Something on Golarion would be nice if only to assist on character creation, after all we are not generating statlines, we are making characters. Golarion is what keeps me and my group coming back to the table despite really not liking PF2E and its direction. The setting is absolutely great and should be showcased in the core book, if not a chapter at least a couple pages with the general layout, politics, etc...of the nations that make up the inner sea.
"kill them all" seems to be a trend with our guards.
The difference is the perspective. Its essentially optimists vs pessimists most of the time. Some people look at it and see everything wrong and think will scrap it all while others look at it and say ok I can work with this... Then theirs that weird sub class of people that just can't communicate correctly and all communication breaks down around them.
keep in mind english is not everyones first language here though too.
I have at the moment a similar "problem" as you do, compiling it all, in my case I am compiling for my players as well and of course even we dont all agree with each other on what is good and bad. I prefer the old skill system, 1 of my players prefers the new, the other 2 don't care either way. I dislike the terminology of everything being feats.
right now, the product in my hand, yes I hate it and will not buy it in the future, if it changes significantly in the next year, then I may change my mind. I am deciding that you are not trying to be an..... and am answering you honestly, because I think an echo chamber without any dissent is doing a play test a great disservice.
For the same reason you post that you do like it, those that dont like it want to change it and with a year, if there are more who dont like it than do, then it should likely change. I personally dont like it but I have every hope that it does well and my input is every bit as valuable as yours to see that this game does well.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
I have seen "playtests" before that really were just the final product getting a jump on it.
The entire forum is just vocal minorities of people who either love, hate, like, or dislike the playtest. It is an issue if longtime Pathfinder fans can't muster the GAF to even try it. Since the only thing we will get is anecdotal evidence one way or the other it would be foolish to just wave it off as " a small bunch of malcontents" to be sucessful they will have to bring in as many at least or more than they lose of the playerbase.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
it could impact your spell list. But seriously this is a game to escape reality not embrace it.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Might have to try that, see how it works for us.
I have done this with 3 different groups and 2 different GM's. About 80% loathed character creation (none of us used the optional rolling, due to wanting to test the new way) the other 20% thought it was great (a couple said arguably the best out there) what surprised me about this all so far is the "love it or hate it" reactions, I have seen almost noone in the middle. Fairly or unfairly this game will be compared to 5th ed D&D so it either has to "do 5th ed better than 5th ed" or be different enough to appeal to the folks who don't like 5th.
Not quite sure how I would fix it, but there is something deeply wrong to me about the skill system. Adding level is ok I guess, but the difference in number between the "ranks" is really not significant at higher levels at all. I understand that locking out the ability to even attempt behind those ranks may be a way to balance it out, but so far this skill system just doesn't seem "right"
As you said though, IT is not the case around the country, In my neck of the woods I have not seen a 5e game played in over a year. It would be enough to make me think 5e crashed and burned.
Currently I loathe it, in about 3 or 4 weeks I will either have gotten so used to it I wont care or will actually start to like it. I know that it was one of the key factors that caused almost 1/4 of my group to not want to even bother with trying out PF2. It looks too "busy" to me, though I have to admit that it does seem organized in a way that appeals to me (the placement of the areas)
I haven't seen a game of 5e played in almost a year,in any of my FLGS (there are about 12 of them) I can see where it may sell more books, its newer,but they are also a lot more expensive. But actually see it played anywhere? hell I bought the books (terrible investment IMO,$150 for three poorly made, awful art), they are still collecting dust. It doesn't really matter if D&D is making more money so long as PAIZO is still profitable and making money, its good to go. The one thing I do know is popularity for any type of game is pretty much locality driven. I am pretty certain pokemon and yugioh are popular too, but I have never seen them played. MTG I see all the time. warhammer 40k is supposed to be the super popular game, but other than our GW, noone around here plays it *unless its at home*
The "why should I move to PF2" is in my honest opinion one of the most important questions to answer for any company wanting to make a new edition of a game. I believe that a new edition should if not be "better" than the previous edition be something that enhances it. I think you will always see an "edition war" concept, after all a game is going from something people are already enjoying to something different. I think it is extremely valid to ask "Why should I switch". I get that noone wants to be drowned in negativity. But that is to be expected and the design team should have braced themselves for impact. Being a playtest packet I can handle the layout being confusing and not user friendly. My own observations from my FLGS and my own group is that this is not the game we were wanting. That assessment is strongest from the players who play PF1 almost exclusively to any other game. The guys who play more variety do not hate this, but the first impression (basically being looking at the char sheet) that was a massive turnoff. It is very "busy". The players who despised 5th ed found the similarity in skills, and char creation to be a massive negative. The core character stat creation, none of us liked that, at all. The base 10 then do boons/flaws for each step and having that as a bonus later at 5ht level etc.. and the 18 cap at char gen... that was very disappointing. IT felt less like what I assume the intent was (to allow more stat customization) than a forced march to sameness. For us, as it is now, the answer to the question is " I would not". This game is not close enough to the game we loved to make it a desirable follow on, and on its own merits, I would not buy this game as it is. The final product needs to have something that stands out above the crowd.
why are you asking? our notes are for the feedback.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I wonder if that is a good thing, being more like 4th edition. Most people came to Pathfinder as a reaction against 4th edition.
I was hoping this would have been more like PF1 but with some tweeks and improvements, this gave us the feel of going from 3ed to 4th ed (now I am sure after a few more sessions it will settle down, but I am not sure I can get my party to even do another session of this) It feels on the surface like a radical departure from PF.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The problem is, if this is a game for people who find 5e character creation overwhelming, it's not going to be the game for the people on these boards who love PF1's massive variety of options...
We did not find char creation difficult, we just really did not like it. The core mechanic of base 10 then add the boosts/flaws to get to final scores, well we just really really hated that mechanic. Granted there is the old roll method, but thats not really the point of "testing" the system, so we did it the core book way.
I hate to have to agree with you, but I do. Especially that last part, I realize "playtest" but this thing is an eye-sore and to be honest, I would put it right back on the shelf and get something else. I am not at all impressed with where this is going. I frankly don't like this game. I prefer the original Pathfinder to 5th ed or 4th ed, but this I would not even play. There is a lot of older concepts kept, but the character sheet alone made half of my party not want to even bother. IT seems unecessarily wordy or "complex".