Much more insightful than flat footed

its not interesting, it one of the worst changes because most GM worlds have wizard schools in some shape or form, however your wizards might be self taught or didnt learn in a school, and if you did you could already do the same thing with a spell school major and minor/s except in a much more open ended way. your major being your class choice and minors being roleplay and/or spell picks. that already formed the basis for many wizards who wanted to go down the curriculum path from a story and CC perspective, its open-ended and provides many time more options than the remaster does. by choosing a pair or trio of spell schools and flavoring up your curriculum how you wanted, you could already do what you now being forced to do. now everything is mixed and if you take a look at the curriculums, many are very random and it could be argued that multiple spells in each list fit into multiple curriculums even though they dont appear in multiple lists. also, the old spells schools used in D&D, and many others, were established long before D&D in popular fiction, D&D just added a particular set of 8 into their game, they dont hold any legal ownership over things that existed before D&D, if they did we need to stop using dice and hit points and maps and well RPG's in general WotC would own all these things if that how copyright and trademarks worked, the schools are very generic classifications of spell effects that were in use long before the 80s, but if paizo thinks its too close then that is their decision, even if its a poor one. but, at the end of the day, anything that makes them happy that they have removed the stench of hasbro and wotc from pathfinder is a good thing, so, i hate this change but im glad its happening

^^ As a dm you can decide what you want to use and what you want to modify to fit the world you are creating. Relax.

@@lordhawkeye players come to the table with an expectation to play the game they have chosen to join in on playing. "Just change the rules to suit your tastes" is the rallying cry of poor GMs. You don't change the rules to suit your tastes, you houserule with your players to improve the table. That change is aweful for role-playing, it's awful for game play, compared to how wizards used to run, and so far I've yet to see a single actual arguement against it past, "just change a fundimental building block of new wizards." I understand they de-d&d, but this was one change that they didnt need to perform and one that makes the game worse at the same time. If you like pathfinder and I like pathfinder, we should be able to be critical of things like this...

@@flandersnatch2285 [Declare's opinion as fact] Others: [Offer solution] [Angry/Angsty retort why solution doesnt work and is bad] Chill out man, using absolutes generally just makes you look foolish and automatically puts you at odds with anyone who has a different take. May I recomend couching this in a different manner such as 'It seems like this would cause [this issue],' rather than "it[s] one of the worst changes because..." and "That change is aweful" I'm solidly in the camp that this seems like an interesting change, and remember rules such as this are designed to fit in Paizo's world, and its pretty damn easy to rename wizard schools, plus there is the magical option of just using the old ruling :-)

@@thehob3836 [Twists opinion and makes declarative statements that are untrue] [Can't take critisms of your hobby] [Does the thing he says other do] See how that works. I'm glad you like the changes, when you have some experience come on back and see if you feel the same way 👍

Thanks! I bleed silliness so it's unavoidable

then pay with your blood, mister​@@KingOogaTonTon

Vocial minorities, like the people that think those rules are bad, are a thing.

I hope people give it a chance... I have run it as intended since launch and it isn't as bad as people think it is. It does however encourage better teamwork and actively healing a lot more

​@@lostsanityreturnedthere IS something to be said about designing away from the yo-yo effect of dying, there is real incentive and a feeling of danger here. I don't hate it.

The day one errata already walked it back

@@ssfbob456 And thank goodness. If they went with the rules as (re)written, the wouned/dying dynamic which as played previously which is quite good, just falls apart. Get Dying 1, recover, get Wounded 1. Knocked down again, Dying 1 + Wounded 1. Take _any_ damage whilst in Dying 2, add 1 + Wounded 1 = instant dead. Really ridiculous.

Which was never settled in any court. Already TSR threathened to sue everyone (even people who did not even use D&D, but completly other RPGs) and no one went to court, which is in itself amazing. Having rights and getting right are two different things.

@@sungeziefer7421 TSR had nothing to do with the OGL.

Awesome, glad it was useful!

They're very questionable at best. Many people still keep to the old books...

@@user-jt3pn8bi5p Most people won't buy a new rulebook just for a few tweaks. There are not enough changes for that. So, people sticking to the old books does in no way say anything about the quality of those changes. If you want to make that case, that's just laughable.

From Player Core page 19: An attribute boost normally increases an attribute modifier’s value by 1. However, if the attribute modifier to which you’re applying an attribute boost is already +4 or higher, instead mark “partial boost” on the character sheet for that attribute. If the attribute already has a partial boost invested in it, increase the modifier by 1 and uncheck the box. At 1st level, a character can never have any attribute modifier that’s higher than +4.

@@xczechr Thank you! complete missed that on the character sheet sheet where it say's 'partial boost'

They're basically the same. Most of the differences are in the terminology.

The new book will just clarify a lot of confusing spells and rename things from DND. It's the same game just with some alterations, older tutorials work fine

That's what nephilim are.

@@xczechr right, stupid me

Actually, it was one of WotC major shareholders that forced WotC to back down.

They're still looking for ways to screw the industry I'm sure! Let's just hope their ambitions for a "walled garden" never go anywhere.

But if you're a new player, you won't have any idea what "errata" even means.

@@eamk887 If you don't know the concept of errata or patchnotes, then no video can help you.

There were rumors before the doc leak.

Technically this rule was in the CRB but it was differently written in multiple chapters. Noone seems to have noticed until now

Yeah, with these new rules, you're better off staying dying if you aren't 100% sure you won't be hit if you get up. If you do go down for a second time, it's almost guaranteed that you will die. A lot of people will be ignoring these new rules to dying, so it's up to GMs to decide which rules they want to use.

Run 30 feet away and drink a healing potion. Then used ranged attacks for the rest of the combat until you have 10 minutes for a treat wounds. The thing about heroic fantasy is that often someone does die which shows that the situation is serious and motivates the hero to avenge the fallen. It sucks if it is your character, but character death is absolutely part of a great story.

I also personally think it's a less intuitive system than just adding wounded to your initial dying value. I think the idea of the system that everyone ran with gets across the point Paizo was making with the dying system fine enough to be honest.

This is what Hero Points are for.

Positive reply

Now it's "Vitality comment" 🙃

That'll be $120, please!

​@@AkecheThe changes should all be available for free on the archive of nethys I would hope... I think the new books are aimed at new players. People who already have the older ones should get along fine with no additional purchase. I hope.

pathfinder 2.1

And I hate the way people misread the Dying rules, there are no "new" rules, because it encouraged people to just yo-yo heal their way to victory.

Player Core 2 probably. They couldn't possible fit all the classes into one book.

ugh monks have been around since 1975 and i started playing when 3rd edition came out. i have played monk in every version since. in my opinion its the only class you cant truely break. @@XanderHarris1023

Literally in player core 2

The changes are to sever all ties with DnD. I think that's became obvious by now. If you haven't lived under a rock for the last year you might have heard a bit about the OGL controversy. The wizard schools make sense, I don't know what's the problem here. I applaud getting rid of alignment. Concepts like edict/anathema make much more sense and other games had this for years or decades. The whole idea of alignment is just lazy. Even back when we played AD&D 2e we didn't use that stupid stuff.

I don't like the alignment system or the anathema system. I was hoping it would all go away...

Screeching Nerd! 😂

@@lnflnltyLegend And? Aren't you passionate about your hobbies, or do you simply exist?

To sum it up as simply and clearly as possible, Wizards of the Coast threw caution into the wind at the start of this year by threatening a hefty tax on anyone who had used and would in the future use any OGL content. This was walked back due to (understandably) heavy outcry from everyone, but the threat still remains for the future. Paizo's response was to draft their own open license (ORC) and to excise all OGL content from Pathfinder 2e to protect themselves in the future. Some OGL concepts such as alignment and magic schools were more deeply baked into the system than just terminology and required rebuilding from the ground up, meaning that the changes had to be more sweeping than just releasing an errata document of new terms and printing future books with the new terms instead. Since they had to rewrite the core books anyway, they additionally took the opportunity to make many more additions, clarifications, and changes to make the game better for everyone. The new books do appear to have a significant amount of altered or completely new content judging by reviews from people who got them early, so you're not just buying the same books you already bought again. Also, it's hard to see money as a motivating factor when all of the content from these books is going to be officially available online for free on the release date.

And before they announced that they will make the old books useless they arrange a big sale. They trick everyone to buy the old useless books. Trash company.

Dude, they ran out of their year's supply early in February during the OGL debacle. It's not a greed thing, it's a distance themselves from the OGL and WotC/Hasbro thing.

@@LegendofFantasy As I say, I tend to view things from certain points of view. To keep out from Hasbro = good. The actual changes? Remains to be seen in actual play.

Paizo has been making great sales recently due to the OGL incident. Definitely not an issue of trying to make up for low sales.

I thought by now it should be clear to everyone that this is a necessary step to distance themselves from DnD. Seems like some people still don't get it.

While I agree that publishing an entire new wave of core rules (which feels less even that DND 3- 3.5, discounting name changes on features) is maybe unececary if they are keeping digital archives, Taking an extra step to make yourself safe from lawsuit is sensible. That Paizo did not do this when they published 2e is more notable that that they need wtoc to spur them into changing rules (given that this is the third time *they have had the chance/option to do so,).