Spell Ranks makes sense. Material plane as universe... Eh. It makes sense but is only technically accurate unless the cosmology is changing radically.
Petran... Okay, just so long as Oreads are still Oreads. Not fond of changing positive damage to vitality damage. Negative with Void, sure.
You can write it with a decimal point. 4.5 etc.
This is going to open the gates for murderhobos...
Spirit damage is neat.
Eh, again the changes to spell schools is odd but good for them for trying something new that doesn't counteract the lore of one of their Icons. And having where you learned magic change the spells you learn. Here's hoping they have a mechanic to create your own. Is it easier or harder to homebrew pathfinder spells compared to 5e?
So they went to d6 pips for attributes. Nice.
honestly i get most if not all of my pf info from u (nonat) so I really dont mind that ur a week late lo, and im sure there are others who could say the samel. Hope you're doing well
Plastic squeaky hammer that only does spirit damage goes hard
take a shot every time he says holy
Mythral was cought in the crossfire
Im okay with most of the old terms being gone, but Im not sure I love some of the new names. A lot of them feel very "mundane". Like "the universe" is too normal. Reality would sound better to me. The physical realm too.
I like Creation´s Forge, but "the Void" is sooo generic. something like "the Mausoleon" would be more poetic.
The Abyss name Im gonna really miss. I´d prefer they just call it all Ishiar like the ocean.
I also preferred simplified monster grabs. So much easier for a GM.
Interesting that they are moving even more to being similar to my own game...
So many news! So exciting
I really dislike that partial attribute boost change. Reminds me of the half skill points from dnd 3.5
I also don’t like the Wizard “schools” change. Feels to tied to their “world” and less inclined for home brewing. I’ll still home brew though.
A lot of this makes sense to me and sounds good. However, I'm confused by what they're doing with spells. They're getting rid of schools of magic and replacing them with colleges of magic. I always thought that colleges were schools. Maybe in the next edition they will replace the colleges with universities.
They need to call it Spell Form and not Spell Shape.
Just curious: Is this "Sneak Peak" to be considered set in stone, or is it just a form of Playtest and changes mat happen accordingly?
They’ve said things may change between now and release
Please tell me witch is fixed
It feels weird saying Vitality damage. In most games vitality damage hurts almost every thing.
AYO, WHAT HAPPENED TO FOCUS POINTS.
Love you nd paizo
I'm not excited about the new class changes at all. I really don't want to remake my character without the guarantee it will be the same character.
I don't even know how Archives of Nethys is going to adapt Pathfinder 3rd edition.
Will they replace Pathfinder 2nd edition by removing it from their website, or will it be listed as a different system?
And what about other websites like digital character sheets how will they adapt to the changes. Will they even continue supporting the old ones?
P.S.
I've spent way too much time planning out my character to see it go down the drain like this...
And I even planned it out before the 3rd edition announcement...
Stop being so dramatic jesus. 1. you don't have to see it go down the drain, use the old system or make the *Extremely* minor changes required to update to "pathfinder 3rd edition"
They changed names and a couple features, you'll survive
Aquan/Thallassic, Auran/Sussuran, Ignan/Pyric, and Terran/Petran are the elemental *languages*, not creatures.
I understand if folks who are new get tripped up by spell levels, but honestly I don't think it's that necessary to change the name since after a few weeks of playing they'll get it in their brains.
I understand why they are changing it tho, but still a bit of a nothing burger to me.
@Nonat1s They confirmed there still cap of 3 focus points
I don't know if he is smart enough to understand that.
Dropping Attributes is incredibly stupid! It's a change just for change sake. There was no need for this and the "partial boost" dynamic is a fiasco. Not worth the hassle.
Replacing saves with defenses sound more like 4e.
You can try all you want to be enthusiastic and claim that it’s simpler but it’s no simpler or harder than the original language… The only thing it’s doing is eliminating the possibility of getting sued by wizards of the coast that is the entire reason for changing the wording… And to try and say that it’s any other reason other than that is just being unnecessarily obtuse… The entire reason for this remaster was to avoid lawsuits that’s it end of discussion
Please at least change the thumbnail so it doesn't mislead a lot of people who don't read the comments. There's still a maximum of 3 focus points, that part didn't change.
I am fine with most of them but I don"t like some of them
-A lot of the word changed from something that was easy to learn like aquan that fit with aquatic to something that is not related at all.
-Djinni(that we see as giving wish and link to a lamp) to jaathoom(evil spirit or demon that appear in dreams which is defined a type of djinn ) also move something to somethine else for a word not proprieraty at all to the ogl which in used in Quran potentially creating more problem in the future. .
-mythral, why not used mithril? word and concept aren't subject to copyright and you get away from the ogl with mithril
-I was liking the idea that you could drain something to remove all their strenght or intelligence but now you will have a -42 bonus of intelligence