oneking's page

Countries like Galt have broadsheets that are regularly produced, giving me the impression of widespread literacy.

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.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Pronouns honestly seem far less useful than sex/gender to me from the GM perspective. Whether you're a he/she/xir or whatever, the guards are going to say "Stop him!" not "Stop xir!" barring some really weird circumstances at work and having "Male" penned in your sheet tells me that while xir in on of itself means nothing.

A feel like unless a person is conspicuously presenting as one thing or another (which might be a disguise) the guard is unlikely to use a gendered pronoun in that situation anyway. Most likely they're going to use some immediately apparent identifier like "stop that elf" or "stop that one in red" since onlookers don't have the opportunity to glean more than superficial information about the fleeing person anyway, or do some rough estimation of their character like "stop that ruffian" or "stop that fop", else they will modify for the reason they are to be stopped like "stop that thief" or "stop that spy".

If the fleeing person is really nondescript, "stop them" suffices.

"kill them all" seems to be a trend with our guards.

I usually game with people I know very well, so nothing in that section means anything to me, I would rather spend money on more rules than have that kind of thing eat up page count. IT could all be summed up with "dont be a ****"

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.

oneking wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

oneking wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

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.

So wait are you saying right now that you in fact have decided that you hate it and will not be buying the product in the future?

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.

Yeah echo chamber I get that. All the constant I hate +level over and over on 20 different threads yeah I see echo chamber. Personally I prefer to instead give feedback that is useful instead of constantly posting I hate it fire such and such scrap the whole thing etc. etc.

I feel actually giving specifics and suggestions for improvement work a lot better.

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.

oneking wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

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.

So wait are you saying right now that you in fact have decided that you hate it and will not be buying the product in the future?

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.

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

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.

not at all.completely disregarding it.

I wont be switching from 1st to this, but I would really love a hard copy of a bestiary. I bought the softcover rulebook just because I hate PDF.

I am the odd man out here, I don't like it. I prefer the pass/fail mechanic better. I can see the initial excitement from some of what has been said here, but to me its just clutter.

Izmo wrote:

Most of us were worried that the book's layout and wording are fairly finalized.

This is not meant as a jab or belittlement at all. But how could anyone worry that the initial printing of a months-long playtest document is finalized?

I have seen "playtests" before that really were just the final product getting a jump on it.

rknop wrote:

The alternative is taking seriously the comments about how individuals or groups couldn't be inspired enough to spend time actually playing the game.

Yeah and if that's like a handful of Loud people they are suppose to change everything for the vocal minority sell less and go bankrupt because that handful of internet posters made the biggest fuss?

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.

Here's the post where I actually post how I feel about this thread: I am absolutely sick to death of everyone who has an agenda creating threads declaring <insert group here> are going to feel excluded from Pathfinder unless Paizo does <insert demand here>.

Yes, Paizo have a largely liberal bent. Yes they want to be seen as inclusive to all people. No, using this as a bludgeoning weapon to strongarm Paizo into acceding to your demands is not appropriate.

Religion is a very real part of Pathfinder. No it isn't the type of religion where you'll find Shiva, "God" or Allah. It's the type where you'll find Thor and Isis. This in no way impacts me as a person of the 21st century where gods such as Thor and Zeus adorn the tv screen as superheroes and the father's of superheroes.

People are really going overboard with their special snowflakeness and I wish I could say it was limited to just Americans but the metric thread where the exact same tactic was applied demonstrates it's non-Americans as well.

it could impact your spell list. But seriously this is a game to escape reality not embrace it.

oneking wrote:

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"

one solution I have is to remove Assurance feat and tie it directly to proficiency level, but little bit different.

Tied to d20 roll only.

If trained then minimum roll on d20 is 5. Anything rolled below is treated as 5.

expert minimum is 8

Master minimum is 10

Legendary minimum is 12

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.
We did abandon the pdfs completely, Things were much easier with hardcopy books. so far my main group (one of the three) has purchased 6 books between us (1 hard 5 soft) We stopped playing the playtest module becuase we didnt like the story so have been doing our own in Galt. I personally seriously hate the 3 actions thing. I vastly prefer the old action mechanics. The game feels really clunky to us (and likely will stay that way for a while until familiarity builds) there are some real diamonds in the coal pile but not sure its worth digging.

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"

Ched Greyfell wrote:

I want to know where all these people get all their insider info.

Is there somewhere I can go to see a game totally crushing another game in market share, or one company completely outselling another? I never knew any of it.

'

You don't need to be an insider to see the effects of it.

Take my local Game store. Even before PF2 playtest was announced, Most the Pathfinder books were stored in the back. You know what was stored up front with plenty of marketing to this day? DnD 5.

Heck there's a table to advertise small 1-2 hour board and card games up front near the entrance. PF books are in the back, not even upright just stacked on each other.

Does this mean PF1 is being completely crushed around the country? No.

But going by how my store handles PF books now and that Society is kicked to maybe twice a month, the writing on the wall seems pretty clear to me.

"There is little to no interest in Pathfinder at this store's customer base".

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 think my playtest book got up and kicked my dog, but I cant be certain.

You know, if the new edition actually results in...you know...ANYONE playing Pathfinder locally, I will be thrilled. I can't speak for other folks, but in my part of Wisconsin Pathfinder has for all intents and purposes been completely supplanted by 5E.

I like the options, adventures, and world support, but they are basically just collectibles for me at this point...

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.

oneking wrote:

I dont consider this a copy of any other game, I just find this to be not a very good game. Our first session was not fun, the mechanics are not fun for us, the character creation was not fun. That is not how I was hoping this would be. I love Paizo and Pathfinder.

And you took notes and such to provide constructive feedback, right?

why are you asking? our notes are for the feedback.

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.

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 dont consider this a copy of any other game, I just find this to be not a very good game. Our first session was not fun, the mechanics are not fun for us, the character creation was not fun. That is not how I was hoping this would be. I love Paizo and Pathfinder.

Edymnion wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E

Thing is, if I wanted to play something like 5e... I would be playing 5e.

This in many ways feels like the same bad design direction that WoTC went with during 4th Ed, including the whole statement at the beginning about,"Our goal is to simplify and make it easier while maintaining depth" I am paraphrasing the line, but its the same vibe for sure, and I am hating most of what I am reading, because Paizo from what I am seeing is not only failing at simplifying anything, from the convoluted ability boost rules changes and the dumpster fire that Resonance is. Changes that are adding nothing good while over-complicating and sucking the fun out of magic items, not to mention creating far worse problems that what they appear to have been trying to solve. I am super underwhelmed and honestly disappointed. Looks like WoTC and Paizo are companies that were once cool, and now suck. This is a product in its current form, I would never buy.

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".