Halfway to Doomsday

Monday, October 1, 2018

Hey there everybody. As of today, we're just about halfway through the spotlight period of the Doomsday Dawn adventure, and while we still have many months to go before the end of the playtest period, we've learned a lot in the past two months!

First and foremost, thank you for your participation! We could not do this without you. Your feedback has been vital in telling us where the game needs work, and we're looking forward to seeing what you uncover in the last parts of the adventure. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind you that if you haven't played up through Part 3 of Doomsday Dawn, you have nothing to fear. The surveys for all of the previous parts are still open, and there's still much more for us to learn from your input.

What Are Our Goals?

In the past few months, the design team has been on just about every different news and interview forum out there. We've talked about the changes we've made and why we made them. We've talked about where we wanted to go and why we wanted to take the game there; but in all the rush, we've realized that the one place where we haven't categorically stated our goals is right here, in this blog. So without further delay, here are our primary goals for the playtest.

  1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.
  2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.
  3. Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).
  4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.
  5. Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.

There are plenty of other things that are important to us as we work to create a new edition of Pathfinder, but these points are some of our strongest motivators. I think it's important to note that these are guidelines and not necessarily listed in order of importance. Furthermore, a guideline might be more important in some parts of the game than it is in others. When making something this challenging, it's very useful to give yourself guiding principles, while also understanding that you're never going to be 100% perfect. In any case, for those of you who were interested in why the game has changed in the ways that it has, we hope that laying out our goals for the process can help you understand our decisions.

MORE Surveys

The surveys never end here at Paizo, and this week is no exception. We have been incredibly pleased by the results from the Doomsday Dawn surveys as well as the more general surveys we launched two weeks ago looking at ancestries, backgrounds, and classes. Today we'd like to open up two more general surveys.

The first is focused on the general rules for playing the Pathfinder RPG. This survey is a large one, going over a wide range of topics and touching on nearly every chapter in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook. Set aside about an hour for this survey if you can, and make sure to go all the way to the end if you want your results to count.

Rules Survey | Open Rules Survey

The second survey takes a look at the monsters in the Pathfinder Playtest Bestiary. We want to see what you thought about the stats in that PDF and how they were presented.

Bestiary Survey | Open Bestiary Survey

Well, that about does it for this week. Make sure to stop back in here next week for Update 1.4 and the start of Part 5 of the Doomsday Dawn playtest!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
401 to 410 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

So Paizo put out the "Art of Dragon Magazine" artbook. I have it, it's a great book, it has solid reviews and was generally well received.

It's now sitting in Paizo's warehouse at 4 USD (FOUR DOLLARS) discounted from 35 USD. And it's there at this price since 2015.

Thanks for the tip! Sidecart'd!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Yes, our goals are similar to the goals of other games. We share a heritage and that is not too surprising. I am not sure why you seem to think that is a bad thing.

Broad and unspecific goals which could equally apply to basically every other RPG are not a *bad* thing as such. But neither are they a useful yardstick for evaluating design decisions.

What I would like to see: Specific goals which apply to specific rule complexes. Ideally, a designer's commentary: "We wanted to achieve this, so we did this."

This would actually help people make useful comments or suggestions. Without knowing the rationale for the new skill system, for example, I can only tell you why *I* don't like it, but I cannot make suggestions on how to better achieve the same goals with different mechanics.

Regards

Wulfhelm


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wulfhelm II. wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Yes, our goals are similar to the goals of other games. We share a heritage and that is not too surprising. I am not sure why you seem to think that is a bad thing.
Broad and unspecific goals which could equally apply to basically every other RPG are not a *bad* thing as such. But neither are they a useful yardstick for evaluating design decisions.

Yes, things like accessibility (new-players), still the game you know, acceptance (politically, socially, ethnically, sexually, etc, etc), same stories, evolutionary, and fun, etc, are all standard new edition rhetoric, like they are gonna say different?

The problem is some of those semi-platitudes are a given, and the others are rarely delivered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
True - but I confess that I am much less concerned about what's easy for game developers and rather more interested in a game that's actually fun to play and lets me build the character concepts I want.

I'm with you. By and large, that's why I prefer systems that are class- and level-less. Balance becomes a discussion between player and storyteller, so it's mostly unsuitable for the typical players attracted to D&D style adventures, especially in organised play, but it's far more engaging for people who want to represent the mental image they have of their characters, especially (in most level-less systems) with regard to non-combat focused PCs.

Since Paizo's traditional customer base seem to appreciate character build flexibility, PF has always had an open door policy towards muticlassing, so this particular itch could be scratched. Since PF2 is, in many ways, going back to basics by necessity, it will feel rigid for a good long while: players have become used to "flexibility creep" from all the splat books that PF1 has published, and those won't be here for a while. But for PF2 to be a success, it needs to force us to wait for the new splat to arrive, so for the time being, we'll do with a more rigid, less flexible system. C'est la vie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I skipped most of this thread (because between Pages 3 & 9 becomes TL:DR when you're late to the party), but my biggest annoyance is still not being able to build a dex/ranged-based/themed paladin. In PF1 it was workable (and the inquisitor's free team-based feats were dumb, making it a poor alternative). So far in PF2 playtest, it's "pick another class you can dex-build, then archtype into cleric"

What's with every system pidgeonholing the paladin as tanky smashy smash?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trans: They have stated that ranged options will be built into all classes by release. Many feats were cut from the playtest for space. Each class will have like 2 to 3 more pages of feats from the sound of it.


Data Lore wrote:
Trans: They have stated that ranged options will be built into all classes by release. Many feats were cut from the playtest for space. Each class will have like 2 to 3 more pages of feats from the sound of it.

This. They specifically mentioned Barbarian as an example but I'm confident that Rogue and Paladin are in the works.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Trans: They have stated that ranged options will be built into all classes by release. Many feats were cut from the playtest for space. Each class will have like 2 to 3 more pages of feats from the sound of it.
This. They specifically mentioned Barbarian as an example but I'm confident that Rogue and Paladin are in the works.

The potential problem here is, oh, I have to take this specific archetype in order to realise my concept, which now comes with other crap I don't want. Having said that, I would like unarmoured options for the Barbarian and Paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... Survey question; Attack of Opportunity, question 8, Option 1:

Quote:
I would like it better if tank-type characters got Attack of Opportunity automatically (such as paladins and barbarians)

Barbarians are tank like? Are you kidding?

Bad enough that this concept (tank) is in your design thinking at all, but that a class so squishy, with limited armor and even AC penalties is at all tank-like is patently absurd.

And no, the 9th level DR doesn't matter. It isn't even a blip compared to enemy damage numbers at that level (let alone higher).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

So... Survey question; Attack of Opportunity, question 8, Option 1:

Quote:
I would like it better if tank-type characters got Attack of Opportunity automatically (such as paladins and barbarians)

Barbarians are tank like? Are you kidding?

Bad enough that this concept (tank) is in your design thinking at all, but that a class so squishy, with limited armor and even AC penalties is at all tank-like is patently absurd.

And no, the 9th level DR doesn't matter. It isn't even a blip compared to enemy damage numbers at that level (let alone higher).

Haven't you heard? There's only three allowed party roles: bruiser, mage and healer. Anything else is dangerously subversive and not enough akin to the computer games our target audience supposedly love over actual roleplay.

Love it or loathe it, but PF2 has set out it's stall to see whether they can do D&D 4th edition better than WotC.

401 to 410 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Halfway to Doomsday All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion