Not saying that the post reflects on Paizo or that I prefer Twitter as a way of communication. Just wondered why Mearls chose to announce this now, during the playtest.
I’ve seen a few threads asking for clarification on why a second edition was needed and some being frustrated that there hadn’t been a clear answer.
It just felt, to me, that Mearls was trying to say he had clear goals and can easily share them - although it is easy to say what your goals are after you have your game finished, making them sound like the goals were always there.
Don’t get me wrong, after reading the design goals of 5e, I like it even less. I like my games full of rules and complexity that allows for deep strategic choices. Although the Playtest has its issues, I like the direction it is heading in. But, I do think that Paizo could share their design goal of 2nd edition in a way that allows me to engage even more.
Did anyone pick up on Mike Mearls sharing the design goals for 5e (originally on Twitter, reported on EN Worldn links below)? Was this an attempt to rub a little salt into the wounds as Paizo seem to be not providing a clear answer when people are asking this question regarding Pathfinder Playtest and the upcoming 2nd edition?
When I read the rulebook and note the terminology changes, I wonder how much my group will adopt.
Unfortunately, not had the chance to begin the playtest, but I just imagine that Strike will still be Attack and Jaws will just be Bite.
So, pure curiosity, but how has other groups found the slight change in terminology.
P.S. A small part of me wonders if this particular set of changes was really necessary to improve the game, or was it just to move another step away from its d20 roots and create its own identity.
Although a slightly different issue (I didn’t order directly from Paizo), I have still not received my books (Rulebook and Adventure). This is because, according to the store I ordered from (in UK), the adventure was not received when the rulebook was. I find this odd; would have thought they were shipped for distribution together.
Looks like I may miss the start of the playtest as I wanted to have physical copies at the table.
Just go back to OG Pathfinder and be happy. It's just a game and the purpose is to have fun. If this isn't fun for you, find something that is.
Alternatively, nearly every game I've read says that the rules should never get in the way of fun and so just change what you like. Obviously, for this Playtest, changing rules means that your feedback may be invalid, but as long as you're having fun...
Or, just play as written, complete the surveys and see what happens next year and then make your choice.
Just created a human (Shoanti) barbarian in HLO (demo). Was quite easy to do. Not sure how easy it will be to use at the table.
Not overly impressed by the subscription model, but it is more the individual pricing that bothers me. HLC has multiple licenses and (rightly or wrongly) these can be used to spread the cost across a group.
Now everyone has to buy their own license ($35, incl. 1 ruleset) and then additional rulesets are £25. Then there's the supplement books $10-13 each. Finally, there's the $2/month subscription (although that cost seems negligible, I can understand the frustration of being held to ransom to access content you have already paid for).
[Should point out that the first 6 months subscription are included in intial cost and so far LWD are not charging the $2 until they are satisfied that HLO meets their minimum expectation.]
In summary, it's the fact that I could spend $96 and have everything, but if this was HLC then all my group would also have access to this, whereas now they need to spend the same amount each.
Even D&D Beyond has a pricing model that allows the cost to be shared somewhat and that is feeding the Hasbro monster.