(This was originally a post on my Facebook page after reading the Playtest rules through once. Now that I've looked at the forums, I see that (a) the playtest is closed as of Jan 1st, and (b) the specific issue I raised, the +1/level thing, seems to have been already well and thoroughly thrashed out in the forums. What's left is some more general thoughts, and it was geared towards people who hadn't seen the Playtest edition. If this is interesting to anyone here, well and good; if not, please feel free to ignore.)
The other day I picked up a copy of the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook. This is a preliminary version of what they're working on for Pathfinder 2.0, and they're publishing it so people can playtest it and give them feedback.
I have not actually played with these rules, so everything I'm saying here should be read with that in mind; this is just my impression from reading the rules.
But first, a digression: speaking as a person who was a teenager in the 80s, the thing I've always liked about the D&D 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder branch of the rules is that it cleaned up and rationalized a lot of the things about Gary Gygax's AD&D that were... let's say, "quirky,"... but it still *felt* like AD&D. I've played a lot of other systems over the years, and many of them I like better than D&D for various reasons -- overall, my favorite system is probably still Fantasy Hero, the RPG by accountants for accountants -- but nothing can ever quite give me the same nostalgia hit as rolling up a half-elven ranger and creeping through 10-foot wide dungeon corridors hoping to kill some monsters and maybe score a Trident of Fish Command.
The two rules changes that I especially admired in the 3.0/3.5/PF branch were:
1) Unifying most things into the "roll a d20 plus modifiers to achieve or beat a target number," and making combat follow this pattern as well by making the opponent's Armor Class the target number you're trying to meet.
2) Carefully separating the concept of character level and class level, so that whenever you gained a level you could gain it in any class you wanted, which made multiclassing easy instead of the bizarre mess it was in AD&D.
So, all of that being said, my first reaction on reading the Playtest rules was, "This is less like AD&D, and I'm a little disappointed in that." My *second* reaction was, no, they are 100% right to push the rules in ways they think improve the game, without worrying about evoking nostalgia for a 40-year-old game that is remembered by an ever-shrinking fraction of gamers. Besides, those of us fossils to whom that's important can still play Pathfinder 1.0, or D&D 3.5, or even honest-to-God AD&D if we want to; it's not like anyone's going around confiscating all those old editions. (I have the same reactions to D&D 4 and 5, FWIW.)
What I see overall is that it seems like they're trying to again simplify and rationalize the rules. There are fewer tables -- I would guess that may have been an explicit goal in the revision -- and overall a greater emphasis on feats and skills than on class features.
Multiclassing the old way, as in "I think I'll take a level of Druid this time around," is gone; whatever class you start in, you stay in. You can multiclass in a limited way via feats; for instance, if you're not a cleric, you can take a set of feats that give you some cleric abilities. This is another thing I'm a little sad to see go, because I thought it was an innovative mechanic; but to be honest, I suspect this method gives the great majority of players what they really want out of multiclassing and it makes things a bit simpler.
The main core mechanic that's new is the skill system: for every skill, including combat, a character has a proficiency level of Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, or Legendary. You get a modifier to your roll ranging from (your level - 2) for Untrained up to (your level + 3) for Legendary.
I like the fact that this is a unifying mechanic that applies to many aspects of the game, and that it gives characters more ways to individualize. I also like the way that every skill has "untrained uses" -- things you can attempt even if you are Untrained -- and uses that you have to have at least Trained proficiency in order to attempt.
My concern with it -- again, based only on reading it; I haven't played it -- is that leveling up makes you better at *everything,* and it seems like that would quickly swamp the effect of the different proficiencies. For example: a level 7 ranger who is Expert in Survival has the same proficiency modifier as a level 11 cleric who is Untrained and has never set foot outside a city. If you set both of them in the woods and tell them to build a shelter and forage for food, they will do equally well. And a level 15 cleric who is untrained in survival would beat the pants off the level 7 ranger expert. This seems counter-intuitive to me.
Perhaps one way to address this problem, if in fact it is a problem, is to say that the modifier for Untrained skills is a flat -2, regardless of your level. That way, when you level up, you only improve in skills you've put at least some effort into studying. It would mean that higher-level characters who study a skill from Untrained to Trained would improve *dramatically* in that skill all at once... but I think that's less unreasonable than dumping that level 15 city cleric into the woods for the first time and watching them build a split-level lean-to with a sauna.
Based on my first read-through, though, that was the only issue that jumped out at me. Overall it seems like a solid evolution of the game. I look forward to seeing what 2.0 actually ends up looking like.
