作者 主题: PF二版blog翻译文  (阅读 373933 次)

副标题: 持续追踪:现在更新7/9「吟游诗人」

离线 喵雪

  • Guard
  • **
  • 帖子数: 204
  • 苹果币: 0
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #30 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 08:49:12 »
二版正式在19年8月发售
以后不会再出apg等书名相同的书
5e太简化了,pf2不会学5e还是会保持复杂度的
测试中范型的选择会比较少
盾牌的话是花3动作,免去盾牌硬度值的伤害,没提耐久
可以花额外动作加强法术,比如魔法飞弹是每个飞弹1行动
3动作法术比较少
hp,sp,rp系统继承自sf
一些阵营对职业的限制没有了
深度挖坑症晚期病患

离线 月夜白雨

  • 萝莉控绅士
  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • 帖子数: 2782
  • 苹果币: 10
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #31 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 09:27:44 »
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二版的情报。
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
剧透 -   :
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.
« 上次编辑: 2018-03-10, 周六 14:50:45 由 月夜白雨 »
我月夜白雨只想安静地过图书馆长的生活。

离线 笨哈

  • 版主
  • *
  • 帖子数: 3822
  • 苹果币: 6
PF游戏测试:返回地穴
« 回帖 #32 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 09:54:33 »
PF游戏测试:返回地穴

作为PF二版公告的一部份,我们伙同来自 Glass Cannon Network的一群逗趣的职员们,录下一个游戏的过程。他们邀请我们前往他们在纽约的工作室,在那Erik Mona和我与他们一同进行游戏测试,转换最早的PF模组:Crypt of the Everflame至全新规则。

因为这是实况,也因为我是在拨出过程中实时转换这个冒险,我认为这段所有听众来说助益很大,包含一个在他们那边的部落格文章,这个部落格文章介绍了在绿音中的某些剧透,并且纠正了在游玩之中我们犯的某些错误。

请记住下列的注译也包含了剧透,所以如果你还没收听播客,你可以现在前往Glass Cannon Network下载(或你订阅播客的地方)。以下每句话都有大概的时间标示,让你知道在游戏过程的什么时候发生了这些事情。

Part1的评论

以下的评论参考自播客的Part1。

(03:00) 我应该说明一下,PF的新版本已经设计超过两年了。回到2016,首次对核心机制的游戏测试在设计过程中只有几个月的时间。
(04:00) 必须出现的Princess Bride桥段

译注:Princess Bride(公主新娘)是一部浪漫电影,是部传统王子救公主的故事,这边应该是代指老套桥段(个人的自我介绍? 应该是)。

(04:40) 对这个冒险唯一的准备就是将现有的怪物属性对应冒险中会遇到的那些。所以,如果冒险有狼,那我带来的新文件就有狼的新属性。所有要转换的东西都有相应的转换模块(陷阱、随机技能挑战或怪物)。
(06:00) 这时候真正开始模组,开始玩家以及角色介绍,说明他们将进行的冒险。为了便于参考,下面是他们的角色:

Pherise (Matthew Capodicasa), 精灵盗贼
Mamolo Blunch (Skid Maher), 哥布林鍊金术师
Keith Slashmaster (Troy Lavallee), 人类战士
Grellun the Green (Erik Mona), 人类法师
Emmerich Kant (Joe O'Brien), 人类圣武士
Sifferus Sufferas the Vociferous (Grant Berger), 人类牧师

(31:40) 在游戏中第一个技能检定是社交检定。这个技能包含了有关城镇、人群、风俗名情以及历史的知识。他们在这边找的资讯基本上是常识,而他们需要骰出的数值(DC)只有10。Keith (Troy)检定烂透了,并得到错误的资讯,然后很快地就被其他人揭穿。
(35:30) 队伍离开了城镇,当他们冒险进入Fangwood时,进入探索模式。
(39:00) Erik的角色名称是Grellun,开始念他角色卡上法术的描述。在纪录中,他当读了酸液飞溅时,他提到了「姿势」跟「语言」,虽然听起来不太像剧透,但实际上这是你在施展酸液飞溅时必须要花费的两个动作的名称。
(39:50) 为了继续推进冒险,希望花几个小时就好不要太久,所以有许多不太重要的遭遇我跳过了。举个例子,在旅程中,我把狼的遭遇删了,因为对于整个情节体验来说它完全不重要。当然,团仍然跑了很久,很大程度上是因为我们玩得太开心了。
(40:10) 这里是我们游戏中首次战斗,打三只残暴的兽人。
(43:50) 没错,察觉再也不是一个技能了。你的职业会给予你在察觉上的起始熟练,并且可能会随着时间增加。
(47:30) 这边要对一轮中可以攻击超过一次说明一下。如果他把三个动作全都用来攻击,那么在第三次攻击将会承受极为庞大的罚值。
(54:10) 大多数的战技(擒抱、卸武、翻滚以及摔绊)现在会跟特技或是运动技能相关。
(59:00) 随着战斗推进,很快地有些角色会发现这些兽人并不是真的。是由幻术所创造,当他们被击中时就会消失。这些虚幻的敌人是由一个名为「幻化生物」的新法术所创造的。由一个隐藏的巫师所创造,这些兽人比平常的敌人更难击中,因为他们的属性取决于施法者。因为他们是由法术所造的,所以这也解释了为什么他们每回合只有两个动作,并且造成的伤害如此之低(当街开幻象时,所有的伤害都减半)。
(1:05:30) 开发者们让我回到原本的看法。霓虹绿色的骰子就和其他骰子一样,没什么差别。

译注:在这边是实况中,使用霓虹绿(Neon green)色骰子的玩家,连续攻击两次,第一次失败,第二也败骰,然后玩家大喊:「这是我的Neon green!拜讬!」Bulmahn(GM)在这边是调笑的意味:「Neon green色骰子并没有什么不同啊(XD)」

(1:07:20) 灵活闪避(Nimble Dodge)在工作室游戏测试时被用了很多次,已经救了无数盗贼的性命。
(1:11:40) 在游测试中,角色在攻击上有着适当的加值,但当大家都骰出10以下的时候,几乎没什么帮助。再多的设计都拯救不了变化无常的骰子。
(1:16:00) 有关夹击。我在这边犯了一点小错。夹击不会给你攻击的+2加值。取而代之的是,他现在是让目标对你的攻击措手不及,这让他在AC上承受-2罚值。结果相同,但两者是有区别的。



Part2的评论


(02:30) 我称为这为技能解放,过去我们是这样称呼的,现在我则称呼它为技能专长,每位角色在2级开始获得。
(05:00) 这边有个小错误。使用三个动作施展医疗术(heal)可以针对团队中所有人,但他只能治疗跟施法者在这等级的施法关键属性调整值相同数值(所以只有4)。
(07:10) 我在这边应该要等到他骰完并宣告结果。
(11:10) 生存技能可以在荒野中导航,寻找避难所,以及寻找食物。在这种情形下,并非是建造一个避难所,这技能只是简单地寻找食物、找一个好地方扎营。
(14:10) 我决定把剩下的狼的遭遇跳过,让游戏继续下去。
(19:00) 好,我承认,我对于身体的描述在这边太过露骨了,但在这场冒险的这个时间点,对于转换气氛很说是很重要的。现在事情开始变得严重了。
(21:10) 无庸置疑,这将会成为未来博客文章的主题,这里真正开始展示在熟练以及制作之间的关系。这么说吧,你的熟练越高,你做出的东西的品质就越好。
(23:50) 讲清楚点,这边有一对穿刺的伤口,一个在躯干上部,一个在躯干下部。这伤口直径是一英寸,两个伤口距离12英寸。
(24:20) 幻术要被侦查到的唯一办法,就是幻术的环级要比侦测的法术要低。如果他们同环,那就不会注意到。
(36:10) 在转换这个特殊的危机(hazard)时,我把表格上各式的结果转为新效果的失败、大失败、成功以及大成功的结果。DC改成15。我些微的调整了伤害,但唯一重要的改变就是我把大失败效果的属性伤害移除,用脚踝受伤的状况做为替代。
(46:10) 如果这发生在战斗中,因为时间很短,我可以要求进行一次运动技能检定好移动这匹马的尸体,而不是只看他们的力量属性值,然后算出他们如果要移动马尸体,需要多少额外的bulk。

译注:bulk是SF中出现的概念,指的是物品的笨重程度和重量。

(51:50) 我又在这边把医疗术说错了。它应该只能恢复4点。
(55:10) 在这边的骷髅并不是很强的不死生物,但数目很多,也可以致人于死。最大的问题是,他们对武器伤害有5点的抗性,但钝击仍旧是他们的弱点,可以无视它们的防护。
(1:01:20) 骷髅也对火焰有五点抗性。
(1:05:25) 爪抓是灵活武器,这就是为什么骷髅们可以用爪抓进行第二次攻击,但攻击骰却只承受-4罚值。
(1:09:00) 盾卫(Shield Block)反应动作非常的强大,借由迫使敌人攻击你的防护好阻挡伤害。这意味着战士会以某种频率磨坏盾牌。
(1:11:00) 护盾术(shield)也是一个戏法,这意味着你可以想怎么放就怎么放。
(1:13:30) 解是一下困惑,我们早期的草稿中,酸液飞溅可以打多重目标。现在不是这样。
(1:16:10) Troy就是没办法在这场战斗中骰出超过5。
(1:19:00) 我最后终于发现我用错了医疗术,然后没有及时注意到,骷髅们应该有个豁免检定来对抗这个效果的。幸运的是,这并不十分重要,反正它们很弱(译者:随后众人一阵欢呼)。
(1:21:45) 扫腿应该是个运动技能检定的...
(1:24:50) 这房间有两扇门:一扇往东,一扇往西。尖叫声来自西方。在地城的某个地方,一个饱受折磨的灵魂呼求帮助。

这就是跟Glass Cannon Network一起进行的游戏测试第一部分的播客的概览。在星期一,我们将会介绍你要如何用新规则来升级!

Jason Bulmahn
游戏设计负责人
« 上次编辑: 2018-03-10, 周六 16:12:27 由 笨哈 »

离线 zghzgh1779

  • 讲个故事吧
  • 根源索寻者
  • *
  • 帖子数: 4913
  • 苹果币: 15
  • 布被秋宵梦觉,眼前万里江山。
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #33 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 10:48:05 »
罪大恶极的function as终于被拉出去毙了
讲道理3e搞出这么个概念完全就是有病

离线 zghzgh1779

  • 讲个故事吧
  • 根源索寻者
  • *
  • 帖子数: 4913
  • 苹果币: 15
  • 布被秋宵梦觉,眼前万里江山。
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #34 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 10:49:08 »
引入炼金见仁见智吧,喵保留意见
把铳士踢出举双手同意
灵能大概也是类似……有的人喜欢有的人不喜欢
pf的灵能emmmm怎么说呢
喵觉得有人喜欢ban掉再正常不过了

离线 Alanryan

  • Flawless
  • *******
  • 帖子数: 6983
  • 苹果币: 2
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #35 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 11:10:01 »
取消治疗轻伤杖太合理了!支持
1级血量提升也支持
岩石不因体积而比钻石更珍贵,那宇宙又怎会因体积而比人类更伟大呢?

离线

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • 帖子数: 6783
  • 苹果币: 7
  • 夜空中的闪烁
    • STAR的实验室
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #36 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 11:31:54 »
引用
Vancian system still there. Specific prepared recipes as aways.(没看懂)
Vancian system就是一直在用的那个法术位系统

离线

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • 帖子数: 6783
  • 苹果币: 7
  • 夜空中的闪烁
    • STAR的实验室
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #37 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 11:34:56 »
引用
——要解决“为什么咒法系代替了塑能系”这个问题
原文
引用
Solving "why is this conjuration instead of evocation?" (Bonner)
这里是说,要解决“为什么XX法术是咒法系的而不是塑能系?”,比如为什么酸液飞溅是咒法。
PF2简化了法术学派,法术分派更清晰,来解决这个问题

离线

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • 帖子数: 6783
  • 苹果币: 7
  • 夜空中的闪烁
    • STAR的实验室
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #38 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 11:36:44 »
引用
——法术分为1-10环。没有0环了。戏法走了
引用
Spells go 1-10. No 0-level spells. Cantrips still exist. (Bonner)
嗯?不是戏法仍然存在吗?

离线

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • 帖子数: 6783
  • 苹果币: 7
  • 夜空中的闪烁
    • STAR的实验室
Re: PF二版blog翻译文
« 回帖 #39 于: 2018-03-10, 周六 12:07:48 »
吃法术豁免出0伤害翻倍
是豁免出1受伤翻倍