At UK Games Expo, I was able to play a playtest session and ask Jason a few questions.
I'll be splitting this up into three posts, to allow each section to be debated separately.
Now, first-level play isn't really representative of how a system plays out - the scenario was largely exploration, followed by a combat. Naturally, we weren't allowed to take copies of the material.
The most favourable change that I encountered was the way initiative is handled when a character is brought to Dying: her initiative is dropped to just before the enemy's. This is a good change from Pathfinder as it gets around those strange situations where a character might be forced to make a death check before and of her allies have a turn to help.
I can see how the three-action system can make the system easier to explain - explaining a double-move in Pathfinder can be daunting with new players. It might be simpler this way. It also opens up design spaces for abilities like the fighter's charge (move twice speed and attack once in two actions). The counterarguement here is that some actions that are possible in Pathfinder for any character are now gated behind feats/class features.
In addition, the action system's strengths are really highlighted with the way the zombies were acting slowly: they only get two actions each round. I see this as an improvement to the staggered condition in Pathfinder.
The way resistances and vulnerabilities are worded tends to make more sense, although it was still unclear whether the skeletons were less vulnerable to certain magical attacks. This could also be due to the fact that we failed our knowledge (lore?) checks.
I liked the feel of the rogue; it seemed more in line with "what a new player thinks of when they choose to play a rogue". But what happens as she levels up is, of course unknown.
