Just some thoughts from someone who left 1st Edition

I will start my post by claiming that I am probably not the demographic that Paizo is aiming for for 2nd edition. I'm at least open to that notion. I left 1st edition in 2015 for "other rpgs" because I thought 1st edition just had so many explanations and specific rules for everything. My experience with the system was that 30% of a session was looking up and/or arguing a rule. I played and GM'd several different groups who shared this same frustration. I have always enjoyed Paizo as a company and thought that they have gone out of their way for player empowerment with their products. I just thought 1st edition was incredibly over-complicated.

I give that background so that anyone who reads this post can get an idea of where my thoughts/concerns are coming from, and disregard them if they feel that my thoughts are not as good or important as others who have more experience with 1st edition. I overall like this much more than 1st edition and am glad I bought the playtest books in order to support this endeavor, I think a few changes could really lead this to being my preferred rule set. But I clearly acknowledge that I am from the "rules lite" method of playing/GMing.

Pros-
1. I like the proficiency breakdown and explanation. I feel like this gives players a way to roleplay their skill preferences without going "I have +4 in Arcana, what do you have?"

2. I like how the game seems to steer it's rules in a way that encourages roleplay and not characters discussing mechanics and rolls. Such as secret checks.

3. I like the combat action economy. I like the breakdown of "You have 3 actions so spend them as you see fit." This feels smooth and inclusive for anyone's playstyle.

4. I like character building and the selection of Feats to build with. I feel like a party could consist of four clerics and all of them be unique from one another.

5. I like how the three modes of play are clearly defined and give GMs a means of breaking down what situations are for their games/players and then being able to have a central mindset for that scenario.

6. I like that the Character sheet includes a basic diagram of when you get what at which level because the book seems to reference it the one time in Ancestry (for example) but then never again. So without the sheet to remind us, we'd have to check the book every level in multiple areas just to see what we get.

7. I like how this ruleset pushes away from Dex being the "king of all stats" by making Perception the primary initiative roll and making Strength the ability for all melee damage, unless of course you take feats to get away from it.

Cons-

1. I still think there are sections where the rules still seem needlessly complex when there could be simple streamlining in a few instances. I think that double damage having to be different based on an effect or strike is not necessary. I think it could easily just be "double everything" and be done. I think that there are too many conditions that bleed into one another such as Fatigue. Fatigue means that you're hampered so then you have to look up hampered. Why can't they just be the same? I don't think there needs to be a ton of conditions just for really specific instances that could be conduced to fewer conditions.

2. I think untrained and trained skills seem to have an inconsequential difference. I understand that you can do more things in trained. But for the things that you can do in either, "level -2" just doesn't seem that big of a difference compared to just adding your level. I'll be house-ruling untrained as just a roll with ability modifier to consider someone's natural ability at it. It makes sense to me that maybe at 1st level there is a chance that multiple characters could be okay at something, but by level 5 or so, that trained character is really starting to pull away from the character that's untrained.

3. I'm not a fan of rearranging initiative order. There are often times where enough things are going on in combat that I can still occasionally skip a player's turn and instances of rearranging initiative only adds to that. I can't argue with the "Delay" activity. that is basically someone giving up their spot and it is what it is, but when someone dropping unconscious moves them to right before the thing that dropped them seems needlessly complex to me. I will be house ruling that this doesn't happen because I want to avoid messing with initiative when I don't feel like I have to.

4. I think that the DC math for the death saving throws seem really complex. I like the idea of just using the creature DC for the saving throws instead.