Pathfinder 2nd edition!!!

[dantedoom]

It must have been hard to hold the secret! lol

For what I'm seeing in the FAQ's and playtest that they made it will probably be a new ruleset

[ErikZane]

This liberally copies a bunch of ideas from 5e, i'm curious if they'll use the 5E SRD OGL as a cover just like they did with 3.5.

If that's the case, it's fine, but it shows a lack of innovation on their end.

It has been said in response to that suggestion that similar nomenclature doesn't mean the same mechanic. What I heard in a recording of a playtest doesn't sound like any of the D&D 5/e I've come into contact with.

[ShadeRaven]

I don't see the 5E correlation either, to be honest. If anything, it feels like to me that as I involve myself in Starfinder more and more, that they saw all the good that was coming out of the redesign of the PF core into SF, and that it became clear that PF itself could use a version 2 to make it a better, more streamline game.

Put me on the side of the fence that sees this as a positive step forward for the continual evolution of what began as 3E. 5E is more of a hybrid of the many system that came before it whereas I believe this will feel more like the continuation of what started in 3rd Edition.

[ErikZane]

I'm providing a link to a tweet by Jason Bulmahn, stating that lack of complexity doesn't have to mean lack of depth. Hopefully, his blog post will explain things and allay some fears. Anyway, here's the link: https://twitter.com/JasonBulmahn/sta...95196609531905

Personally, I feel that D&D really lost depth with 4E, and continued that loss into 5E, just with a more familiar system. In the end, it's why I abandoned the playtest, never made the jump, and stuck with Pathfinder.

[Bidmaron]

I am a little skeptical. The Schroedinger equation only worked for mono nucleic hydrogen and as much as Einstein wanted nature to be simple it just is not. A DM is always at liberty to dumb it down if he wants but the complexity needs to be there at least as options in my opinion. Gratuitous complexity is undesired of course. And that is where the art comes into a ruleset. I think 3.5 and PF struck as near a perfect balance as I have seen in that regard (fully admitting that I haven’t seen it all).

[The High Druid]

I would certainly be interested in seeing the playtest material coming to FG, though I realise it might be a lot of work to do that, and then update and/or do another edition when it's finalised.

[UltimateGM]

I don't see anything that is comparable to 5e. You will have 3 actions that you can use. Those actions could be used to open doors, cast spells, raise a shield that will allow its hardness to absorb damage if the attack lands, be used for combat maneuvers, disable traps, move three times, attack three times (with penalties) etc. So the new combat system seems streamlined for easy of combat. As it stands 5e does a good job at making combat not drag out like pathfinder but pathfinder, while it does have loads of mechanics, actually made combat more unique. I am very excited to see what comes of it as Pathfinder has become my favorite over 5e I just cant seem to come to terms with the 5e mechanics. I'm not sure what it is about the system. I will buy the new system and as always I will buy any and all content from fantasy grounds because I love their system.

[epithet]

We will have to wait and see how different the systems are before we decide if there is a conversion path or compatibility. It sounds like it may not be cross-compatible. On the other hand, there are still years and years worth of Pathfinder 1.0 content left to convert over to FG.

Doug, one thing I would ask for if I didn't think you were certainly already on top of it is the ability, when the PF2 books are eventually released, to buy a hardcover + pdf + Fantasy Grounds bundle.

Edit: I found the awesome linkage between the FG store and my Paizo account. I should have known you had this handled already... I'm way too used to WotC phoning it in from 1990s.

[Full Bleed]

I don't see anything that is comparable to 5e.

The "proficiency" skill system seems comparable.

And, while the 3-Actions per turn mechanic isn't how 5e handles things, it does pack more "actions" into a turn... which will translate into fewer rounds per combat (like 5e.)

After playing a good deal of 5e, I have become critical of how combat has become "abbreviated" due to the density of action allowed in one turn. And PF2 does seem to be traveling the same path. It's being sold as a simplification of the 6 action category system (and it does)... but it does more than that. I.e., instead of double moves, you can do triple moves and frame attacks with move actions. Iterative attacks are available immediately and to all equally. You're basically doing more per round which I don't think is necessarily the ideal solution for streamlining combat (which PF could certainly benefit from.)

All of that being said, I am ecstatic to see that they haven't just hung their hats on a single, monolithic, mechanic like advantage/disadvantage. That would have been a non-starter for me. And there are certainly some innovative ideas being slowly unveiled (active/flexible shield usage to reduce incoming damage and situational initiative modifiers come to mind.)

Time will tell the full story.

[Bidmaron]

I just hope you don't put the new ruleset into the vault. That basically kills the ability for anyone to make extensions. I know you are a long way from a new ruleset, but PLEASE don't encrypt the thing like you did StarFinder (I don't play that game, so I haven't griped about it).