Thanks once again. Using the lists found above I have around 20-30 scenarios now to play (which should take quite a while to get through).
I am bumping this to bring the issue up again, but with another aspect. I tried filtering out files today, and it didn't really work. What occurred to me though was that I have so many digital files it can be hard to scroll through all of them. What I was trying to do was specifically get PF2e items downloaded. There didn't really seem to be an option to only display PF2e items. Just putting an idea out there that with the new webpage implementation of these items, could there be an option where if you just want to download or see items from one edition or game (PF1e vs. SF vs. PF2e) that you could do so? I got confused over different items (some which seem to have the same name, such as the Advanced Players guide...guessed which one was for 2e) and wasn't sure which one was for which game. Thank you for your time.
Thank you everyone for your advice. I didn't want to make a hasty decision, and to try to make the best decision I could possible. I've considered what everyone wrote here and looked at the options and took into consideration what was suggested. In the end, I decided to go with one of the ideas posted here. I've decided that I'll end my subscriptions overall as I probably won't be using the stuff in the APs or modules as much...BUT that doesn't mean I'm out of it. I won't be a subscriber but I plan on doing more picking and choosing. I'll buy some PF2e stuff in PDF format (which means no more discount for me) which I find interesting. With the Subscription model it felt that I was bound to just the adventures and such overall, but if I drop it I think I'll expand into the Lost Omens (when it has things that look interesting) and expand into other areas (scenarios, etc) with a pick and choose method. Thanks once again for all your suggestions.
I run prepublished stuff for Pathfinder. They have another DM that runs 5e and they normally just run the DM's own created campaign. Last one prior to the 2e module and AP vol 1 that just came out was the Giantslayer AP that I ran. I tried to convert 2e to 1e, and at first it worked decently but as they go up levels it gets tougher to do quickly and thus requires a lot more pre-prep work than what I normally have time for. I found that I wasn't having fun anymore with that and tried to figure out why. The converting just wasn't fun for me. I think a little conversion, or easy conversion I don't mind, but when it gets a little tougher...I really don't think I enjoy it all that much to be honest. 5e adventures to PF would be nightmare to convert I think with my current schedule these days.
So, it appears we will not be converting to 2e presently, but I am still getting the adventures and APs. This will be our initial test into how easily or well it is to convert APs and Adventures to 1e. I plan on creating characters soon and trying to get people together to run a marathon game while I have some time to do so. I'll update this with what we run it with and how it goes.
Over the years, there has been consensus that every point of intelligence is worth about 10 IQ points.That's a really weird way to phrase "One time there was a magazine article or something that said IQ translated to INT score in that way, but in genuinely never made any sense at all to treat it that way and has not once been actually supported by, or even accidentally emulated by, the game rules." That's cool, that means I have a character with an IQ of 250! He's above the max IQ level!
I'll be the odd one out... the Gunslinger!!! Okay... Maybe...the Inquisitor.
Our group took several sessions to get through this and had it end with a TPK. Luckily they made NEW characters for this part rather than the ones they used in the first portion. Everyone died. The killer of the keg was the Night Heralds. They wrecked us BADLY. I do not know if it is comforting to know that other groups have had this same difficulty or see the same problems with them that ours dealt with.
Well, if it's like our group, there's always one. At least one of our players wanted to try out the goblin race, even if it wasn't popular with the rest of us.
I don't like the new XP system, but that's due to personal feelings of it. I like things more standard and mapped out. 1000 XP per level is fine, but having XP variable depending on the level of the characters vs. the CR of the challenge complicates things to a degree that I find myself just not wanting to even deal with it. This is more complex in some ways than 3e/3.5's way of doing XP. When PF1e came around with a more set and solid XP system for advancement and determining of XP for encounters it was like a breath of relief and fresh air. The new way that PF2e does it seems to be going to something far worse and more complicated than 3e/3.5e. For me, with it, it's just something I don't want to really deal with in game. It's going to be more arbitrary leveling in PF2e than actually figuring the XP each time you create an encounter. However, this is more a PERSONAL opinion than something objective.
Everyone cannot take 10 as a choice if they want to out of combat. AC scales now.
The layout is a problem but I think any GM should read the book (of any RPG) and then help the players through. It took me an afternoon to read cover to cover (no I didn't read every single character option, but I did read ever mechanical bit so when a player read "adds x to y" in an ability I could tell them what x and y were." With this prep time none of my players took more than an hour to make their level 1 characters, even though I hadn't read any spells or many abilities. Maybe I'm just really smart or pick up things quickly? I created two test characters before even trying to play the game. They took me about an hour to create each. Then, I taught four players how to create their characters. Alone, I probably could have made them quicker, but altogether character creation did take a couple hours (but we made 4 characters in that time, not just one). After that, I can now basically make new characters in 5 to 15 minutes. It depends on which character and their complexities, but in some ways it's like learning a new skill. Once you have the ideas down, you know what things do and character creation moves much more quickly. I don't think it would be so hard to create a character that one would give up or take that long, but if a person tends to do that, it seems that the general idea is to make them play a Paladin or some other character that has fewer choices than one that has more choices (such as the Rogue, though with the Rogue it's more of a choice of what skills NOT to have as you can get most of them to a degree).
After having a little while to play with the playtest, I think my opinion on PF2e is finally starting to solidify, at least in it's current state. After playing through the scenarios and other things I've started to get a feel of exactly where the game seems to be at for me and what I really love, what I really don't like and thus might want to change. The OVERALL (TLDR) picture is that the game is fun to play. It is fun to create a character. It is fun to play. It is fun to level up. At the same time, it does NOT feel like P1E, or even 3.P or any other game of that heritage. It doesn't feel like 4e either (Despite some comparisons many may make). I'm not sure what it feels like but it's does NOT feel like playing any of the post 2000 D20 era type games.
Character Creation I really like how easy it is to do character creation. It is tough the first time around (and that is due to something that I probably would change, but not because it is actually hard to do), but once you get the hang of it, you can almost do it in your sleep. It is absolutely a dream how easy it is to create your character, while at the same time having enough differences to see that there are different characters. I like it far more than I thought I would (actually, I love how easy it is) and think it is pretty dang awesome. I like the various bonuses that you add onto 10, (and the flaw) and while it is changed around for your ancestry and class, you also still have some personal choice in regards to where your ability scores end up as. I love it! Signature Skills and Skills While I do not like the escalating DC table in how it is presented (more on that later) other than that I absolutely LOVE how they've done skills. I absolutely think each class needs it's niche, and I think signature skills help give each class part of it's niche. At the same time it doesn't restrict classes from learning any skill they want. However, due to the differences in the gates (trained, expert, master, legendary), different abilities are locked behind skill feats, feats which you have to have a specific level of training to accomplish. Thus, my Barbarian could do all the thievery he wants including finding traps, picking pockets (Conan anyone), opening locks, but at the same time won't ever be able to do a quick unlock or be a spell thief. It's an elegant and simple solution that I absolutely LOVE. I think this is actually one the best parts of PF2e. It adds flexibility, but at the same time creates a niche that each class can hold on their own. Shields Though I don't really care that you have to use an action to raise a shield (I'll put it here though it probably should be on what I'd change-it should be an automatic thing instead), I DO love everything else in regards to shields. I LOVE that you can actually BLOCK with your shield. I love that it has that Damage reduction as something you can use. Weapon traits I might expand on some of these (for example, I'd give the twin trait to several more weapons on the simple and martial lists, or make Bastard Swords have S damage) I love the traits in general. There are changes that I actually REALLY like, for example a Bastard sword now finally reflects that you can do different damage with one hand or two hands, or that certain weapons are Agile and can add different properties. I love how agile and other properties act to create a new idea of Two Weapon fighting (so instead of simply adding another attack, there's an entirely new set of things to think about and apply). I love how you have some Fatal weapons, some deadly, and various other traits that change things up. I also like Critical Specialization effects. Spell Lists I actually like the simplified and shortened spell lists. There are many spells that have decreased in power, and a few that have increased in power. However, the great thing is that many spells can be increased in power to become more potent IF YOU WANT to do so. It is a focus of the Heal Spells and some others really work well with this dynamic. As a fan of Bards I'm also thrilled that they are more capable spell casters than ever before. I also love the new flavor that they have given Sorcerer's where they can become a different type of spellcaster and have completely different lists depending on your choices at character creation. Much of what I also like with the Spells depends on Action economy, or the new Action economy, but I'll talk about that a little more below. Action Economy I think this is one of the strengths of the game. The action economy overall is simpler and yet adds dynamics which increase various options (for example, spells take a number of actions which may be modified by feats which adds to a spells power or decreases it and odds various options of order of casting spells and other things). You also have reactions and Free actions, but this is far simpler than P1E. I actually really love how elegant the system is. Weapon Damage I really love how weapon damage is done for magic weapons. Now a bonus can give you more damage as written out, rather than simply a plus to hit and a plus to damage. The damage bonus is substantial.
Play Modes Exploration and Downtime are not things I love, but it is nice to specifically differentiate between the various things like Combat and sleeping periods. This is obvious in other RPGs but many times not spelled out like it is in the Playtest. Bulk This has been criticized amply by others, but I actually like simplifying the encumberance system of PF2e. Medicine I like the Medicine skill. It has Battle Medic which makes a good temporary substitute for healing, though I personally wouldn't suggest using it regularly until you are 5th level or higher (to great a chance of a critical failure before then). Overall, I like how they have done this skill in many ways as a form that you can use if you are out of healing or a way to assist healing your party. Martial/Caster disparity Casters probably still will be very powerful and dominate at higher levels (and maybe even still at lower levels, sleep is still a very powerful spell for example, perhaps more powerful now than ever before) but the disparity between the two has diminished in my opinion. Those who loved casters simply because they hated martials may hate this change, but I personally think it is a good change for the better. Archetypes I really like the idea of taking class feats to gain archetypes and various abilities. It's the tradeoff that you'd make in P1e, but rather than selecting it up front, you can choose when and what you want to trade out. At the same time, it adds more flexibility (in my opinion) in the character as it develops. I'm not sure how I'd do it with multiclassing actual Classes, but in regards to Archetypes, I actually like it a lot. Saving Throws Not the top of my list, nor the bottom, but they work. They are simple and unified and easy to keep track of. Simple dynamic that just works.
ancestry Ancestry seems FAR too weak. Furthermore, somethings which should be inherent to a Race as a natural ability is given as an option instead (things like Keen Hearing for Elves, or Hardy for Dwarves). It is nice to have you gain various things of heritage (and I think perhaps the name should change to heritage rather than ancestry), and you can develop it as you go, but I'd probably add in a few things from the start that are inherent to the race...I mean ancestry, though I'd still keep the idea that there are cultural items that go along with that ancestry that you can develop if you wish. This would also work with Adopted Ancestry Feat. Clutter When you first start reading the rules, it seems overwhelming. One of the big things is everything is called a feat. This is overly confusing and should be changed. Instead of calling everything a feat, the "class feats" should have their names changed. Rather than calling them class feats they should be called class abilities or something else. This way everyone knows that there is a definitive difference between what you gain as your class, and what you are granted by skill feats and general feats. I don't have a problem with skill feats being called as such or general feats, but the title Class Feats really needs to be changed. Changing it will help with clarity of what these abilities functions are, how they apply to the game, and how they are different than what are the REAL feats (that fall under skill and general feats). At the same time, the organization of the book has to be made clearer. Much of how it is written makes a reader kind of daze out and gloss over some very important items at times. Ancestry Feats should be called something like Ancestry affinities, or Heritage infinities or cultural tendencies. Something other than feats as well. Once again, this helps with clarity and understanding what these are and the intent behind them. Advancement Tables They are currently short, succinct, and very boring/unimpressive. They need some dazzling up to make them stand out and seem more interesting. It's a change that doesn't actually affect the rules, but I think this change would add a lot more pizzaz to the presentation. More General Feats I like how the class abilities are, where they are at. I like Skill Feats and General Feats under those names, but there NEEDS to be more choices for General Feats. Going from a ton of Feats (even in the core rule book of P1e) to a total of 20 feats just feels like we suddenly LOST a TON of choice, variability, and versatility. The number of General Feats really needs to be increased. It needs a greater number of Feats available, if for no other reason to give the illusion of choice, if not the reality of greater choice in combat, exploration, spellcasting, and downtime. Resonance I actually do not mind the overall idea of Resonance. At levels above 10 this is not as much of a problem. However, below level 10 I think Resonance needs to change. It unnecessarily restricts wand and potion use (in my opinion). Either do away with charges on wands or make it so resonance does not apply to them. With Potions, there is no need of resonance with the new Encumberance/bulk system. There is no reason to apply it to potions. After high levels it doesn't matter as much to me, and you can normally have as much resonance as needed for potion drinking (though wand use is still unnecessarily restrictive). Escalating Skill DCs We saw this exact same principle in play in D&D 4e. The way it was specified was also the same (your simple DC may be climbing a very rough stone wall with big hand holds at 4th level, but an ice wall with sheer smooth walls at 16th). In play it did not work that way. EVEN IN THE ADVENTURES they wrote...it was an escalating DC. A simple wall which was simple at 1st level (we'd say a DC 10) but then you see an adventure for a 20th level character and you find a wall that has the exact same description...but the DC would be...not 10...but now it would be 46 (see the Low DC for 1st and 20th level characters on page 337). It would be the same wall in either adventure, but because it is in a 20th level adventure, the DC is written as higher. It was done in official adventures and official play, and it was done in other games. We've seen it play out before, I have NO indications why this time will be any different. If PF2e is going to keep this dynamic it is going to have to be spelled out a LOT clearer and be MORE specific. Examples of a 1st level Low, High, severe, Extreme wall or other things will need to be spelled out. The difference between a 1st level challenge and a 5th and a 10th and so on will NEED to be spelled out. This could literally take dozens of pages. It needs to have challenges marked as a 1st level Low Difficulty, or a 5th level High difficulty in the adventure itself. There needs to be consistency. If the rules lack this I expect it to become just as broken as it did in 4e. If they are going to stick with this idea, either spell it out and be more specific (which probably will take a LOT more pages written on it, perhaps even a dozen or more), OR change the dynamic. Change the rules so there are no escalating DCs (maybe make it so the core dynamic of +1/level does not apply or something, or some different system) but escalating DC's needs some sort of change. If it were me, I'd say there is no such thing as skill DCs by level and difficulty...I'd say there is just difficulty. Level has NO application. Hence, if a wall has a DC of 46, it has a DC of 46 because it's an glass wall coated with the slipperiest ICE around, while a stone wall with large stones jutting out of it has a DC of 17. There is no reason to have it separated out by level and difficulty, just put it as difficulty, spell out the difficulty and leave it at that. No level needed to be added to the list. It creates problems where there does not need to be.
This is the biggest problem I see with the game right now. To me, it does not feel like Pathfinder, and I think I've identified WHY it does not feel like Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, things are actually pretty defined (which many might not see it as). When you choose a race, you KNOW what abilities that race gets. You don't have to remember differences between that race. When you choose a class, that class has specific and defined abilities at each level. You do not have to guess what you get when you become a level 4 Paladin or a level 7 Monk. Theses abilities are defined. This makes it easy to remember once you've played the game a few times. With PF2e, NONE of this is defined. Hence, an ancestry or a class can change. You cannot simply rely on memory, you have to look at your character sheet or someone else's to see what they've chosen. Because things are not defined, it adds a LOT of variability (some may say you have the ability to modify your character more in PF2e, but after a while of playing it I'd say that's not correct. Many of the choices came by default to the classes in PF1e, where as they lose those by default and must choose them or another ability in PF2e). With variability, it means that the same class can be vastly different in what abilities it has, the same goes for ancestry. This means that it is no longer simply a matter of knowing what is granted at each level by your class (or archetype). This may not be the entirety of why it feels different, but it feels vastly different than PF1e or 3.P and I don't think that is a good thing. Unfortunately, I do not think this is something that can be changed. I think it is core to the system of PF2e. I've tested the adventure and it DOES seem to be able to be played very easily with P1E, so with that meaning PF2e APs should be easily playable with P1E rules, I am probably keeping my subscription to the APs and modules indefinitely even if I don't ascribe to PF2e fully (and undecided on that as of yet, it IS fun, even if to me, it does not feel like P1e). However, I think this final point may be a MAJOR sticking point for more of the hardcore base of P1E. Anyways, those are my thoughts on the Playtest as they've solidified over the past few days. I put it in general because this is not really something that is a specific critique of anything the team may be looking at, but as something that really acts for me to solidify my thoughts on what I think of the PF2e PT thus far, and what I feel about it. Thanks.
Actual Twitch addresses
Paizo talked about the playtest and changes coming on their weekly twitch. Whoever sees these first (Fridays 4PM) can hopefully keep this thread updated and post updates about it on this thread. Currently it is at Major items I got... 1. Take the surveys for the playtest...please...it's a very important for feedback to Paizo. 1a. Jason is being sung about being Santa Claus Starting around the 28 minute mark 2. Monday a PDF goes live on pathfinder playtest. It will be a download like the Playtest was (I think, they talk about it being a free purchase). This will be updates to the playtest based on feedback thus far. It will be released alongside a blog explaining some of the feedback and information they've received. Feel free to use the top 5 rule updates that will be in Monday's playtest update. These are critical updates. Meaning they will affect many tables. There are other updates, these are just the top 5 updates. 2a. Alchemist Quick alchemy ability can use ANY alchemical item alchemists can use. It is no longer just common items. 2b. Rangers, key ability has been changed to STR OR DEX. You can choose either or. 3a. All characters can now use Very Sneaky (used to be just a Goblin feat) Feat. 3b. Second paragraph of Very Sneaky feat, as long as you continue to use sneak actions and succeed on your stealth check you remain unseen as long as you still have cover at the end (paraphrased greatly by me)of your turn. 4. Alchemist now have 3 skill choices, Druid goes down to 3 skill choices as well. 5. All characters are trained in unarmored defense. Update is 1 page long. 6. Explains game decisions. Probably will be in the blog I imagine. First up why they went with Feats. At first they had different names for everyone...but changed it to all feats. Also why they gave certain characters feats and others not. Some feats made more sense with some classes and others, not all are made equal. You don't have to sacrifice effectiveness with the new system (my interpretation, stops bad character choices...trap options). 7. Ancestries and testing, seeing in other prior products not all races made equal. Negative reaction to ancestries is much stronger than expected and they are considering stuff in relation to this. Might look at heritage..etc. 8. Feats in PF1e that were general feats now being class feats and complaints about how that has affected flexibility in creating characters people want. Some feats in PF1e were specifically to remove penalties, now instead just remove penalty or other modification rather than focus on feat reducing penalty. In many situations with classes, simply ran out of space. Double slice addressed as something specifically they are looking at with feats and class feats. Some builds are not living up to expectations in some classes. Endless tinkering remains...expects to be stuck to computer to the last day at the last minute. 9. At 52 minutes starts taking questions. I don't even understand what the first question is actually asking. Jason addresses persistent damage in answer to it. Bloodline question...where it is a typo. Some of these questions I'm not understanding what is being said or they are confusing...most of them I'll just let them go and you can listen. Fighter multiclass with wizard using any armor or weapon question. Answer is yes...wizards can use the feat to use armor and weapons and have armor better than mage armor. They want to see what happens when people take the fighter dedication feat. They think many things can happen but are curious about the permutations and other things that happen with it. No plans to add arcane spell failure. Not sure if they have the right number of actions to pick lock. Various pick lock things. Still seeing how it goes. Backgrounds testbed in Doomsday dawn. Backgrounds tying to adventure are something they are seeing how it works out and if people like that. bow questions with shortbow agile, longbow volley, looking at bows intently. Resonance is too early to make a decision thus far. Lots of comments on forums but not enough information yet to determine anything. Please make sure to answer any questions regarding resonance in the surveys. Really need to know the numbers. Steps 2 or 3 at earliest, and maybe later. They HAVE heard to outcry and complaints on it very clearly on the forums. Resonance is the most out there and experimental or one of the most in the Playtest. 10. More questions and stuff on questions and answers. Sometimes when sees a question step back and watch responses because it shows where people are at understanding it and how well their ideas came across in the playtest writing (from what I understand in how Buhlman answered the question). End. Anyways, it seems twitch will address these playtest things every Friday. If people want to keep this thread updated, it could make for a rather easy place to find all the twitch updates. Just a thought...or this could just be a useless thread I guess. If can figure out how to edit it, and people like this idea...I guess I can also add the twitch update addresses.
In our limited play thus far, Resonance has not been all that limiting. The only one really affected was the Dwarf and that was due to their CHA being 8. Overall, it hasn't really affected our game thus far in the Playtest. Maybe at higher levels, but once you hit 5th level, that's like 4 resonance for that dwarf and others have it as higher, so I don't see it overly being a problem. I hear it affects Alchemist far more adversely though, but we haven't tried the alchemist yet soooo....
I ask this because in 2015 and 2016 D&D had almost no presence at GENCON and was not even in the main convention hall in 2016 where as Pathfinder was in the Sagamore Ballroom, totally packed from 8AM till roughly 11PM. I will say I was skeptical of the rules when I read them, but when I actually started character creation and playing the game...it was really fun. There are many things I currently love about the new rules (I love how easy it is to generate your ability scores with the new system, I love how anyone can choose skills, even if they cannot get better then expert in them, I love the new flavor on Weapons, Armor and runes, etc.). I think a major obstacle that is starting to arise (from what I've seen) is that people have already formed an opinion before playing it and getting them to play it may turn out to be impossible. In addition, it is different enough from P1e that even if they find the game fun and love some of the rules, they still may not love it enough to switch over to it when comparing it to other game systems out there. But yes, I have had fun playing the PF2e playtest when I actually started playing. It's good to hear that there are others out there that did too (as my main point of seeing others reactions are on this forum and it can give a different perspective than what I experienced thus far).
OF course, they get a LOT more quiet if one asks for the actual numbers and specifically those numbers that are NOT the PHB. Many have bought multiple PHB's (I bought 3 and I don't even have 5e as my main game...don't ask how many P1e corebooks I have) and it's the same person. In some ways they are extrapolating the number of PHB's sold to how many players are playing 5e...which could mean that some of their numbers are flawed...especially when we don't know how the numbers sold relate to the number of DMG's sold. Mearls has also said similar things in the past about 4e that were shown to be true, but ONLY from a very specific point of view rather than being able to be taken at face value. That said, I still would agree...5e is crushing it and D&D right now is probably more popular as a game than it has been previously for the past 20 years (at least).
When you put it like that, this actually seems like a VERY elegant solution to PF1e twf. In many ways it encourages the heavier weapon and then a lighter weapon in the offhand which is more accurate to what twf was historically. In that style, damage wise I don't see an advantage to using the same agile weapon for your main attack, it would always be more advantageous to use a heavier weapon that dealt more damage. You then use the lighter damage so that your penalty to hit on your second and third attacks are not as great. As characters gain levels and magical weapons inscribed with runes, this becomes even more glaring. A weapon that does 6d8 is going to be far better to use with your primary attack at first than one that does 6d6 (27 avg. vs. 18 avg.).
I've noticed this as well at times.
Thing is though, you still need to, as a cleric, be perfectly okay with the premise that in the grim dark fantasy of Golarion there is only war and the kid with the notched kitchen knife is just as worthy of getting split in half as the local demon. It's for that reason I find the idea of CG clerics of Gorum incompatible. As a good person that philosophy should be utterly abhorrent. I don't know, I see Gorum as being someone that the stereotypical Viking (as opposed to what Vikings were actually like) would worship. They celebrate war and battle, wish to die in battle fighting the good fight and then go to Valhalla where they will fight all day and feast at night. They can still be good alignment, but that does not mean they will stop fighting. In fact, as a Chaotic Good warrior, they may pick fights with each other (Chaotic, remember) just to show who is the greater warrior. If they die they get their reward by going for endless fighting and feasting in Valhalla. Either way, they gain glory and a reward. At the same time they will defend their villages and defend the helpless. I don't see a conflict with this type of Chaotic Good character and what Gorum would desire. In addition, having Chaotic Good is necessary if he wants his ideal. He needs the Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil in his Chaotic afterlife so that they can have constant wars and battles between them. It's what they celebrate in life and what they celebrate in death, and glory could be found for all.
Vic, if you can imagine, than why can't you imagine high level characters from older editions of D&D (Whether it was from OD&D, AD&D, 2e, or 3e)I can imagine and have DMed/played high level AD&D, 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed characters, and they normally do not work this way, unless you are using something like the Epic Level Handbook or something. There was no epic level handbook for AD&D. There was the High Level Campaigns for 2e, and also the Forgotten Realms hardback for 2e (along with Priests and Avatars and I think it was called Faith and Pantheons which gave rules for up to 40th level for 2e). BECMI went up to 36th level for BECM, and after that you became in immortal (thus the I) controlling the world and the forces therein. In AD&D, technically there was no limit, though after level 29 you'd have to extrapolate the spells or stick with 29th level as the maximum spells you could cast. "Epic" is a 3e term and also carried forward into 4e. 3e had the Epic Level Handbook, but 3.5 included abbreviated rules of it in the corebooks themselves and had no specific defined Epic level handbook. (PS-Edit: Though, the answer is YES, I DID use the Epic Level Handbook in 3e). 4e included Epic level rules on it's own, but I never had any adventures that battle 100s, much less 1000s of enemies in it. Thus, I cannot actually say 4e supported this idea, because I don't know. I never tried it in 4e. I fail to see how this helps to promote your thoughts for the PF2e playtest and your ideas where you do away with the +1/lvl on skills and instead either have it flat or implement smaller bonuses or other ideas (yes, I have read your posts on these, and don't see how this discussion actually helps you promote your point on these...at all...to be honest. I see it sidetracking you instead).
I've played it, still formulating my opinion on it. I did not like what I read with it to be honest on my initial read through. It seemed VERY 4e with a dash of 5e. I liked 4e, but something about PF2e was just offsetting. However, that changed when I played the first two sessions with my group on the first scenario of Doomsday dawn. Character creation is actually rather fun once you get the hang of it. When you know what you are doing, it is quick (I'd say quicker than PF1e actually), efficient, and pretty neat. Playing the game is decently fun. However, and this is the part which I'm still debating about and need to playtest some more scenarios (will try the PFS scenarios with the group next for a better feel, plus try some leveling), when I think about it, it just didn't FEEL like Pathfinder or D&D 3e (or even 4e). I know that's a terrible answer and really vague...I can't really put it in better words though...it just didn't FEEL like Pathfinder. Sure, it was fun in the moment of play, but afterwards it feels more empty...I suppose is the best way to put it. I just don't get the same feels as when I play a D&D (3e or earlier) or Pathfinder (1e). It could just be those first two sessions though, I need to play more to see and narrow down what it may actually be, or if it really is just that. In all honesty, if it turns out to BE that, for me that may be a dealbreaker. However, there's a long playtest to go and things in the rules may change and create the "feels" that I'm after. I don't know how else to say it better, but I'm willing to keep on pushing through on trying the Playtest and giving feedback as honestly as I can.
Sorry for not answering earlier, had some chores I had to do with work. The answer is yes. The Proficiency Modifier section is not long enough. It covers a very basic idea of it, but does not specify all the things it is included towards (which is basically, almost everything). Hence, People got confused about what that meant for their saves, their combat abilities, and other items. The Ability Modifier is clear enough, but we had a strong discussion (some would say it was an argument) at the table about what exactly was modified by those abilities (skills it is clear cut, however, someone was under the impression it was like PF1e where you got extra spells, and other things from INT or WIS or CHA, where I said it never says anything like that in the text). Part of this was made easier to clear up when using the Character sheets created for the Playtest, but without those, I probably would have lost a player or two. This is especially relevant on which ability modifiers go to which saves, Attacks, and other things beyond the skill section themselves. The paragraph on Saving throws doesn't specify about the various proficiency modifier relating to them and that each save actually also uses a proficiency modifier. So, there were discussions on this at the table during character creation. Finally, Hitpoints were unclear to people (and I think it still is to many, it may also be a reason why you have some which find most of the combats in the first scenario of Doomsday dawn rather easy, while others get TPK'd) on how many you get. I still question whether I did it right (even though I'm pretty sure I did) as I am heavily questioned on it by one of my players (I interpreted that you get Racial HP + Class HP + CON modifier = 1st level HP...others have interpreted that you either get racial or class HP but not both which created another heavy discussion/argument at the table). I think that if the section on the proficiency modifier was expanded (specifically that section) and the areas which it was directly applicable to expanded upon as well, that would go a great ways towards clearing up much of the confusion. OR, an alternative way, as I found the character creation rules to be outstanding for the most part (I mean, I am VERY impressed, once you get it down, it's actually really easy...I've helped 4 people make up characters and made 2 practice ones and at this point I probably could make a Playtest character in less than 15 minutes, for some classes less than 5 minutes) is to include the addition of these and how the numerical bonuses work and what they should be adding in the character creation itself... Ala...sort of like how you did it for the Ability score creation, but for all the rest of the stats of the character as well (aka...HP, to hit, AC, saves...etc). Hopefully I hit upon what caused snags in our group and thus what I think could be expanded upon and explained more clearly...with a bigger focus (I'd say it may even need one or two pages of explanation to make it clear) on the proficiency modifiers and EVERYTHING that you add it to, or someway to make it clearer.
No edition of D&D supports a party of 3-7 holding off thousands or orcs, thank god. I did that in AD&D. I did that in AD&D 2e. I did that in BECMI D&D. I did that in 3e. I have no idea where you get that assumption...though you are right for ONE edition of D&D. D&D 5e does not support a party of 3-7 holding off thousands of orcs...that party would be slaughtered. Heck, it doesn't even need thousands...even a hundred could probably kill them right off. (edit PS: did you know there was actually an AD&D module where a general encounter could have you face off with 10,000 enemies!? Of course, the level for the module was 18-100).
I think there are some very basic ideas about the core PF2e Playtest game that NEED to be put at the very front. Things like training (trained, expert, master, legendary) and other things so that people creating their characters actually understand about when they are writing down the various things on their character sheets. We had this difficulty in the middle of character creation with at least two of our players, with one of them getting excessively frustrated (to put it lightly). It doesn't need to be long, as the basic idea can probably be covered in a page or two, but it needs to be there so they don't get frustrated at trying to understand what exactly all this lingo about trained and expert means and what numbers that indicates they put on their books. It's there, but it needs to be highlighted more so that people read it and see it rather than just glossing over it right before they make their characters.
I think that this sounds like something that might be better left for a third party developer that wants to build an entire world around 20 militia guards with bows being able to drop a marauding dragon, then trying to balance it in to the world of Golarion the developers are trying to build. I think a major problem many people have with 5e is this bounded accuracy thing where 20 militia can take down an ancient red dragon. It's ridiculous from the fantasy tropes. Especially when in legends and fairy tales Dragons (not even ancient ones at that) level entire cities and even nations on their own... Not even the entire ARMY can stop the dragon. That's why you have the hero come in that can actually slay the dragon (Granted, in the fairy tales normally it's only ONE individual instead of an entire party). In 5e...take the local militia and the problem is solved...why even hire heroes in the first place. The entire idea of adventurers needed is a moot point in 5e...any local militia should be able to solve the same problems as well if not better as a party of adventurers. There's no reason for them to even exist. However, people put up with it in 5e because #1. A HUGE amount of people are playing it and when it is the only real option...that's what you choose. #2. It's being promoted more than other games systems and you see it a LOT in popular culture. When people see it on TV and don't know what else is out there...that's what they end up playing. It's not that they feel that they think the ideas or design are the best, but it's what they know. It's also part of why D&D is such a valuable brand name in the RPG world. By itself, it doesn't make 5e as big as it would be, but when you have Geek and Sundry and multiple other highly visible media pushing 5e...it makes for a huge factor in 5e's popularity. #3. And biggest of all, It doesn't stink and rather then reprinting it anew or a different version, they've kept the same rules in print for longer than any other edition since 3e has been in print (AD&D versinos were in print longer). It may not be the best system made, but 4e put a bad enough taste in enough people's mouths (I know this, even if I enjoyed 4e and saw many play it) that when 5e came out, they jumped onboard with both feet. With them pushing it AND how long 5e has been kept in print (if you want a similar number you'd have to combine how many PHB's 3e and 3.5 sold...all together for the same timespan), it shouldn't be a surprise at how many copies of the PHB has been sold (what's more interesting though is when one asks how many copies of the DMG was sold and there is dead silence...). Hence, in my opinion... D&D 5e succeeds despite bounded accuracy...not because of it.
If we are talking about numbers simplicity, 5e is actually pretty complicated to what PF2e is proposing. 5e relies on fractional increases...for example, with the bounded accuracy of Proficiency bonuses...it is 1/4. That means every four levels is a bonus of +1. That actually is NOT as simple as a straight up +1/Level. Smaller numbers do NOT necessarily mean less complex. Having bounded accuracy simply to have bounded accuracy is foolish. +6 is so randomly put out there, it actually does not make much sense to even have that as the set number one works with as the max. The ONLY reason it works with 5e is because it has the name D&D slapped on it. They did not make the rest of the system overly complex, and it's not something that is going to drive people away from playing like other versions may have. Hence, as long as it's not driving people away, it's probably not doing anything overly horrible. We have a source that there are 9-10 million D&D players right now, with no evidence of it except the words of Execs at WotC who have been known to twist the truth in the past (for example, when 4e was published they stated that the original books outsold 3e and were the best selling books ever, nefariously close to what they claimed with 5e as well...are they telling us the straight up truth or have they twisted it in some way to still be the truth, but not completely the whole picture?). Taking them at their word though, that is a great increase from prior editions of the game, but it only means that people recognize the D&D name and are playing it because it's not horrendously bad. That does not mean taking a random number like +6 or that bounded accuracy is actually a good idea. The best games (for example, poker only is limited by the cards, and how much money a player has on them, if they have a billion dollars to bet, the game can go up that much, if it's only 10 dollars, the game stops there...there are no arbitrary limits on betting in poker) do not have arbitrary limits placed upon them, and neither does real life. If one has set a world record...there's always eventually someone else who may be able to get just that much faster, farther, or higher...etc.
Do you really think that Paizo does *not* have an internal style manual for writers? Want more irony... The OP and Paizo are both posting rules from the same MoS...but different sections. The OP was posting on general Gender Neutral, but Paizo posted linkage to Singular Possessive, which is different from General usage. They are talking about two different things. Want more confusion to the mix...Wikipedia...the oft maligned and hated writing on the subject states...
Long nonsense Wikipedia article with Gender Neutral Language tossed in the middle of it Also,
Gosh...can I say I hate grammar. Does this really bother people all that much? I really don't notice it when I read Paizo's stuff, so for me it's kind of confusing why it seems as big a deal to some as it is. However, I do know that there is the entire idea of Gender-Neutral writing in technical writing, and generally accepted ideas today on how to do that. It may also be that different MoS disagree on what those ideas are or should be.
I thought this was interesting. The more people that answer the poll the more information it gives out. It's interesting to see the overall reactions to those answering the poll. The link is After initial PF2e Playtest rules read, how do you feel about it straw poll
The world isn’t divided into “die hard 3.X fans” and “the 5e crowd.” As you rightly observed, the 5e crowd is not a fertile market for Paizo. But neither are die hard 3.X fans. 5e fans will keep playing 5e, die hard 3.X fans will keep playing PF1. PF2 is aiming for people who want more depth than 5e can offer, but less complexity than PF1 asks you to manage. People like myself.No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes. Despite what people are saying, it feels like PF2e actually is more complex than the core (and maybe +PG) of PF1e TBH. At least to me, it seems a lot harder to grasp.
If your players don't play Evil Stupid, they should be fine. On the otherhand, if they cannot help but play Stupid Evil...then I'd probably disallow it. What's the difference? A character can be evil, which means they may be selfish, and yet value friends, loyalty, and things that they value in life. Even if they would put their own lives above others, they still can be heroic and act in ways that heroes would be seen. (ala...Deadpool...ala Raistlin...ala...Magneto in the new X-men movies occasionally...etc...etc...etc). On the otherhand, a Stupid Evil Stupid character seeks to disrupt the party, betray their friends, and typically just disrupts the roleplaying session.
We just went through this with the old PF1e ruleset. I read through it, and had about an hour of prep. Instead of using playtest characters, we went through with PF1e characters instead. Will try it with PF PT characters tomorrow. Going through with PF1e characters took about three hours (I expect it may take around the same time with PF2e characters). Conversion was super easy. You literally can just swap monsters out (use PF1e instead of the PF PT bestiary monsters) and it worked. Enough XP for them to get to level 2, at least how I worked it. What this tells me is that, at least for 1st level adventures, conversion is excessively easy to do from PF2e to PF1e. Unsure how it would work with higher level characters. Will try with the actual PT characters tomorrow, with a longer session since most of those who are going to play are unfamiliar with the PT rules (heck, I'm unfamiliar with the PT rules overall, I've read them but this will obviously be the first I've played them through).
I agree, the character creation rules and how it is written is outstanding in the Playtest rulebook. It really is stellar.
By level 20 a fighting man had the equivalent of what would be a +13 to hit just from his class in BEMI. In adition, they had up to +5 weapons (no, +3 is the max in BECMI) and coul dhave had a +5 weapon. He also could have had another +3 from STR (or higher) for a +16 to hit, without even having a magic weapon. That's a vast difference than a +14 to hit with a +5 in their primary stat (if the BECMI fighter had a 20 STR that would give them, lets say a +4 so that increase it to a +17 without magic weapons...while the +14 for a 5e fighter is WITH the maximum magic weapon allowed). A magic-user and Cleric only had an equivalent of a +9 at level 20 in BECMI, but if they had the STR (Which they almost never did) could also have another +1 to +4 added on top of that (normally +3 would be the maximum. 5e bonuses to hit are weak compared to B/X, BECMI, AD&D, or just about any other edition prior to them or to 5e coming out. 5e seriously nerfed bonuses to hit no matter what the edition, and seriously deflated the differences in the speed of advancincing to hit with fighters and between fighters and other classes. Yeah...not a fan of 5e...at all.
I like the art. Art gets dated? Of course, I still like the Elmore paintings and even the stuff that's older. Picasso, Michelangelo, Rembrandt and other dated artists and their art. What makes art dated for an RPG? 2004 was only 14 years ago, which is a very short time in regards to the timespan of art. It may be that you are referring to the style rather than the a dated type look. Wayne Reynolds was a major influence (in my opinion) on the look of 3e/3.5 and later Pathfinder. The artwork today I feel is updated but still is trying to retain that type of look, one that now days is more specific to Pathfinder. In otherwords, even as some of the rules change, the product identity in art is still retained.
It seems controversial threads (hence the D&D 4.75e in the topic title)seem to get the most response from general forum users...ironically...however...this isn't actually being written to be all that controversial. I am hoping to see more responses on these particular topics though. To note, first off, I played 4e and I actually LIKED playing 4e...unlike many here. That said, there are some things that I think are good with the Playtest...and some things which are so bad that I'm not sure they can repair the damage...so to speak. Some of this may be because I am getting older. I don't consider myself all that ancient or old, but they say as one gets older the desire to learn new game systems and rules decreases...so perhaps my complaints stem from that. I have recently read and played other RPGs...so I am hesitant to say that is all it is, but it may be that due to age I am starting to enter that reluctance to try new things? I'll come right out with two items which I don't like thus far, one which, to me, is extremely significant. 1. The way experience works seems like a pretty bad way to do it. On my first read it seem to be entirely arbitrary and undefined, and one's experience (pardon the pun/wording) with it will be entirely based upon the whims of their DM. When 3e originally came out it operated on a CR system where you had differing amounts of XP based upon the character level vs. the creatures CR. The XP at one level may not be the same as at another level that one got from the same monster. When P1E came out it was a breath of fresh air. Monsters were defined on how much XP they typically gave out. The guesswork was not so much out there and it was defined on how much and how many overall. It was far more defined than 3e or 3.5 editions of D&D. This also made experience simpler and easier to do. PF2e has taken a step backwards from what I can tell. It seems simple at first, each character only needing 1000XP to advance each level. However, then you read about how the party earns XP. Obviously monsters cannot be worth the same for a 1st level character as a 10th level character, especially if the XP requirements are the same. However, rather than even go with the structure of the CR system of 3e, they go with something even more arbitrary. The DM decides on whether something is Trivial, low threat, standard, High Threat, Severe Threat, etc. and then from that decides the XP award. It seems VERY arbitrary. To me, this is a fatal flaw with the system. What may be a Severe threat for one group and hence they gain XP for that...will be a Low level threat for another and they will get less XP. The same encounter could net vastly different amounts of XP to different groups dependant on the DM. In some ways this may even seem unfair or unjust among some groups and between various characters. This could just me being old, but right now, I'm NOT a fan of the XP system and would like to see it changed to be something at least a tad more standard than what I've read thus far, and simpler to do. 2. The skill system seems to be more complicated and hard to remember in many ways. I think this is why Numbers that go up is actually been popular in the past, because a number is always easy to remember. With PF2e you get the skill, but very limited upgrades. After that you seem to get better with skill feats. This makes a division that is hard to keep track of in my mind (as I said, it could be old is getting old). I would prefer something a little simpler and easier to keep track of. 3. This is the only point that really deals with 4e. At various levels, even if they are called "Class Feats", characters get what would have been termed as Class Powers (which also were called various things such as prayers, or spells, and other such things in 4e). Some of this is interesting, but (and this is where my old is old probably really shines through) it seems all pretty overwhelming. Each class gets so many of them (and for those who are saying there is less choices, these seem to grant a LOT of choices being available) that to my mind, it just makes it all that harder to keep track of what does what and who has what. In otherwords, unlike some are claiming, to me, it seems it actually has become more complicated and harder to keep track of. Isn't there a way to have the same effect, but make it easier and simpler to keep track of for the "old is old" folks like me?
1. I think this is the most organized and best written playtest rules I have ever seen. It is better than many publishers actual rule releases. It's indexed, has decent formatting, and is written as if it was the actual rules release rather than a playtest. I am excessively impressed with how well this rulebook is put together. I cannot express just how impressed I am. It floors me with how much attention to detail, how well it was edited, and how well it was organized for a playtest. Those who put this together should get a HUGE applause and appreciation for their hardwork. 2. I think the base core rules are actually MORE complex than P1e, HOWEVER, the way the playtest book is written makes it seem simpler in contrast in some areas. The step by step process instructing one how to create a character is phenomenal. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the new process, the instructions on how to do it are some of the best step by step instructions I've seen in ANY RPG rulebook recently. They are also outstanding. It made the process easy to understand and easy to follow. I think this is another one of those things that deserves 5 stars. To many rulebooks don't put enough attention to detail on this thing. I recently learned another RPG (won't name it here, no need to bad mouth that aspect of them behind their back) and it was 10 times harder to learn what the heck I was doing in character creation. That was their official rule release. This is just a playtest and I found it a LOT easier to figure out how to make a character as per the playtest rules than with that other system. 3. I suppose just like I addressed a 4e ism type thing with my #3 post above under the bad, I'll do something similar with the good. I did play 4e, and I did enjoy it. However, when I read the blog on how multiclassing would work in the new playtest, I was actually VERY skeptical. I haven't played the game in a session yet (I will be the GM and it should be soon, still planning out the first session), but I actually found I like how archetypes will work in the Playtest. I can't say I'm a fan of having multiclassing mixed in with Archetypes yet (hopefully someone will try it out in the actual playtest session I run) but I LOVE the idea of the archetypes being acquired the way they are. The Cavalier example won me over. I think it actually could be a lot of fun and add a lot of customization in ways not thought of in P1e. And so, that's it on my first read through. I'm not quite as fast as many of the others on these forums that posted hours ago. It took me nigh 12 hours to get through much of it, and I still haven't gotten into the nitty gritty details of everything yet (but another thing I liked that I noted was with the Bastard Sword differing with one and two handed damage...), but I've noted some very good things and some things that I hope will be changed.
I believe they are referring to bounded accuracy, a 5e core design philosophy that me and others particularly despise.
Did you miss 5e and it's popularity?? I'd say the answer to your question is...yes...in some games there has been a desire to lower the amount of super high fantasy in recent years as well as power levels and the degree that differentiates between someone skilled and someone not as skilled. Don't know how much this appliesto PF2e as I haven't gotten through the rulebook yet.
They announced and said multiple times that the PDF's would be available at 9AM US Eastern Time. You don't have a location listed that I can find so no idea what time that is in your area.
I believe that since it would be 9AM Eastern, that would make it so that the rules are available at 8AM Central. And yes, that means 7AM Mountain, and 6 AM Pacific. I think that means it would be around 11 AM in London.
You're misremembering the multiclassing rules. At least what I was referencing was the fact that you went relegated to just the multiclassing paragon path. You could take any paragon path you multiclassing into. Nope, I read the multiclassing rules yesterday just to make sure I wasn't imagining the similarities between PF2e MC that was listed in the article and the 4e ones listed in the 4e PHB. I actually have the 4e PHB in a file case around 20 feet from me presently. With paragon paths you could take one from your original class or the one you multiclassed into, OR you had the option with the appropriate feats to simply eschew the paragon path and take more powers from your chosen multiclass. From the looks of it, PF2e seems to be straight up the original 4e MC rules, but with the Multiclass feats being slightly more powerful. However (and this is the caution we all should probably take), that may also just be due to how they wrote the MC article and when we actually get the official playtest rules they will turn out differently. (Edit: My thoughts right now is that this PF2e is turning out to be more like a D&DE 4.75 version, which is more like 5e in many ways with some 4e ideas also. Thus, MC probably will have the 4e MC ideas, but probably with some more powerful options for MC tossed in and some ideas from 5e in there as well??)
Multiclassing in 4E took a while for them to release and even then it was in a state of brokeness that 3E exhibited which was that if you didn't know what you were doing you would end up with a worst mechanical class. Also the other form of multiclassing in 4E was odd in that conceptually it was much more involved than just take x,y, and z feats but I don't remember how well it worked. Halfway through the game you could just change class progression to a ranger or rogue but I dont remember how viable it was. They released 4e multiclassing the day 4e was released in the PHB 1. The way it worked was that you took a feat in order to multiclass into another class. This allowed you to take feats that had that class as a requirement, as well as other class feats that allowed you to improve your multiclass character. Part of these multiclass character feats then allowed you to replace an encounter power when you were 4th level with any encounter power of your multiclass, a utility power, and a daily power. This meant you did not have all the power of a wizard (for example), but you would have around 1/3 of the powers of the wizard ability (or at least the equivalent amount of power) when you hit level 10. The ability to replace powers also continued into the paragon levels, where you could choose to advance more in your multiclass with additional powers instead of taking a paragon path. I think you are thinking about Hybrid class perhaps, which came out in the PHB3. These were similar more to the original idea of multiclassing that was found in AD&D 1e and 2e where you start with multiple classes at the same time. The multiclassing idea that we read in the article about PF2e multiclassing sounds straight up like it is from the 4e PHB 1, but modified to have the multiclass feats be a little bit more powerful than they were originally. From the sounds of it, PF2e is sort of a 4.75 edition as it seems to take elements of 4e but also of 5e as well. Thus you have better advancement so a 20th level character is actually far better and more proficient than a 1st level characters (ala 4e, as opposed to 5e where you only have a +6 difference), but at the same time other things which seems similar to 5e. I'm not sure what the aim of PF2e is in it's design though. (PS: I actually enjoyed playing 4e as opposed to many here, but I'm not sure a PF2e based on a 4.75 D&D is what is going to appeal to many of those who came to PF originally because of 4e and who wanted to have more of 3e/3.5).
I haven't read all the replies yet, so indubitably someone probably already stated this...but... This seems an AWFULLY LOT like what they did with 4e multiclassing in the PHB1 for 4e. It may be a little more powerful, but it sounds like almost the exact same idea. Deja Vu?
What several people are saying is that their experience disagrees with that data.It's been proven that the geometry of the earth is not affected by how many people HOWEVER, there were many scientific conventions, many societies, and many discussions among those in the church in Europe and major groups that pushed that the world and earth WAS actually flat before the Americas were discovered. However, despite those Cons, Societies, and Discussion groups, a vast many already felt that the Earth was actually round. Columbus was part of this group (he was not even close to being the ONLY one that felt the Earth was round, it was actually quite common for people to feel and believe this, and even had math to back them up...even if the math used at Cons, Societies, and Groups had alternate maths showing the exact opposite) and today we feel similarly to Columbus. The problem was that the Cons, Societies, and groups were actually quite small among the educated (though they had a large impact among the non-educated on their results), and the focus on their trade goals made it hard for those who felt the Earth was round to actually get funding to prove it (even Columbus had a very hard time, only after his voyages did people start to ease up). This idea though, isn't really a terrific parallel to how PF2e is being designed (though it can be used, both ways as your and my example show) as the design ideas are not so much pure science as more of trying to find out what people want and what will sell rather than figuring out some scientific fact or theory. AS such, it can be difficult to figure out what to change and what to keep the same. My own opinion (which has no data to back it) is that a majority of P1E players are NOT PFS players or Con goers, nor do they come to the discussion boards (or reddits or discords). However, I also think that this is where the primary data on what to do in PF2e (combined with the designers own personal ideas and thoughts) are what are the major influencers behind PF2e. I haven't seen much of any other research (doesn't mean that it hasn't been done or it isn't out there) beyond anything found on the Boards, PFS, or Cons to indicate they have gotten information from anywhere else...and certainly haven't seen general surveys sent out to most RPG players or to try to get as wide a swath of RPG players as possible...yet. I think the playtest is designed to do that. In the end, as someone more succinctly put it above in this topic... If people like it, then they will buy PF2e. If they don't, then they won't. At that point, once all is done and said and the final version is out, no amount of one opinion or the other will really change the rules of the game. Hence, try the playtest and give your feedback and hope for the best!
|
