The Pathfinder Playtest is Closed!

I would also like to say THANK YOU to Paizo staff for all the hard work in trying to make a great game. Do I love every decision, no, but Do I appreciate the work they put in? You bet!

I also hoped the vitriol would die down. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Can't wait for August!

Counting down the days to put my hands in the future best fantasy RPG of all times!!! *.*

I'll be very curious how the customization bottleneck turns out. Thats my biggest obstacle with PF2 right now. Good luck Paizo on however you shake it out.

Were folks not around in 2008? This is a pleasant experience compared to that, IMO.

I look forward to seeing the final product! While I had some complaints about specific details of the game, I can tell from the erratas that you really have been listening to your playtest data! (also, it was super cool seeing an idea I proposed get adapted into the 1.6 alchemist update :) )

Overall, it's a really fun system to play, and it's been my favorite system to date to DM. It's also been my favorite playtests to participate in, and I've done some testing for early development in 5e! With a little bit of polish and improvement, I think you guys will make a great final product. I only wish I'd be able to hear you guys sprinkle some teasers here and there for hype though!

PS Explosive missile and grenadier archetype style attaching bombs to weapons for 'splosion attacks please! :p

While my gaming companions only reached the conclusion of Part 5, it was an amazing experience and a wicked end for the characters.

Ironically this was the same chapter that caused the last vestige of my group's endurance towards providing Paizo with valuable feedback to give out. We just couldn't any more.

Heck, we didn't even finish the chapter. We were on wave 5 and our only ranged character failed his fortitude save versus being permanently blinded, against 4-5 FLYING enemies.

We took a pause just after it happened, evaluated our resources, and said, "Ok, I think we can just barely scrape through this wave." Then the GM told us how many 5th and 6th level spells the litch had left and what they were.

I threw my hands up and said, "Nope, we're dead." The only other player who could potentially get into range and deal damage said, "Well...if they act dumb and never move more than 5 feet away from a wall...I can kill them..."

There was no point in continuing, it would not have been fun for anyone at the table.

Even figuring out/being informed that this chapter was intended to push the group to its limit and see how long they can go against increasingly difficult fights with no rest, I was still sour. Not because we were forced to fight against tough fights, not because we had no opportunity to rest, but due to the fact that certain rules elements made it unfun. We didn't lose because it was hard, we lost because the enemies repeatedly cast Blindness on the only ranged character until he failed a save (oh, and made the paladin paranoid, so he couldn't use his reactions).

To the Paizo employee(s) that had to read my open feedback from that chapter: I apologize for my language; I was not happy with that and putting off writing things down would have resulted in forgetting salient points. However, I think that I was only able to make my point by utilizing word choice for the emotional impact I wanted to convey just how seriously frustrated I was, and that the sanitation thereof would not have been taken as the harsh criticism that my comments ultimately were.

As I know that my open feedbacks can, in fact, be identified and placed in chronological order (due to certain elements I included in the last field), the deterioration of my mood would be clearly evident and that with chapter 5 I hit rock bottom, broke through the adamantine bubble, and released the clowns in a full red-tinted rage. Chapter 6 would then show a return to a state of dispassionate lucidity. We did not do chapter 7.

My playtest raised significant concerns about the game, but I know you and the rest of the Paizo team are working hard to make this game the best it can be.

Good luck and look forward to hearing more!

Thank you for all of the hard work! Here's to an awesome new ruleset!

Darkwynters wrote:

While my gaming companions only reached the conclusion of Part 5, it was an amazing experience and a wicked end for the characters.

Ironically this was the same chapter that caused the last vestige of my group's endurance towards providing Paizo with valuable feedback to give out. We just couldn't any more.

Heck, we didn't even finish the chapter. We were on wave 5 and our only ranged character failed his fortitude save versus being permanently blinded, against 4-5 FLYING enemies.

We took a pause just after it happened, evaluated our resources, and said, "Ok, I think we can just barely scrape through this wave." Then the GM told us how many 5th and 6th level spells the litch had left and what they were.

I threw my hands up and said, "Nope, we're dead." The only other player who could potentially get into range and deal damage said, "Well...if they act dumb and never move more than 5 feet away from a wall...I can kill them..."

There was no point in continuing, it would not have been fun for anyone at the table.

Even figuring out/being informed that this chapter was intended to push the group to its limit and see how long they can go against increasingly difficult fights with no rest, I was still sour. Not because we were forced to fight against tough fights, not because we had no opportunity to rest, but due to the fact that certain rules elements made it unfun. We didn't lose because it was hard, we lost because the enemies repeatedly cast Blindness on the only ranged character until he failed a save (oh, and made the paladin paranoid, so he couldn't use his reactions).

To the Paizo employee(s) that had to read my open feedback from that chapter: I apologize for my language; I was not happy with that and putting off writing things down would have resulted in forgetting salient points. However, I think that I was only able to make my point by utilizing word choice for the emotional impact I wanted to convey just how seriously frustrated I was, and...

Ironically this was one of my group's favorite chapters, because they actually won despite not being intended to be beaten.

Sorry to hear it was a downward tipping point for your group.

Bobson wrote:

Quote:

The rest of the design team and I are going to be a little quiet over the next couple of months as we finalize parts of the game and get it ready to go to the printer. Once that hard work is done, you can expect us to start showing off the final version of the game.

I think this is the worst thing you can possibly do for those of us who left the playtest with a bad taste. Instead of letting that opinion sit for the next several months, post about problems that were identified and the kinds of thing you're considering to fix them. It doesn't need to be a final "Here's what PF2 will have!" preview, but just insight into "Here's something that was identified as a problem, why we think it was problematic, and how we're thinking of fixing it."

Quoted for truth. Paizo has built customer relations experience with this playtest and now has a blog with actual readers and a Twitch stream with actual subscribers. Continue in this vein. Exploit these resources. Paizo should have somebody who has decent insight into the continuing design process report back to us potential customers what is happening in the design process. If nothing else, this is a way to keep excitement up. To stay in focus among your customers. To hype the coming product.

Actually I find it more efficient to let things cool down and people forget their gripes and all the venom and aggression disappear and later do all the big marketing moves that will happen just before this whole new game is released

Seeing as how easy it is to convert PF1 adventures to the playtest, I can't imagine it being that hard to convert an adventure written with playtest rules to PF2 rules. If *I* can manage the former, I'm sure the much more talented folks at Paizo can do the latter.

Where are those easy conversion rules? I missed them. :)

Captain Morgan wrote:

Seeing as how easy it is to convert PF1 adventures to the playtest, I can't imagine it being that hard to convert an adventure written with playtest rules to PF2 rules. If *I* can manage the former, I'm sure the much more talented folks at Paizo can do the latter.

Where are those easy conversion rules? I missed them. :)

So did I. Can someone post a link? ;-)

It's currently the top thread in the "Running the Game" section.

Actually I find it more efficient to let things cool down and people forget their gripes and all the venom and aggression disappear and later do all the big marketing moves that will happen just before this whole new game is released

Is perfectly fine for them to go quiet for a couple weeks.

The problem is if they go quiet until August, pop back up, and say "tada!"

Because in august, if there was some part of the rules that they thought was fine, but was actually a real hangup for a lot of people, but it hasn't been accurately identified, people will respond with, "Yeah, but what about..?"

Almost certainly the worst thing that could happen is if PF2 goes all 4E on us and someone else goes, "heck this" and forks off with FinderPath the Unpathing (I'm terrible with names, sue me) and the majority of Paizo's audience follows because it was more in line with what they wanted and expected. Some of the 3PP are likely we'll situated to being able to do this and it wouldn't surprise me if someone is already working on a PF1 cleanup and revision "just in case" PF2 sours people.

I know I would be, if that was the kind of work I did (but I build software and never finish anything).

The Raven Black wrote:

Actually I find it more efficient to let things cool down and people forget their gripes and all the venom and aggression disappear and later do all the big marketing moves that will happen just before this whole new game is released

Is perfectly fine for them to go quiet for a couple weeks.

The problem is if they go quiet until August, pop back up, and say "tada!"

Because in august, if there was some part of the rules that they thought was fine, but was actually a real hangup for a lot of people, but it hasn't been accurately identified, people will respond with, "Yeah, but what about..?"

Almost certainly the worst thing that could happen is if PF2 goes all 4E on us and someone else goes, "heck this" and forks off with FinderPath the Unpathing (I'm terrible with names, sue me) and the majority of Paizo's audience follows because it was more in line with what they wanted and expected. Some of the 3PP are likely we'll situated to being able to do this and it wouldn't surprise me if someone is already working on a PF1 cleanup and revision "just in case" PF2 sours people.

I know I would be, if that was the kind of work I did (but I build software and never finish anything).

From the Evil Overlord List (disclaimer: the author Peter Anspach was once my boss):

The public playtest is too big to conduct again, but private playtests are more manageable. Paizo is capable of frequently playtesting in-house with experienced players. They should also arrange a few blind playtests with outsiders for a fresh view of the newest rules, but those would also be private playtests.

And Paizo won't drop Pathfinder 2nd Edition on us unannounced. They will probably have three months of previews to get us excited.

Finally, when Pathfinder 2nd Edition is published and a few clever players invent ingeneous new subsystems that fix the few remaining flaws, Paizo can publish those subsystems in 2020 AD as optional rules in the 2nd Edition Advanced Player's Guide.

Finally, when Pathfinder 2nd Edition is published and a few clever players invent ingeneous new subsystems that fix the few remaining flaws, Paizo can publish those subsystems in 2020 AD as optional rules in the 2nd Edition Advanced Player's Guide.

I really started following Paizo stuff pretty recently. Do they have any history of acquiring player-made content and publishing it as official?

Some of the 3PP are likely we'll situated to being able to do this and it wouldn't surprise me if someone is already working on a PF1 cleanup and revision "just in case" PF2 sours people.

Purple Duck Games is currently doing their playtest for PF 1.5, and have just completed their 14th version of the pdf (updated spells). A few of the original Core classes were cut (ie. bard and ranger), but improved versions might come back in a later book (ie. like a version of the APG).

Mathmuse wrote:

Finally, when Pathfinder 2nd Edition is published and a few clever players invent ingeneous new subsystems that fix the few remaining flaws, Paizo can publish those subsystems in 2020 AD as optional rules in the 2nd Edition Advanced Player's Guide.

I really started following Paizo stuff pretty recently. Do they have any history of acquiring player-made content and publishing it as official?

They don't, but my understanding is that they also don't have to "acquire it," all 3.5 derived rules content, including Paizo's, is free and available to all to copy or adapt as they see fit under the D&D 3.5 OGL.

And Paizo won't drop Pathfinder 2nd Edition on us unannounced. They will probably have three months of previews to get us excited.

True. However. I watched a talk from Mark Rosewater yesterday and came away with these salient points:

"If everyone likes it, but no one loves it, it will fail."
That is, two options, one of which is rated 7 out of 10 by everybody is inferior to another where half the reasons are 1 and half are 10s. I might be one of those people who's more of the 1 spectrum than the 10, but I know there are people who had fun. So, they've succeeded here.

But...These other lessons didn't feel like Paizo had succeeded on:

"Don't confuse interesting for fun"
"Don't design to prove that you can do something"
"Leave room for the player to explore"
"Make the fun part also the strategy to win"

"Winning" in a RPG context is different than in mtg, but we can still recognized what it is that he means: a well built character should also be a fun character to play. (Ie a channel cleric is effective, but not fun. People will still play it, because it is effective, but that's the whole point of the design lesson: if MtG produced a card that said, 'bash your head into the table until you fall unconscious, then win the game' players would do it. They would not enjoy it, but they would absolutely do it).

Instead the game should make the things that are fun also the things that make you win. This is also why the paladin doesn't feel right either: winning (preventing an enemy from hitting an ally) and fun (using retributive strike) are at cross purposes to each other.

Same goes for that second point: they designed the game around this idea that all four debts of success should always be possible for all rolls all the time for all characters regardless of degree of proficiency. They designed it that way because they could. But just like the 2-mana plameswalker, players don't like it (in the case of mtg, "I don't like my planeswalker being weak!" It was balanced, yes, but low-cost, low-power). As a result, they got a rule set that is interesting...but not fun, because skilled characters come off looking like bumbling fools.

On the exploration front...We don't have much of that either. A fighter that wants to use ranged weapons has pretty much one great at every level that makes them better at range. TWF? One feat. THF? One feat. S&B? One feat. All of our build possibility space is so tightly constrained that we look for zaney wacky hybrid builds top see what's possible.

"Don't design to prove that you can do something"

Crap. Now we as players are building things just to show that we can, and the results aren't very fun. Surprise, surprise.

Draco18s wrote:

Some of the 3PP are likely we'll situated to being able to do this and it wouldn't surprise me if someone is already working on a PF1 cleanup and revision "just in case" PF2 sours people.

Purple Duck Games is currently doing their playtest for PF 1.5, and have just completed their 14th version of the pdf (updated spells). A few of the original Core classes were cut (ie. bard and ranger), but improved versions might come back in a later book (ie. like a version of the APG).

Oh look. I was right. I am not surprised.

The Raven Black wrote:

Actually I find it more efficient to let things cool down and people forget their gripes and all the venom and aggression disappear and later do all the big marketing moves that will happen just before this whole new game is released

Is perfectly fine for them to go quiet for a couple weeks.

The problem is if they go quiet until August, pop back up, and say "tada!"

Because in august, if there was some part of the rules that they thought was fine, but was actually a real hangup for a lot of people, but it hasn't been accurately identified, people will respond with, "Yeah, but what about..?"

Almost certainly the worst thing that could happen is if PF2 goes all 4E on us and someone else goes, "heck this" and forks off with FinderPath the Unpathing (I'm terrible with names, sue me) and the majority of Paizo's audience follows because it was more in line with what they wanted and expected. Some of the 3PP are likely we'll situated to being able to do this and it wouldn't surprise me if someone is already working on a PF1 cleanup and revision "just in case" PF2 sours people.

I know I would be, if that was the kind of work I did (but I build software and never finish anything).

cough

cough

I cannot comprehend meaning from this single word.

Hey there folks,

I just pulled a couple of unhelpful posts and the sniping that followed. The playtest is over. If you are not looking forward to the final game, that is fine, but there is no need to be rude about it.

As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just thought I would clear that up.

Wait, I thought the playtest closed down about a month ago?
You folks announced no more public revisions and announced everything would be internal from then on.

Wait, I thought the playtest closed down about a month ago?

You folks announced no more public revisions and announced everything would be internal from then on.

They stopped making updates to the playtest document but were still accepting feedback on the surveys. Now they've got to the point where they can't really keep taking on new information and work on the final product, and thus the playtest is over as surveys are now closed.

Removed an additional post and reply. Paizo.com is a place for our community to interact with each other and paizo.com employees are part of this community. Telling another person or group of people in the community "Could you at least try to be gone? We'd all really appreciate the break.” is not okay. Rude, sarcastic and disrespectful behavior on our forums does not help maintain a welcoming place for our gaming community and does not belong on our website.

As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just wondering what this means for this place.

Because discussions on merits of things are still going on, with the usual lack of agreement on what is fun or isnt, good game design or isnt, has the most support or doesnt... anyway, the same that was the first day.

Will this forum be closed now that the feedback was given? Will the words tossed around here still have any weight on the final game?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just wondering what this means for this place.

Because discussions on merits of things are still going on, with the usual lack of agreement on what is fun or isnt, good game design or isnt, has the most support or doesnt... anyway, the same that was the first day.

Will this forum be closed now that the feedback was given? Will the words tossed around here still have any weight on the final game?

There are a few discussions going on about little problems that might not be recorded in the surveys. For example, Automatic success means you can't ever leave a prisoner alone talks of a flaw in the Escape action and Please Don't Call it "Thievery" deals with the impications of a skill name. Those discussions might warn Paizo about pitfalls to avoid in the PF2 Core Rulebook, and don't belong in the regular Pathfinder forums.

I am trying to refine the methods my wife used to extract more roleplaying from backgrounds and will write a post. It seem like a dimension that could make backgrounds more popular and I want to clarify it in a post-playtest post.

In contrast, basic arguments about decisions Paizo is already committed to would be unproductive. For example, I am an endless font of mathematical analysis and will probably never stop talking about the math of PF2, long after that math is set in stone.

I think eventually everyone will fall quiet except for obstinate people arguing in circles. Then this subforum will have lasted past its usefulness and will be ready for archiving. Alert moderators will detect the diminishing returns before we stubborn folk do.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just wondering what this means for this place.

Because discussions on merits of things are still going on, with the usual lack of agreement on what is fun or isnt, good game design or isnt, has the most support or doesnt... anyway, the same that was the first day.

Will this forum be closed now that the feedback was given? Will the words tossed around here still have any weight on the final game?

See here:

Hey there Everybody,

This is your reminder that TODAY, December 31st is your last day to submit Pathfinder Playtest feedback to us via the surveys. The surveys will close at midnight PST. You can find links to all of the surveys on the Pathfinder Playtest Page.

In addition, these boards will be archived soon as well.

There will be a blog going over this a bit more tomorrow as well, but just in case you miss that...

THANK YOU!

Thank you for taking part in this playtest. We know it has not been easy. We know that passions have flared at times. But despite all that, it has been worth it. We are hard at work on the final version of the game and we could not do it without you!

So once again, from everyone at Paizo, thank you and have a Happy New Year!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Hey there folks,

I just pulled a couple of unhelpful posts and the sniping that followed. The playtest is over. If you are not looking forward to the final game, that is fine, but there is no need to be rude about it.

As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just thought I would clear that up.

Will there still be time to give more feedback? My group only just finished part 2 and I'm actually writing out a document to try and give you all my GM notes, and my thoughts on the paladin.

Draco18s wrote:

Some of the 3PP are likely we'll situated to being able to do this and it wouldn't surprise me if someone is already working on a PF1 cleanup and revision "just in case" PF2 sours people.

Purple Duck Games is currently doing their playtest for PF 1.5, and have just completed their 14th version of the pdf (updated spells). A few of the original Core classes were cut (ie. bard and ranger), but improved versions might come back in a later book (ie. like a version of the APG).

Thanks for this - my group was looking for a product like this in light of our experiences.

Hey there folks,

I just pulled a couple of unhelpful posts and the sniping that followed. The playtest is over. If you are not looking forward to the final game, that is fine, but there is no need to be rude about it.

As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just thought I would clear that up.

Thank you for all the hard work you have done and how much you had us peer into the design process.

Though my thoughts on a particular is my own disappointment, I am looking forward to see how the new ruleset turns out and hope it gets more people into the hobby. I will have to have a long, hard look at the new ruleset as I get ready to run at Gen Con.

Is perfectly fine for them to go quiet for a couple weeks.

The problem is if they go quiet until August, pop back up, and say "tada!"

Because in august, if there was some part of the rules that they thought was fine, but was actually a real hangup for a lot of people, but it hasn't been accurately identified, people will respond with, "Yeah, but what about..?"

The realities of the required lead time for printing are such that "a few weeks" will probably be too late for any further changes. They've gotta get proofs made and approved, then however many copies printed and shipped from the printer between now and Gencon with a little wiggle room for the inevitable thing that will go wrong in that process. That means final text, art, and layout (including things like spell and feat templates) have to be set in stone months ahead of time.

Just as we saw Starfinder and PF2 Playtest previews over the course of months leading up to release, we will likely see final version previews spread out over the course of months as well. But because of the aforementioned lead times and the need to accurately represent the final product, the odds are extremely good that by the time any previews hit the blog, it's already too late to incorporate any more fan feedback.

There are some really nice core systems in what you showed us, so while I can't promise I'll be buying it I do look forward to the final version. Good luck and thanks for the hard work.

Draco18s wrote:

Some of the 3PP are likely we'll situated to being able to do this and it wouldn't surprise me if someone is already working on a PF1 cleanup and revision "just in case" PF2 sours people.

Purple Duck Games is currently doing their playtest for PF 1.5, and have just completed their 14th version of the pdf (updated spells). A few of the original Core classes were cut (ie. bard and ranger), but improved versions might come back in a later book (ie. like a version of the APG).

Where can i find information about this?

Playtest document.

Playtest document.

thank you :)

I am very much looking forward to the first previews of the final system, though I am under no illusions that it will take months for that to happen.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Playtest document.

thank you :)

Ah, got beaten to it.

two options, one of which is rated 7 out of 10 by everybody is inferior to another where half the reasons are 1 and half are 10s.

I believe this is incorrect. The TV series that a lot of people rate high enough to actually watch will beat the TV series a few people love and others hate every time. Something that a few people love might become classic and stay in the circuit for years, but it will never be the #1.

instead of having two forms of the Mage. (Wizard and Sorcerer) Other than mechanics, nothing was different between the two classes.

I find those two concepts quite different. Tactically, there are similarities, but conceptually the sorcerer is a half-monster using something related to monster powers, while the wizard is a magical engineer. Not the same at all in my mind.

[This isn't directly about Vancian casting, its about sorcerer and wizard as concepts.]

How would the sorcerer be half monster? They do the same things the same way another PC would.

They're really just clerics, druids, bards or wizards with the class abilities stripped out. So they're more like half PCs, but with a choice of who to be a poor clone of at first level.