Alzrius's page

Thanks for making so many of my favorite games over the years, Lisa! I hope you have a long and happy retirement!

Just throwing this out there as a tangent: one of my favorite third-party books (for 3.5, but it works just as well for Pathfinder) is The Practical Enchanter (affiliate link). It expands on the concept of inherent bonuses, saying that a wish or miracle can also grant the following as inherent bonuses:

• +10 feet of movement (up to +20 feet total)
  
• One additional feat (up to three feats total)
  
• +1 to a save (up to +4 per save total)
  
• +6 to a skill (up to six skills total)

While not official, it's a nice way of expanding on what inherent bonuses can do.

Just to be absolutely clear, The Puzzle Box adventure is a PDF-only product (i.e. no print version has been made) that can only be acquired as an extra if you buy a copy of the Kingmaker video game?

Simple class templates are one of my favorite ways of advancing monsters, to the point where I use them more often than adding class levels to creatures.

While Paizo only covered the eleven Core classes in their initial offering, Rogue Genius Games filled in the gaps with their Genius Guide to Simple Class Templates for Monsters and Genius Guide to MORE Simple Class Templates for Monsters, which between them covered all of the remaining Paizo PC classes (save only for the shifter).

Now, beyond that simple class templates tend to be vanishingly rare, despite how many third-party classes are out there. What I'm wondering is if anyone put out simple class templates for the psionic classes from Dreamscarred Press; the library of DSP books would be the obvious place to look, but so far I haven't found any among their products (though it's entirely possible I missed something; if so, someone please enlighten me!).

Has anyone put out simple class templates for the psionic classes?

If Paizo made more 1e products( yeah I know "and monkeys might fly out of my butt"), but if it actual happened, would you buy them?

Yes. I'm still eagerly awaiting the Kingmaker Bestiary for PF1E.

Also would you be more interested in mostly new, roughly 50/50 new and reprints, or mostly reprints/updated stuff?

Mostly new. I already have the majority of the old stuff, and I'm in the midst of tracking down what I don't already have.

So with Pathfinder 2E having been out for a year now, the third-party community for Pathfinder 1E still seems to be kicking. Certainly, a lot of major publishers have shifted their focus to the new edition of the game, but at the same time Pathfinder First Edition hasn't exactly gone the way of the dodo either.

My question is, has any of the Open Game Content released for Pathfinder 2E been back-converted by anyone to Pathfinder 1E? Just the new monsters released in the last twelve adventure path volumes alone seem like an obvious conversion project. Has anyone taken up the challenge of putting these (or similar PF2E-exclusive materials) out for the previous edition of the game?

You do mean the player-character's family, right...?

completely coincidental, you're awesome for doing this! :)

I'd love a copy of Lands of Conflict!

Hi Alzrius! The handbook should now be available to download from your account.

Gratefully received! Thank you very much!

So I'm looking at designing a larger-than-usual coven via the grand coven occult ritual. I'd like to make it as diverse as possible, rather than being composed of just hags and witches (whether single-classed, multiclassed, or variant multiclassed) with the coven hex. As such, I'm looking for all the various rules and exploits that allow characters to join a coven. Here's what I've come up with so far:

1) Be a changeling and take the Coven-Touched feat.

2) Be a sorcerer with the accursed bloodline (the bloodline arcana lets you join a coven, which also lets this work if you take this bloodline for a creature with the sorcerer class template, or alternatively works nicely with the crossblooded archetype).

3) Be a sylvan trickster rogue, and select the coven hex.

4) Acquire a shawl of the crone.

5) Worship Mestama, take the Fiendish Obedience feat (I'm not sure if Deific Obedience would count), and then take Diverse Obedience and (once you qualify) choose either the second sentinel or second evangelist boon. Alternatively, take levels in the demoniac prestige class (if Deific Obedience can qualify for Mestama, then you could alternatively take either the sentinel or the exalted prestige classes instead) and choose either of the aforementioned boons.

6) Be a bloodrager with the hag bloodline (though this won't kick in until 16th level, but still works nicely with the crossblooded archetype).

7) Take the hag's calling special patron. This is as per a witch patron, so a pact wizard should be able to take it.

8) Be a cleric with the triadic priest archetype.

That's what I've come up with so far. But what other ways are there to qualify? For that matter, what exploits are there that I'm not seeing? Is there another archetype that gains access to a witch patron, allowing you to take the hag's calling patron? Is there some way to count as a different race so you can take the Coven-Touched feat? Or some other archetype that lets you take a hex, and so can take the coven hex? What are the most unusual combos you can find?

Still a pass for me.

Unfortunately there is no way to just get the 1e product, and I'm not willing to pay $60 for 2e pdfs ill never use just to add on the bestiary

Yeah, that was a deal-breaker for me too.

My group loves Kingmaker; it was the first campaign we played as a group, and we're actually playing through it again now. Several of them are playing the computer game too. I have no doubt that this would be something that most of them would pounce on...

But none of them are even slightly interested in Pathfinder 2E. I'm not either, but I wanted to at least put one or two of the playtest adventures through their paces; the suggestion was dead on arrival.

As such, this is going to be a hard pass for all of us, unless there's an option for a PF 1E version as part of the crowdfunding rewards.

So comparing her original look to her new look...I dunno, I just don't see much of a change at all.

I mean, there are differences, but other than little things like her garb being slightly less drab and having different knickknacks, it seems to come down to her being a little shorter and her head being a little rounder with slightly rounder eyes. A few details like that just don't seem very notable, overall.

Dreams come true! Every core, base, hybrid, and occult class is getting a new capstone! Everyone is here!

That includes the poor, neglected NPC classes too, right? Commoners who get to 20th level deserve a little something to show for it!

;-P

So can Lem use his dagger to summon Dragonzord now?

Alzrius wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad females.

Why would we want to refrain from that? Those jokes are funny! Certainly more so than by making a transphobic statement like "I have balls" when listing your gender, as though gender is a matter of physical sex.

Also, thanks for directing attention toward my blog! I'm quite happy for the extra clicks! :D

They're not. They're childish, immature and honestly creepy. And the fact that your only defense is whataboutism talks volumes about your insecurity.

I disagree, and find your overbearing attempt at being a moral authority regarding the inherently subjective nature of humor to be highly disingenuous, particularly given how it's transparent that you're trying to deflect from your own transphobic comments.

I couldn't remember if it was that or special thanks or the like.

The more important question being if you find that salient at all now that your misremembering has been corrected.

I am aware, the "issue" they raised was a fallacy, not a valid concern.

Regarding the possibility of potential unintended consequences, I don't believe that you examined the potential for that before you dismissed it. If so, you certainly didn't speak to it in your initial statement.

I did examine the concern put forth before commenting, it was not legitimate.

And yet you didn't speak to that examination at the time, instead suggesting that the slippery slope argument unto itself was invalid, rather than any particular application of it here.

Having your name in the Core Rulebook for Dungeons and Dragons is indeed a trophy.

Stating your opinion as if it were a fact does not make it a fact. Observe: "Having your name in the Core Rulebook for Dungeons and Dragons is not a trophy."

But that's secondary to the fact that presumptions of prestige are less notable than the ethical dimension involved in utilizing someone's contributions - however large or small they may be - without giving them proper credit for it.

If that was the sole message being put forth then maybe. But the core message being put forth is this horrible person no longer gets to point to this accolade. Everyone was very much aware he was stripped of it.

Such a thing could potentially be viewed as ethically laudable, but that does not erase the ethical infraction that comes from refusing to give proper credit to people for the work that they do. Nor can we suggest that the good justifies the bad, because we hold that positive ends do not justify unethical means used to achieve them.

It is not, if you are a horrible person you suffer consequences for it.

That does not justify doing something unethical in order to punish someone for their own bad behavior.

Gorbacz wrote:

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad female trumpet archons.

That's gonna be a yikes from me.

Sex-negative people tend to have that reaction. But I'm sure you'll be even more horrified about Gorbacz's transphobic comments.

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad females.

Why would we want to refrain from that? Those jokes are funny! Certainly more so than by making a transphobic statement like "I have balls" when listing your gender, as if gender was a matter of physical sex.

Also, thanks for directing attention toward my blog! I'm quite happy for the extra clicks! :D

Seriously, that took me a bloody MINUTE. I was expecting a proper challenge.

The fact that you think you've found something damning here is honestly amusing. I'll presume that you don't understand that humor isn't meant to be taken literally, and note that you have no such explanation for your comment.

Seriously though, when you display prejudice and bigotry in your own profile, you really want to be the last person throwing stones.

Talk about not being much of a challenge. ;D

No. A glorified beta tester got their name removed from the thanks section, a sign of prestige was removed.

The heading under which his name was listed is "Additional consultation provided by" and does not include a statement of thanks. The attribution of prestige is therefore dubious at best; what isn't dubious is that proper attribution is being given for services rendered.

I am well aware of non-fallacious use of the slippery slope, but this is not the case here.

I don't believe that you are familiar with the non-fallacious usage, hence why you presented that argument as though it had no other aspects besides being a fallacy. Awareness of its other dimensions would have called for a more nuanced statement, instead of dismissing that type of argument altogether without examining if its legitimate uses potentially applied here.

The poster that brought it up did so in the context that "we wouldn't learn from our mistakes and grow as a person" which... has absolutely nothing to do with removing a trophy from an abuser. Thus a slippery slope.

This line of reasoning is predicated on thinking that proper attribution of work done is a "trophy," which is not correct.

There's nothing to learn by leaving his credit in, whereas a valid message is sent by having it removed for being a horrible person.

A more valid message is that it's wrong to cease crediting someone for work that they performed simply because you no longer wish to be associated with them. That doesn't require any fears that such an action may lead to bad consequences (which is the core of the slippery slope argument), because the action is ethically wrong unto itself.

Look, the guy is a sleazy creep. The sooner we forget he exists, the better. The less his name is associated with the hobby, the better.

I don't disagree with any of that. I simply don't believe those are the most important considerations where obscuring proper attribution is concerned.

Having your name on The World's Best Roleplaying Game is a trophy.

Not when it's receiving proper credit for work that was done. That's simply correctly citing who did what.

Getting that trophy taken away is a just vindication for being an a-hole. You might disagree and believe that lawful credit for work takes precedence, well, you need your ethical priorities re-examined.

I disagree. The manipulation of information regarding work done strikes me as highly unethical, no matter what the person in question might have otherwise done or how much you dislike them.

Which is in no way what is occurring with this. A person is getting their credits removed, what they did is not being covered up (anymore).

Removing their credit covers up that they were involved. Whatever contribution that individual made was and is part of the final product; removing the acknowledgment of that accomplishes nothing except to deny that they were ever part of the process, which is disingenuous.

The Slippery Slop Fallacy is a fallacy for a rason, in this case A person is getting their trophy takin away basically, history isn't being rewritten.

You need to educate yourself regarding the non-fallacious usage of the slippery slope argument. Acknowledging that someone contributed to a particular work is not a "trophy." It's a proper accounting of who did what, and that isn't something that should be obscured or denied. Facts remain facts even when they're uncomfortable or inconvenient.

WHOA! There's going to be a new My Little Pony movie in 2021?! And it's a sequel to the 2017 film?!

2000% cooler!

Okay, so, that new Teacher of the Month short was actually rather important, in terms of chronology (spoilered just to be safe):

I just finished binging a few titles, two of which I've added to my favorites:

Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? (ダンジョンに出会いを求めるのは間違っているだろうか)---I absolutely loved it! Some very intense moments in the finale; several times throughout the series I was very nearly brought to tears.

As a note, this got a spin-off a while back, following Aiz's adventures during the events of the original series (e.g. remember how, in the middle of the series, she rose to 6th level? That's a major plot point in her spin-off). However, the anime of it wasn't released on Crunchyroll; I think Hulu was the one that got it?

In other news, Goblin Slayer will return! Yay!

Also, it's now self-evident that That Time I Was Reincarnated As A Slime will be going for at least twenty-six episodes, which was a bit of a (pleasant) surprise for me.

I remember that when Paizo introduced the belier devil in one of the later Curse of the Crimson Throne adventures (when Pathfinder was still 3.5), it had the ability to go ethereal and take a grappled creature with it. It's tactics section even talked about how it would grab someone and go ethereal in order to kill that person in isolation.

When its Pathfinder RPG incarnation came about, in the Bestiary 2, that power (and the associated mention of its tactic) was gone.

It's great to see this tradition being kept alive! :D

Some very unfortunate news: the partnership between Crunchyroll and Funimation is ending. The two will cease to share each other's content as of November 9th.

If you're using Crunchyroll like me, here's a list of what Funimation titles they've had so far. Hurry and watch them before they disappear!

I seem to recall, from reading the manga (presuming that I'm remembering correctly and that the translation was right) is that, in the world of Goblin Slayer, the demon lord is back (or maybe it was that he was only recently defeated).

The implication, either way, is that there's a large demand for adventurers due to an uptick in monster populations, and that's what's driving an upswing of young, underprepared adventurers that are trying to climb the ranks as fast as possible. Goblin Slayer is doing what he's doing because there's a dearth of people out there sticking with low-level quests (which is what all goblin-killing quests are), since everyone is rushing to go fight more notable monsters.

I think.

Something that has been talked about by some watchers of Goblin Slayer, but will probably not be brought up is that the Adventurer's Guild is as just a big a problem as the goblins(or even more)

Er, what? It's been a little while since I read the manga, and I admit I haven't read the light novels that the show is (if I recall correctly) based on, but I don't remember anything about that.

This honestly sounds like one of those ridiculous theories that fan communities become enamored with despite the fact that there's nothing to support it in the actual source material.

The ones posting are the ones dedicated to making THIS system work, not the ones that think that THIS system will end in broken glass, tears, and spilled scotch.

Most people dropping out of the playtest AREN'T posting.

That's been the case for my group.

Sort of.

The thing is, I couldn't convince them to even participate in the playtest in the first place. I tried; I mentioned the previews being put forth, and some of the things that were showcased (such as the three-action system) got a good response from them. But despite that, no one but me so much as bothered to download the PDFs. The idea of actually participating in the playtest was completely dead on arrival. As for Pathfinder Second Edition itself, the group was unanimous: when the finished product came out, they wouldn't be converting over.

I eventually did some informal polling on this (i.e. I asked them why they were so uninterested), and the answer I got was that they simply didn't find the prospect of converting worthwhile.

As far as they were concerned, Pathfinder 1E was doing just fine; any warts that the system had (i.e. stuff that was complex, confusing, or otherwise a drag to deal with) were things that they'd long since made peace with, and had ceased to bother them. So the very premise that made converting, or even participating in the playtest, seem like a worthwhile activity wasn't there.

Moreover, they felt that there were numerous and substantial drawbacks to doing so. They didn't like the fact that they'd need to wait years until enough books came out to give them the range of options that Pathfinder 1E has now, they didn't like the prospect of learning a new rule system in order to do what they were already doing now, and they didn't like the fact that they'd need to spend (quite possibly a lot) more money to buy the books. The prospect of some things possibly being slightly better was nowhere near enough to change their minds on this. Throw in the fact some of what they heard about the playtest didn't go over well with them (e.g. resonance), and that was all it took to kill what little interest they had.

PF2 is not just competing with a rejuvenated D&D - it is also competing with PF1.

That's how it was for our group, and PF1 won that competition without even trying.

So Paizo put out the "Art of Dragon Magazine" artbook. I have it, it's a great book, it has solid reviews and was generally well received.

It's now sitting in Paizo's warehouse at 4 USD (FOUR DOLLARS) discounted from 35 USD. And it's there at this price since 2015.

Thanks for the tip! Sidecart'd!

Yes, as often in life, it comes down to balance.

"Nonsense! Balance? There has never been balance. If anything we shall remove all balance!"

- Ulyaoth, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem

But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.

I disagree. I've found that these forums have all too often adopted a tone of "love Paizo or get out" that discourages criticisms, critiques, and speaking up about things that aren't wanted, liked, or otherwise appreciated. That so many people are willing to express views of the Playtest and the new edition that are something besides wild exaltation is something I find quite heartening.

Steve Geddes wrote:

It depends whether you consider the inclusion of “domesticated” goblins as a bridge too far.

It would help if Goblins were a bit more transitional. Right now they've gone from book burning, dog killing, little murderhobos to Paladins and Wizards. A negative ancestral feature that they have to overcome - like illiteracy or distrusted - would help ease them into the fold. It could be fun to see a Goblin called to be a Paladin but who is rejected by the organized religion, for instance.

That's just me - I don't care deeply about Goblins' inclusion but it does feel a bit jarring. Granted, Edition shifts usually are.

In Pathfinder 1E, goblins had a murderous glee about them, as if they were on some sort of perpetual high that peaked whenever they hurt or killed someone. They were just so freaking excited to be inflicting pain and mayhem, they couldn't help but laugh and sing as they did it. It was like they'd just come from auditioning to be in Gremlins.

From what we've been told of Pathfinder 2E, the goblins seem more like they just stepped out of Gremlins 2.

I've been having trouble dedicating time to reading my newest RPG acquisitions; every time I settle into the chair in my library with a book, my cat starts demanding my attention. I can't even be annoyed, since he's so adorable.

At long last, we've come to the final post in this series! This time, we come to (products for) RPGs that used their own game system, with no underlying connection to D&D or related systems (though of course, a few of these will bend that classification). First, though, let's start with a product I've since acquired that should go in a previously-listed category:

Now, on to the stand-alone RPGs!

And that's it! Those are all of the physical RPG products that I own (notwithstanding the novels, comic books, and a few other bits of RPG-related media)...at least, as of right now. I have no doubt that my collection will continue to grow (not the least because I have some Kickstarter stuff already paid for and awaiting shipping), straining my library to its limit! Listing all of these, and noting my thoughts and impressions of them, was quite the project, and I hope it's been as enjoyable for you to read about as it's been for me to write!

As Owen has mentioned before, during the Starfinder design phase, a key disagreement was resolved via rock/paper/scissors.

You're all dead to me now. REAL gamers resolve these sorts of things with random die rolls!

Could always bring back the Potion Mixture Horrible Death Chart and see if drinking two potions too close to one another results in your stomach exploding. I rather miss that from AD&D.

It may have been as an April Fools article, but WotC put out a potion miscibility table for 3.5 on their website back in 2006.

Looking resonance over, I don't particularly care for the idea. Although we don't yet know what Wealth-By-Level or magic item creation will look like in Pathfinder 2E, if it's anything like Pathfinder 1E then resonance seems like it's going to be an attempt to keep magic items ubiquitous and easy to create while simultaneously enforcing a limitation that makes their utilization comparatively limited.

From a design standpoint, those strike me as being contradictory goals to pursue. If you want to place a limit on how much the PCs rely on magic items, then make magic items rarer and more difficult/expensive to create. Don't try and say that they're easy to generate, are for sale everywhere, but can only be used so much (particularly for a reason that feels rather "gamist" in its implementation).

Ability-buy systems are notoriously difficult to balance as well.

I don't think they're difficult to balance, so much as they require a redefinition of what "balance" is.

They require that balance not be thought of as a round-by-round comparison between individual PCs' options and abilities, and instead take a wider view of "how much of an overall contribution they make to accomplishing a particular goal" with regards to an overall encounter, adventure, or campaign.

They require that the abilities in question be treated as a toolbox, where not every ability will be allowed for every campaign. Instead, the list of selectable abilities will be tailored for each individual campaign, with some being altered and others being disallowed, by the GM in consultation with the players about what sort of game is being run.

They require that players keep that definition in mind and build characters around narratively-generated ideas, rather than on what mechanics seem most powerful. A player that's more focused on a character who acquired a totem spirit in their youth, but is now straying uncomfortably close to the darker parts of the spirit world where the unquiet dead dwell, and is choosing abilities based around that theme, is probably going to be less of an issue at the table than someone who wants to absolutely maximize their DPS and doesn't care about taking any skills.

They require that balance be actively maintained by a GM that the players trust to make fair and judicious calls on-the-fly about what's allowable and what's not, using the rulebook as an aid rather than the unalterable Word of God.

They require that the GM be skilled enough to build (or adapt existing) enemies, encounters, and adventures so that they take into account the PCs abilities and play-styles so that everyone has a chance to engage with the game, while simultaneously working to make sure that everything seems plausible within the scope of an internally-consistent game world. The adventures should fit the PCs while maintaining verisimilitude so that things don't seem hackneyed in their (in)convenience or (in)appropriateness for what the characters can do. Moreover, the GM should know that this doesn't need to be a singular constant during each and every encounter or adventure, but should be an overall truism during the course of the campaign.

They require that the players be willing to listen when they're told that their character might be impinging on someone else's fun, and not respond with a knee-jerk "you're punishing me for making/playing my character too good?!" They likewise require that the GM only use this as a last resort, if the player is insisting on dominating the game in a way that can't be solved via believably-tailored encounters.

In other words, they require that balance be something that occurs largely at the table, rather than in the book.

Characters should not be defined by mechanics. The character should be defined narratively, with mechanics chosen afterwards that best represent the character concept.

I agree with you, but I don't think that Pathfinder 2E is going to be able to go much further than its predecessor in making that viable. Pathfinder 1E, just like 3.X, made it so that certain mechanical choices and combinations worked better than others, and if you built a character focused only around representing a narratively-built definition of who your character was and what they could do, you were liable to end up with one that was less effective, in terms of mechanics, than a character that was created along mechanical lines first and then defined narratively. Spellcasters that multiclassed were a notable example of this.

Personally, the reason that I'm not optimistic about Pathfinder 2E making much (if any) headway with fixing this is that - in my opinion - the root of this particular problem is character classes themselves. Siloing various abilities into particular classes at particular levels, typically done in the name of that elusive specter known as "balance," means that - if you're trying to get abilities from several different character classes in order to flesh out your narratively-generated idea - you're going to have to waste a lot of levels to do it, and pick up other class abilities that you don't want along the way, in all likelihood.

With "hole-patching" prestige classes (e.g. mystic theurge, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, etc.), archetypes, and feats, this can be slightly ameliorated, but those are putting a band-aid on the issue rather than solving it. Solving it would mean abandoning character classes altogether and going with a point-buy system of selecting character abilities (which wouldn't require that you go to a rules-light option either, I should add; you can still do this while maintaining compatibility with the d20 System engine), which in turn would require a fairly expansive system that prioritizes the ability to build what sort of character you want over restricting your choices in the name of balance, requiring that players not try to wreck the game by making everything all about them (and be willing to dial it back in if they've inadvertently made a character that's impinging on everyone else's fun) and GMs that are imbued with authority to disallow various options from the list of point-buy abilities right from the get-go (i.e. treating the toolkit like an actual kit of tools, where not all of them will necessarily be used) in order to help define what the campaign world is like by making it clear what powers are available. In other words, primacy would need to be given toward the group wanting to get along as a group and not just a collection of individuals - and trusting the GM to safeguard that, including having the authority to make judgment calls - focused solely around the meta-game of character-building.

But the thing is, most Pathfinder players that I've seen don't want that. Whether they consider them to be warts or not, character classes are seen as a definitional aspect of what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder (and what makes D&D D&D). The user-base has already decided that they don't want those to go away, and not only are willing to live with the exception-based state of the rules - wherein you can't do something unless you can locate and select an option that says you can - but enjoy treating it as a meta-game all on its own. What happens during actual play is fun too, but a lot of the enjoyment for Pathfinder that I've seen comes from the mix-and-match nature of the mechanical complexity that goes into making characters or accomplishing various tasks that exploit the mechanics to some incredible (if not ridiculous) end. Ironically, "balance" will still be judged as a comparison between individual characters at the tactical level, with its high standard that any and all characters should feel like they're all equal stars of the proverbial show during any given round rather than during an entire session, let alone across an entire campaign.

I understand what you're asking for here - it's something I want too - but I strongly doubt you're going to get it in Pathfinder 2E. This goes to major philosophical differences in play-style which in turn formulate choices about game design, and Paizo isn't going to make the radical changes to fundamental aspects that would required to bring about such a paradigm shift. Even if they were willing to, it would also require a publishing change on their part, since having a single book of character abilities that could be mixed-and-matched would obviate the need for later books of new character abilities (I say that because I'm convinced that a truly expansive book of abilities, presuming that ways to tailor and customize them could be factored in, would be able to do literally everything a character would need anyway), and that would limit them to simply making new monsters, adventures, and location books. They're not going to cut off the need for character-ability expansion books by publishing something that makes that superfluous.

Ultimately, Pathfinder 2E is going to look, feel, and play a lot like its ancestor d20 games (PF1E and 3.X), and that will be completely by design. It's not going to overturn the design decisions that made defining your character mechanically first and narratively second such a wise decision for its predecessor's rule-set.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Anguish wrote:

I'll likely try the 2e playtest rules, because it's only fair to give artists I like the benefit of the doubt, even when they decide to go in the opposite direction of my personal preferences (ie. "yay, we're getting rid of all those pesky hard things like rich action systems and complex bonuses and time-consuming stuff like iterative attacks that require math.")

But hey. Maybe it won't be too hard to convert the future adventure material to run with the 3.x level ruleset. Dare to dream.

As a fellow math nerd, it's actually a fascinating process. We crunched a lot of math; I knew that was going to be a big part of the process going in. But the part I didn't expect was how much delicate care we took to include all of that math into the game while not forcing you to need to go tangle with that math unless you choose to do so on your own terms. It's actually possible to make a game that, for instance, has an even richer action system while simultaneously being easier to handle, rather than a trade-off, but the design challenge for doing so is particularly intense. In general, we strive to use these principles throughout the game: solid mathematical underpinnings you can dive into if you choose, but simple user-friendly explanations for those who just want to play.

Can you publish this math for us? As a homebrewer, I LOVED when Trailblazer went through and took apart and explained the entire 3E math system. Doing that for Pathfinder would greatly enhance my ability to make modifications to get the game I want. Hell, you could, in the future, release a book that was just the math in switching from 3.5 to PE1, from PE1 to PE2, and in creating Starfinder, and I'd buy it.

I would buy such a book so fast!

"10th-Level Spells and 4 Spell Lists"

So I was looking at the playtest page again, and something occurred to me when I read the above bullet point: what if the presence of 10th-level spells is just the existing system of spell levels being slightly readjusted, rather than creating a new category of high-level magic?

To put it another way, what if Pathfinder 2E is simply going to have spells ranging from levels 1 through 10, rather than 0 through 9?

We already know that there are going to be some fairly substantial changes to how spells and spellcasting work, and that some spells will be assigned at least slightly different levels (e.g. shield is a cantrip now, though what a "cantrip" in Pathfinder 2E is remains unknown), so maybe the levels of spells are simply being recategorized as well. In that case, we're simply looking at the existing top-end spells, for the most part, under a new label.