Originally Posted by DeltaMasterMind (Post 264153)

All this speculation, oh my!

Originally Posted by Azhrei (Post 264269)

My guess is that in order to support multiple attacks per round, they'll have some scheme whereby you use one "action" for a single attack, or two "actions" to gain iterative attacks. In other words, each type of activity will require one, two, or three "actions", but you can choose to split them up however you want during your turn.

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh (Post 264271)

A whole blog exists plus the podcast examples exist of how this will work. Its very similar to the Unchained Action Economy system that came out in Pathfinder Unchained.

Other than spells each attack is one action but some spells are only one actinon. Meaning yes you can sometimes get two spells off on your turn. An example of this is even done in the podcast. This also means level 1 you can attack three times if you wish and don't need to move. Each attack is at an additional -5 penalty (0/-5/-10).

Personally I moved my games to this system soon after Unchained came out. I love it! It really opens up some fun possibilities. It takes a few houserules to get right in PF1 but with PF2 being built from the ground up to use it will fix those issues. :)

Originally Posted by Asandir (Post 264272)

Can you share what those are? The houserules you defined?

Originally Posted by Jamz (Post 263984)

Along those lines, I would think that if PF was on HLO, they could then drop iPad logic/support as the iPad could just use the HLO? Although you loose offline unless they change that...

For offline, why not package up an application build that is basically the "server" logic and the UI would just be a "Web view" to that localhost? Then you have one code base? Take the Discord app as an example, it's simply a web application, and the OS install is really just installing a custom Chromium build displaying the web app. (ok, not the exact same thing but...)

All in all, their are ways to solve offline use unless they really have other motives to force users to use web browser/server.


Also, I really don't see myself throwing away a couple hundred dollars of Hero Lab investment and probably won't invest in any more data packages until I know where we are heading (and I'm not putting that all on LW, but I assume they know more than us from Paizon). I would consider paying 35$ for Pathfinder 2.0 IF my current source material came over with it from Pathfinder 1.0. Or a nominal "transfer" fee if those data packages needed changes because of 2.0. (if a book only had some feats and spells in it, and feats and spells still have the same format in 2.0, then I see no reason why I can't use it with 2.0).

I'm going out on an assumption that Pazio does NOT want us to throw away our 1.0 source material and it will be largely compatible (outside of statblocks).

Originally Posted by RavenX (Post 264338)

Reserve judgment until the final release is out. Playtests are not indicative of what the finished product will be. D&D 5E changed a lot over the course of playtesting and the end result was nothing like the original playtest packets they released.