http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5039-Here-s-a-TON-of-Pathfinder-2-Info-from-the-Know-Direction-Podcast
又有了大量PF二版的情報。
稍微翻译一下，只捡和我们有关的，详细文字回来补
产品——Eirk Mona准备弄pf2的。
——最终产品（不是指测试版）将在2019年9月面世
——测试版封面不会是正式版封面
LOGO——会有新的pf的logo，测试版的不是正式logo。我们还没开始设计
StarFinder——会继续开发，并不是PF1和PF2的中间版本，是树上不同的分支
DND5E——讲了很多，强调我们和5E相似但不同
炼金术师——知名职业，将会成为核心的一部分了。制造炼金道具也会成为核心系统
——炼金是pf独有的。我们不想做另个版本的DND了，我们要做PF。
——和魔像合并，这个大家伙将成为炼金的商标。
职业选择——为什么是炼金而不是铳士或者灵能魔法？铳士有点游离于奇幻之外了，而且玩枪的角色比起炼金要少很多。
——很多很多人认为铳士应该是一个选项而不是核心
——炼金对很多角色来说拥有高扩展性
——铳士需要更多的测试
——女巫很棒。我们差点就做进核心了。不需要等3-4年才会有女巫。
——等级会带来职业专长。混合型职业可以在基于某些职业上，通过一定数量的专长来达成。战争祭司类型比较简单，而调查员则需要一些构筑智商。
核心变体——职业不会再因变体而面目全非了。核心职业太弱会让群众为难，着重于核心部分，然后再慢慢达成目标。
——变体在测试版里是比较小的选择部分。
——不会像SF或PF1。更具有实验性
——核心里的变体不太会像“职业特有”，而更会类似于拥有前置条件的“法师特有”
——APG是我们一个让PF更PF的测试，核心部分就是变体。但牧师没什么好变体，使用基本的东西已经8年了
Mona最讨厌的东西——鉴定魔法物品就是在浪费时间。2版会改掉它，“让它变好”
——一串带宠物的烦人东西比如鬼婆会有麻烦（这句翻译存疑，没看懂多少）
——去你的治疗轻伤魔杖。从没听说一个奇幻故事里“让我用我的便宜棍子戳你49发”这样的鬼东西。我们无法接受这个。
——侦测魔法法术。花费几轮来获得信息，又没那么好用
盾牌——新的工作机制。举盾需要1个动作，可以对一次攻击吸收伤害，最高等于盾牌硬度
——双盾也是可能的build
——带盾的BOSS和带盾刺攻击的BOSS
——还没有小圆盾
超魔——有！
魔法系统——法师和术士会更加不同
——准备施法和自发施法保留
——对施法者来说施法类型没改变。或多或少有变动吧
——法术位系统仍在。也有特别的准备方法。
——大多时候你可以花费更多东西让法术更威猛。比如魔法飞弹每多一个动作多一发
——治疗在1动作时接触，2动作时远程，3动作时爆发
——动作系统很明智，不过不是所有地方。所以一小部分标志性法术有了更多效果。
——3动作法术很稀少。大部分施法者回合都可以放一个法术然后还有一个动作
——有些法术会成为1动作法术，比如护盾术。酸液飞溅2动作，然后该轮里还可以1动作护盾术
——护盾术会更像实际盾牌
——羽落术是反应动作
——召唤是3动作。某些版本是持续性，大部分立刻生效，生效后召唤物在它的轮内有2个动作
——施法者等级不影响法术效果了。要让火球术更威猛，就用更高环的法术位去准备它。自发也不会落下，因为自发法术位更多，更大更多的火球
——简化法术学派。
——要解决“为什么有些是咒法系而不是塑能系”这个问题
——酸液飞溅是塑能系了
——核心没有创造法术系统
——法术分为1-10环。没有0环了。戏法还在
魔法物品——标志性的新魔法物品。很多新系统。我已经看到6个版本的marvellous pigments了。
——+1剑会更让人兴奋。+4剑更加如此
——不会在有一样的抗力披风偏斜戒指了。大家都买这些东西的时代过去了
——这些东西被砍了很多。大概还保留了3个
——没有身体槽系统了。只瞄准特定部位的特定物品这一点都不酷
——特别的挑战会让你着重于8个物品里的3-4个。更多有趣的抉择
——我是应该用这根魔杖呢，还是做点别的来节约资源呢？
治疗和HP——你会需要一次强力治疗而非多次弱效治疗的。涉及到消耗问题
——1级角色不会那么脆了。1级圣武士有17或19HP
——种族HP和职业HP
——没有从SF拿耐力和决心过来
1级角色——选项数量上有点类似1版。有的更强，有的不见了
——战士的突然冲锋——双倍移速，一次攻击，这一切只需要2个动作
——突然冲锋，双切（等等都有）
——没有普通冲锋了。但你用3个动作移动2次然后攻击一次
——build时间更短
——核心有重训
英雄点——有，但不一样。拥有它的不是角色，而是玩家
高级游戏——更少的坐火箭感觉。能终结遭遇的高环法术和道具更加平衡。怪物不会因在6秒游戏时间内一大堆事来让你感受到更多压力。
——更加紧凑的升级联系。战士更容易命中，圣武士AC更高，但他们之间与法师之间的区别不那么巨大，这样法师不会“要么被怪物锤扁，要么就一个法术让一切攻击无效化”。升级造成的数据堆积依然有，但不会那么庞大了。
——我们不愿“让战士是唯一一个能命中的人”，现在战士比一般人打得更多，但其它职业也不甘落后，也有机会。
先祖——不是1级决定了就不管了，以后会经常回顾你的先祖，没有两个矮人是相同的
——比种族这个词更加深刻。创建角色时选择，然后会随着发展有着更多的选择，而不是“矮人”就完事了
——给人类民族，半精灵，半兽人进行了划分，而不是简单的“这只是一个技术上的分别”
——地精可不简单只是一个“会吃的小孩”，我们做了很多让地精融入冒险队伍的东西
——地精玩家会很特别，和一般地精有不同。有些废话就是专门解释这些地精玩家的社会背景和“他们要如何与人共处”
——虽然地精玩家可用，在怪物图鉴里地精依然是混邪。他们依然会进本挨揍
复合——空战大部分被重新规划了
——衰弱（enfeebled）状态。中了的话，造成伤害更少，攻击加值减少。可以直接在最终结果上计算，而不是改变你的力量然后再计算
——让桌面计算量减少，复杂度却没有减少
——更少的加值类型，叠加会更少。只有无类型会叠加了。其它只要带类型就不叠加。
——新的数据模型会让纸面上的东西“看起来更顺畅”，比如“一半等级”，这和高等级不冲突。高级现在和低级的割裂性更小，只代表着一个角色做什么更好，其它角色也至少可以进行尝试。你认为你可以做的事，你就真的可以进行尝试。
动作——战斗更加动态
——用三个动作可以1级就玩出跳跃攻击了（走，打，走）
阵营——还在。某些职业的阵营限制不见了
——侦测阵营很模糊，GM有更多能力来决定信息如何展现了。也很容易从游戏中分离出来
转换——转换冒险不难。修改宝物，修改遭遇。采用新的怪物（有一个新的怪物系统，只要15分钟就可以造出一个中等级的怪物）
——将一个巨蜘蛛替换成B6之后的怪物毫无问题
——虽然向后兼容至关重要，但十年了，提高游戏性更重要。
——我们从没说过我们不想做新版本
怪物——怪物拥有基础数据，你只需要给与特殊能力就好。不用再像建造人物那样。当然只要你想，你也可以做人物NPC
——从冒险中丢掉沉闷而不是快乐。
——越物理的规则会越沉闷。让一切做得更快和普适，然后做我们想让你做的事——让遭遇更爽
——不要认为所有NPC都会像PC一样有具体的卡。像PC样做卡只是一条路。
术语——角色用相同的方法build。你不需要再去学习盗贼“exploit”和战士“combat feat”之间的区别。它们都是专长了。
——编纂术语是个重活。
——标签Tag。所有东西都有标签。“矮人”标签，这样有的东西就对“矮人”更有效。
——法术不会再说“这如同xx运作”，会明确“它是什么，它不是什么”。移除暧昧。
——因此类法术能力只是法术的一种特定形式，而不是分裂的什么东西。这说起来有点像“法术就是法术”
进阶职业——还在。
原文
劇透 - :
Products -- it was Erik Mona's decision when to do Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
Final (non-playtest) products release in August 2019.
It turned out (back in 2008 with the PF1 playtest) it was cheaper to buy a copy of the playtest book from Paizo than to print it yourself, and they sold out in three days. (Mona)
Starter BOX TBD. Haven't discussed post playtest products. Revising the ruleset and creating a beginner box are two very different tasks. (Mona)
Not just going to regurgitate products people have already bought. Obviously we'll do the core book, monster book. But we're not going to just convert Advanced Players Guide and Ultimate Magic and so on. Taking a holistic look at the whole thing and the opportunity to create truly new stuff. Same way PF1 didn't just repeat D&D and do Oriental Adventures and Dungeoneers Survival Guide. I refuse to just regurgitate the same products (Mona)
Erik Mona comments that Paizo knows a lot more about how to make books after 20 years of experience with the 3.x system, and evolving a presentation template which was initially created back in 1999 for D&D 3.0.
Playtest cover won't be cover of final book. (Mona)
Tons more Wayne Reynolds art. In the playtest, some will be black and white "in process" art. (Mona)
Logo - there will be a new Pathfinder logo. Playtest logo is not the 2E logo. Haven't started designing it yet. (Mona)
Subscriptions -- will continue, with plenty of warning about what's coming down the road. Don't want people to have to reset up their subs. Don't know about paces and sizes of each sub yet. (Mona)
Playtest stuff not part of subscription. (Mona)
Starfinder -- its its own thing and genre. Not a halfway edition between Pathfinder 1 and 2. A different branch off the same tree. (Mona)
On D&D 5th Edition -- "The fact of the matter is that [Pathfinder 2 and D&D 5E] are branches of the same tree to some degree; the design goals that they had with D&D 5th Edition were "4th didn't really work, how do we take the basic 3.5 rules, or really going back to 1st Edition, and evolve those into today", and they had a set - I assume - of design goals. We're doing the same thing in the sense of we had Pathfinder, which is an off-branch of 3.5, and now we want to make Pathfinder the best version of Pathfinder, and so there's going to be some things that are similar but in no way is there an intent to make this 5.1. Quite frankly, we're so busy playing Pathfinder, which we enjoy, that we're not experts at 5th edition. We wouldn't dream of making "an even better versions of 5E!"; that's not the goal. The goal is to make a better version of Pathfinder, and it may be that some of the solutions we come up with are similar to some of the solutions that they came up with, and frankly some of the solutions that they came up with are very similar to Pathfinder in the first place!" (Mona)
Some people ask is this a versions of 4E or 5E. It's neither of those, it's a version of Pathfinder. Still crunchy, still expansion-heavy. The things our fans love, like more options and more stuff they can dig deep into. 5E is a little simpler, a little more loose, a different play style than Pathfinder. We want to maintain a similar play style while smoothing down some of the rough edges. (Bonner)
"Streamlining", "proficiencies", "background" are three words in the publicity people have associated with 5th Edition D&D, and the implantation is significantly different. (Mona)
If you're concerned we're dumbing down the game or making it too simple, really that is not the case. Core foundation in the core rules designed to allow for more choice and more customization. We want tons of depth of character options. (Mona)
Tactical complexity. Pathfinder is the customisable complex game. I love the grid, miniatures. It's not just an excerise in roleplaying or acting. Pathfinder is a tactical roleplaying game. Were not changing that. (Mona)
Playtests -- internal playtests are being done like crazy. (Mona)
Current playtests much more robust than 5 months ago. Solid collection of monsters now. (Mona)
Been playtesting for the last couple of years. Now at the point of not saying "do we have this rule?" but rather "where in the book is the rule?" (Bonner)
Major parts of the rulebook are pretty unlikely to change now. Playtesting with a fairly reasonable final version, but it's not too late to make a change. (Mona)
They're going to make changes up till the last section, but they aren't operating off drafts. (Mona)
Sometimes in the playtest, they couldn't decide whether to make a big leap, so in the playtest is the more extreme thing. Some envelope pushing, with the chance to pull back. (Bonner, Mona)
Alchemist -- a popular class, and in the core book they can look at what alchemy means in the game right from the get-go. Baking alchemical items, crafting into the system from the core. (Bonner).
Alchemist is uniquely Pathfinder. They don't want to make another D&D, but the best version of Pathfinder. (Mona)
Incorporating the golem, a creature associated with their brand. (Mona)
Class selection -- why these 11 core classes? People would freak out without them. Taking things away from people is never a good idea. Eg gnome being removed from 4E D&D core. (Mona)
Why alchemist rather than gunslinger or psychic magic? Guns a little far outside conception of fantasy and gunslinger character are pretty rare compared to alchemists. (Bonner)
A lot of people prefer guns be an option rather than core. (Mona)
Alchemy has high extendibility to other characters. (Bonner)
Gunslingers need a more focused playtest. (Mona)
Witch is a very popular class. Almost made it in. Definitely won't have to wait 3-4 years for it. (Mona)
Every other level grants a class feat. Simulating hybrid classes can be done with class feats to an fair amount; depends on the individual class. Could do a pretty good warpriest. Investigator more of a challenge. (Bonner).
Archetypes in core -- no classes are being rebranded as archetypes. Demoting core classes would upset people, but focused on core game and going back and forth on how to deal with those.
Archetypes in playtest are a fairly small selection. (Bonner).
Not much like Starfinder or 1E. More experimental. (Bonner)
Broadly accessible concept archetypes in core rather than class-specific, but can theoretically could have prerequisites such as Wizard-specific. (Bonner)
Advanced Player's Guide is when "Pathfinder became Pathfinder" as a ruleset, with introduction of archetypes. But clerics had nothing to swap out and have been denied a fundamental part of the rules for 8 years. (Mona)
Space -- the current playtest is 400-416 pages, roughly, maybe a bit bigger. The final core rulebook guidelines is it can't be bigger than the 1E book (576 pages is the line). That means there is room to create new stuff to deal with issues which come up during the playtest. (Mona)
Mona's top Pathfinder peeves (not necessarily addressed by 2E):
Identifying magic items is a stupid waste of time. Being addressed in 2e, "it's pretty awesome".
A bunch of little editorial pet peeves like hags being alphabeticized by their first letter.
Wand of cure light wounds. Never read a fantasy story where somebody said "let me hit you with 49 changes of my cheap wand". Artifact from 199 which has stuck with us.
Detect magic spell. Takes several rounds to get info, some of which is not useful.
Shields -- new way of working. Riase shield as one of your 3 actions to absorb damage of a hit up to hardness of the shield.
Two shields is a viable build... (Mona)
Attach shield boss or shield spikes to attack. (Bonner)
Haven't looked at buckers yet. (Bonner)
Metamagic? Yes. (Bonner)
Magic system -- Wizard and Sorcerer are really different to each other. (Bonner)
There's still prepared casting and spontaneous casting.
Casting type hasn't changed for casters. Some may have a little more or less.
Vancian system still there. Specific prepared recipes as aways.
But sometimes you can spend more actions to make spells better. Magic missile one missile per action spent. (Mona)
Healing is a touch for an action, ranged for two actions, burst for 3 actions. (Bonner)
This approach done judiciously, not everywhere. Small number of iconic spells to make extra special. (Bonner)
3-action spells are rare. Generally a spell caster's turn will likely be a spell and one other action. (Bonner)
That other action could be a one-action spell like shield. Acid splash 2 actions, shield 1 action in the same round. (Mona)
Shield spell works a lot like an actual shield (Bonner).
Featherfall is a reaction (Bonner).
Summoning is 3 actions. Some revisions ongoing but looks like it appears right away, acts right away with 2 actions on its turn. (Bonner).
Caster level scaling of spells is gone. To do more damage with a fireball, prepare it as a 5th, 6th, 7th level spell. Spontaneous caster is not left behind because it's generous how often you can swap out your spell you know as you level up. (Bonner)
How is that not like D&D 5E? A lot of 5E comparisons are off base but in this case it is similar. It is coincidental though, as Mark Seifter hadn't read 5E when he designed that bit. (Bonner)
Simplification of schools of magic. Changing way magic is categorised. (Mona)
Solving "why is this conjuration instead of evocation?" (Bonner)
Acid splash is evocation now. (Mona)
No spell creation system in core rulebook. (Bonner)
Spells go 1-10. No 0-level spells. Cantrips still exist. (Bonner)
Magic items -- Brand new magic items. Not just converting same old items. Many operate with new elements of the rules system. For those who have seen six editions of marvellous pigments, there's lots to love. (Mona)
+1 swords are so much more exciting. And particularly +4 swords. (Mona)
Getting rid of items needed just to Keep Up With The Joneses. Not the same approach to cloaks of deflection and rings of protection. Required quest to get all those little +1s is almost gone. (Mona)
Those items are minimized a lot. 3 core items. (Bonner).
No body slot system. Aimed at a small number of cool items than a whole bunch of clutter. (Bonner)
Specific challenges might make you focus on 3-4 of your 8 items over others. A lot more interesting decision making. (Mona)
Do I want to use this wand or save my resources for something else? (Bonner)
Healing & Hit Points -- you're going to want a small number of strong heals rather than a bunch of tiny heals. There's a cost associated. (Bonner)
1st level characters will not be as fragile. 1st level paladin has 17 or 19 HP. (Mona)
Race hit points and class hit points.
No stamina/resolve from Starfinder.
1st level characters -- choosing the same number, maybe a little more, options as 1E. But made a little stronger, a little more going on with them. (Bonner)
Sudden Charge for the fighter -- move double speed, make one attack with two actions.
Sudden charge, double slice.
Not a normal charge any more, but you can move twice and attack without Sudden Charge using your 3 actions.
Less times you'll take something OK to get something better later.
Retraining rules in core.
Hero points - will be in the playtest. Not exactly the same way. Currency players have, not characters. Might be really divisive. (Bonner)
High level play -- less rocket tag. Better balance at big level spells and things that just end encounters. Less stress of having to remember tons of stuff a monster can do for just 6 seconds of game time. (Bonner)
Tighter math at high level. Fighter will hit more often still, Paladin's AC is still high, but gap between them and wizards isn't so great that the monster just squashes the wizard, or the wizard invalidates everyone with their spells. Still an expanding gap as you go up in levels, but not as drastic. (Bonner)
Rather than "fighter is the only one with a chance to hit" now the fighter hits more often than before, but the other classes are not falling quite so far behind and still have a chance. (Bonner)
Ancestry -- you don't just decide at 1st level, you come back to it again and again, so no two Dwarves are the same. (Mona)
Deeper than just a new word for race. Choice you make at creation, then as you advance a series of decisions you make to make yourself, say, even more Dwarfy. (Mona)
Gives opportunity for human ethnicities, half elves, half orcs, without getting into "this is technically a subrace". (Mona)
Goblins writeup is lighter on "eating babies" and more how a goblin works in context of an adventuring party. (Mona)
Goblin PCs are extraordinary, not typical conception of a goblin. Some verbiage addresses the social contract of the game and how to play well with others. (Bonner)
While PC goblins are playable, in the bestiary there will be chaotic evil goblins. They are still adversaries too. (Bonner)
Complexity -- Recalculating stuff on the fly has changed.
E.g. Enfeebled condition. Tells you things that change - lowers our damage, lowers your attack bonus. Applies directly to the frontal numbers rather than changing your Strength and making your recalculate everything. (Bonner)
Example of it being easier and less math at the table, but the complexity hasn't been reduced. (Mona)
Less types of bonuses and things that stack. No types that stack and others that don't. The types don't stack. (Bonner)
Logan Bonner commented that math streamlining meant that some things which "looked good" on paper (e.g. "half your level", etc.) don't really hold up at higher levels. Now higher level is closer to the lower levee experience in that while one character may be way better at something, another character can still at least try it. Things that feel like you should be able to do are things you actually can attempt.
Actions -- combat is more mobile (Bonner).
Effectively spring attack at first level using the three actions.
Alignment -- pretty much still the same. Some class restrictions going away. (Bonner)
Detecting alignment a bit more fuzzy, with GM having more power to determine how the info is presented. And also easy to not include in the game. (Bonner)
Conversion -- converting an adventure not too hard. Some monkeying with treasure, but encounter grouping transferable. You'd have to convert new monsters (there's a new monster system, about 15 mins to convert a mid-level monster). (Bonner)
Easier to replace a stock giant spider from early years than an advanced Bestiary 6 monster from later. (Mona)
Originally specific backwards compatibility was vital, but after a decade there are areas where it's more important to improve the gameplay. (Mona)
We never said we would never do a new edition. (Mona)
Monsters -- monster stats with benchmarks and you give it abilities you want rather than a process like character design. Though you can still do NPCs like characters if you want. (Bonner)
Taking the tedium, but not the fun, out of designing an adventure. (Mona)
Game rules as physics can make design tedious; experimenting with ways to make it quicker and generate things that do what you need it to do for that encounter. (Mona)
No assumption that every NPCs has gone through the same path as a PC. The PC rules are just one path. (Bonner)
Terminology -- characters built in the same way - you don't have to learn the difference between a rogue "exploit" and a fighter's combat "feat". It's all feats. (Bonner)
Codifying terminology is a big thing. (Mona)
Tags -- things have tags. Eg. "dwarf" tag, so we can thing that effect dwarves easily. (Mona)
Spells don't have to say "this functions as...."; it's clear whether it is or isn't the thing. Removes ambiguity. (Bonner)
So spell-like abilities are spells accessed in a special way, not a separate thing. Things that are kind of like spells are spells. (Bonner)
Prestige classes -- You will see a concept which may have once been a prestige class in the core rulebook. (Bonner)
Worth noting that Bonner and Mona gave each other a look when that was asked which makes it look like there's a LOT they're not saying on that subject right now.
