Examine the whole.


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 193 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

No doubt, I fully expect many of my initial feelings to be changed - both good and bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok so I will try to introduce my opinion on what we have so far as one game, and not only a few mechanics.

The game is going to be easier to understand for the most part I think. This new feat system will make things smoother and help building characters even for new players. However the huge risk here are disparity in utility and strength between the choices and in the future a bloat of feats that are far better or worse than the core ones.

The new numbers will make the game quicker at high levels, and we can see that from a design perspective this is one of the main goal. Your story will start at level 1 and finish at level 20 (and the AP will be designed around that). But one of my biggest fear is that compared to 5E or PF1, characters are going to be really limited and weak in the early levels. This could have been fine if all of us discovered the RPG with PF2, but it is not the case. Things that people take for granted are going away or will come later. And that is tough in my opinion.

I like the idea that the game will be universe centric. They finally accepted the reality and Golarion is the main setting. But that could be bad for some players, and I understand that. Golarion being Golarion, magical powers and supernatural prowess are going to be a thing, and we can see that in the best skills proficiencies. You are going to jump buildings and heal in a few minutes terrifying wounds. The game is really going to be the zéro to hero thing I think.

Ancestries and background will make your character different at early levels. Enough I hope so that two Figthers at level 1 are not the same (but I highly doubt that). They also tie the story with the game, and I think it is good because sometimes Pathfinder feels really a game before a role playing game.

Except for magic items. I think they don’t really now what they are doing here and I will bet that this is going to be the category that have the most changes in the beta. Because it is simpler and harder to use at the same time, and seems to break immersion a lot of time.

A lot of frustration from the first edition will be gone with things like 4 stape saves rolls. And I genuinely think that the game will feel in a lot of ways as an improvement of the first one. Quicker, smoother, easier.

And to be honest that could be a huge let down for many players. I play 5E a lot, and I have a game that is quicker smoother and easier. When I play Pathfinder I am in hardcore mode. I make strong builds that are sometime an aberration roleplay wise. And I do sometimes stupidly hard adventure paths and scenarios. And I want to be able to choose options from thirty classes. I like when my players increase their knowledge of the game and come back with a stronger character that the first time. I like when I don’t have to explain grapple anymore because people know what it is and are prepared for it. And I know enough of the rules to break or homebrew what I dislike in a balanced way. And I really think I am not the only one.

So I will test the game but my biggest fears are that the game is not difficult or complex or open to options enough for the PF1 fans, and too much immersion breaking and slow to start for 5e fans. But I hope I am wrong, and I am looking forward to test this. My biggest hope is that PF2 is the perfect middle ground from a design and a playerbase perspective.

Paizo Employee

7 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:


The new numbers will make the game quicker at high levels, and we can see that from a design perspective this is one of the main goal. Your story will start at level 1 and finish at level 20 (and the AP will be designed around that). But one of my biggest fear is that compared to 5E or PF1, characters are going to be really limited and weak in the early levels. This could have been fine if all of us discovered the RPG with PF2, but it is not the case. Things that people take for granted are going away or will come later. And that is tough in my opinion.

As someone who's played the game, I felt like the level 1 characters actually felt a lot closer to playing about a third level character in the current system. While you get a smaller package of starting options from race, the things you do get are more relevant to the game you're playing and the new action economy system lets you do more each round than you're currently capable of. A lot of the racial abilities that are currently available are things like minor skill bonuses, which wouldn't be minor in the new system; a +2 to Perception checks would be similar to a +4 in the new system, and since Perception is the default modifier for initiative it would be drastically more powerful. So a lot of the little bits that would round out a race previously have been replaced by higher general competencies across the board with the individual ancestry options generally having more functionality than the individual racial traits in the current edition.

At the most basic levels like combat, moving up to twice your speed in a non-linear path and then making two attacks is something that would be very difficult to do in the current system without multiple feats and/or a mount, and generally isn't something you can pull off until 8th level or higher without some very specific spells or abilities. In the new edition, that's something that many 1st level fighters will be able to easily pull off. Beyond basic combat expansion, you've got background benefits , more starting skills for many classes, a class feat, and your basic load of class abilities like the barbarian's rage and totem or the rogue's sneak attack, bonus skill feat, and other abilities. I definitely felt way more stymied in my options playing 5E, which pretty bare bones in the character customization department, than I have in PF2 up to this point.


Good to know from someone who actually played the game! I think you reassured a lots of us with that post!


1st level characters also have several examples of their damage tripling from PF1. 3 attacks for martials, 3 magic missiles at 1st level, burning hands doing 2d6 instead of 1d4. (OK, martial damage won't strictly have tripled. But 3 attacks! At level 1! 4 as a monk!)


That'll certainly iron out the all or nothing you have in PF1's early levels. I'm a bit worried that the pace will feel a bit slow. Particularly if encounters are paced for 3 attacks around but survivable with one attack per round.

Scarab Sages

One thing by which I'm really intrigued is that the skill floor for basic elements of the game seems quite low. I.E., the only thing preventing Wizard from being a decent melee combatant seems to be his reduced hit points and baseline proficiencies, but once those are covered there's little to keep him from the front lines. I like the evening out of baseline effectiveness across the board in all things (skills, combat, etc.), including magic item access with Wands, etc. being accessible via Resonance instead of always requiring skill use.

It also looks like low-level play will be VERY simple. Most attacks look to do similar damage, and player options to deal and take damage seem to be pretty even across the board (though we'll need to see what kind of defensive cantrips spellcasters get access to), with your class giving your more interesting options instead of gating access to viability. This is a great change, imo. I remember going through the Starfinder Core Rulebook and remarking at the option of building a weapon-focused Technomancer, and it actually looked kinda fun. (I don't know much about the optimization of that system, but it looked fun and simple on paper). I'm glad the game seems to be making classes distinct via a combination of a variety of options and power, rather than just raw power differences. On the whole I'm really excited. Can't wait to get my hands on the playtest to see if I can actually make a melee wizard work. That will be the real test for me.


One thing I hope is that optimization is no longer just getting the biggest numbers (as that seems decently easy) and goes more to using your options well. Seems like the floor and ceiling have been brought a lot closer together numerically, so really it should be a lot cleaner on that front.

The nice thing is most of my characters that I plan to rebuild as tests function quite well as stress tests of the system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
But the negativity is so very draining, especially when it refuses to broaden its scope.

Unfettered positivity can be equally draining, especially when it refuses to accept the point of view of those in disagreement. ;)

On the topic, there are several things I don't really have to see the playtest to be able to tell you how I feel about them. For instance I'm going to hate bulk and resonance. The only possible thing the actual document could do is make me hate them less.

As far as liked items: Most of the classes seem like they have a good start.

Iffy: archetypes as presented [class specific ones might better]. Skills [too much unknown + the whole feat tie in].


You know, there's a Gnome joke somewhere in the thread title.

Dark Archive

Is there a reason why high tier cure wands are bad?I am realy curious about this.Why cure spells has to heal 1d8+something and increase for 1d8+something every spell level.I find this scaling of heal spells to be wierd and meaningless.a 4th level spells heals for 4d8+something?Why?Just make it 8d8+something and be done with it ,it is a level 4 spell.Why heal the spell has to heal for 100 hit points but a spell level before heals 4d8+something.What is the reason for this?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
Is there a reason why high tier cure wands are bad?I am realy curious about this.Why cure spells has to heal 1d8+something and increase for 1d8+something every spell level.I find this scaling of heal spells to be wierd and meaningless.a 4th level spells heals for 4d8+something?Why?Just make it 8d8+something and be done with it ,it is a level 4 spell.Why heal the spell has to heal for 100 hit points but a spell level before heals 4d8+something.What is the reason for this?

Uh...in PF2, while they start at 1d8+Wis, Heal spells do, in fact, scale 2d8 per additional level for single-target healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
But the negativity is so very draining, especially when it refuses to broaden its scope.

Unfettered positivity can be equally draining, especially when it refuses to accept the point of view of those in disagreement. ;)

On the topic, there are several things I don't really have to see the playtest to be able to tell you how I feel about them. For instance I'm going to hate bulk and resonance. The only possible thing the actual document could do is make me hate them less.

As far as liked items: Most of the classes seem like they have a good start.

Iffy: archetypes as presented [class specific ones might better]. Skills [too much unknown + the whole feat tie in].

To be fair I think you are quite good even when in the negative stance. You expand on your PoV most times and are happy to debate in good faith.

But lets look at the Ranger blog for example. There is some one who felt the need to post

"Snares, ugh."

and

"I find this disappointing"

As two separate posts and not contributing anything else. That is a negative that is both not helpful and in my opinion just wanting to repeat distaste for something without adding to the conversation.

Dark Archive

I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

Psychology wise, people acting happy positive to each other is more likely going to make you feel positive. Though that doesn't really work in internet because people can't recognize other people as people in Internet according to brain chemistry stuff

^Anyway, to add to that, there are also several posters who show up in every post to say "I'm disappointed" without any elaboration. And some folks who show up to say something spiteful in every blog and if they can't find anything to complain about blog itself, they complain about writer or something


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

Psychology wise, people acting happy positive to each other is more likely going to make you feel positive. Though that doesn't really work in internet because people can't recognize other people as people in Internet according to brain chemistry stuff

^Anyway, to add to that, there are also several posters who show up in every post to say "I'm disappointed" without any elaboration. And some folks who show up to say something spiteful in every blog and if they can't find anything to complain about blog itself, they complain about writer or something

Anecdotally, 5e was like that for me. The fact that it solved few of my issues with 3.X or 4e, while introducing a ton more issues, but was lauded as the stunning shining best new system, really killed my interest in it. It wasn't that the game was terrible, even though PF, for all my issues with it, was still the game I'd rather play, but the unabashed treatment of the system like it could do no wrong really turned me away, as though saying 'my issues weren't real issues, and thus aren't worth even attempting to solve.'

Now, that being said, I do like PF2e, and I think it's doing a lot to solve my issues with 1e, while still keeping the parts of 1e that I love, but I can see how the flip side can feel that 2e is pushing them away. I do think people formulating their opinions in a more constructive and explanatory way is more productive than just saying "I don't like [x]" or even "I'm disappointed [but I won't explain by what]" but I can see the frustration that people can have if they feel like they're not getting what they want from the game, but everyone else is acting like it's great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

Psychology wise, people acting happy positive to each other is more likely going to make you feel positive. Though that doesn't really work in internet because people can't recognize other people as people in Internet according to brain chemistry stuff

^Anyway, to add to that, there are also several posters who show up in every post to say "I'm disappointed" without any elaboration. And some folks who show up to say something spiteful in every blog and if they can't find anything to complain about blog itself, they complain about writer or something

oh my yes! Some peppy upbeat youngster can just be too much and it can be exhausting!

More likely =/= always


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

Psychology wise, people acting happy positive to each other is more likely going to make you feel positive. Though that doesn't really work in internet because people can't recognize other people as people in Internet according to brain chemistry stuff

As an antisocial person, definitely yes. Not so much by people positive for themselves, but definitely for those who want to spread it around. Related to playtest previews, I don't mind people happy for a certain mechanic, although that too can be grating if you're personally not happy with it, as many people happy with it means it is staying. But those who basically attack the unhappy ones with their happiness: it's a great mechanic, you're not seeing the whole picture, paizo are all flawless designers etc., are the ones who are really the problem.

On the OP...I'm certainly trying to like the previews and PF2. I think the basics are great or genius (action economy, +/-10, races&classes even more modular, I think even resonance is salvageable, although I could do without completely). On the flip side most of the specifics in the previews are either uninspiring or just mostly horrible like two magic item blogs.

Looking at the big picture the "everything should be a significant choice" design is what mostly bothering me. I like just getting things as I level up. Sure, more choices, but not at the expense of previous things gained. The area where it bothers me most is the action economy, which feels more stifling with practically each preview, rather than more free as it was in PF Unchained.


CorvusMask wrote:
I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

Oh gods yes. Some people seem to be on a mission to push 'happy' on as many people as they can like a puppy yipping and jumping up and down: it's like they are slapping you with 'I'm happy are YOU happy! How about now! How about now? Now?? :P

CorvusMask wrote:
Psychology wise, people acting happy positive to each other is more likely going to make you feel positive.

To a point. Ever hear the phrase 'they're so sweet it makes your teeth hurt?'

CorvusMask wrote:
there are also several posters who show up in every post to say "I'm disappointed" without any elaboration.

Some don't have the time to do so. Some are self editing. Some know the playtest is only a month away and don't want to go into the whole thing now AND then. And some may actually not know a specific reason, they just don't like it.

CorvusMask wrote:
And some folks who show up to say something spiteful in every blog and if they can't find anything to complain about blog itself, they complain about writer or something

With this I'll agree. No reason to complain/insult at the makers/writers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I'll take an overt amount of positivity and happiness over too much cynicism and unhappiness any day of the week, but I do think that excitement and hopefulness shouldn't completely drown out genuine and critical discussion.

The problem is that right now it's kind of difficult to have said genuine and critical discussion without having the full playtest rulebook to argue over, only bits from blogs, interviews, podcasts and people's experiences from cons and such - which are good, but still only at best good for speculation.

I too would like to "examine the whole", if I had the whole to actually examine.
That's always the problem with discussing almost anything pre-release (especially something as big and potentially ground-breaking as a new edition of an RPG, as opposed to, say, yet another splatbook) - you lack the full information on the subject matter so you fill in the blanks (of which there are still many as far as PF2e goes), and everyone fills in those in their own unique way, so discussing things without misinformation or huge personal bias getting in the way is nigh-on impossible.
Luckily it's 'only' one more month of us existing in this weird state of flux before we get to dive deep into the playtest.

On a tangentially related note: this isn't Paizo's first such public playtest (though it's certainly their most ambitious one), if I remember right?
Broadly speaking, how did they handle it for Starfinder (or, if anyone here was around for that, Pathfinder 1e)?

Dark Archive

Is this "People pushing happiness" a cultural problem outside of Finland? Over here, nobody ever talks to strangers, everyone minds their own business and depression is national disease. Heck, I go to therapy because of depression, have major envy towards seemingly happy people and I still think that sounds too cynical attitude :D

Seriously though kidding aside etc, you described two things, a hype backlash(when something gets hyped so much it can't live up to the expectations) and what sounds to be reverse of "I hate this mechanic so you should too" in which case it doesn't really sound like positive attitude. Like, wouldn't overly positive person be "I love this mechanic, you hate this mechanic, it is okay to disagree!" because "You are wrong!" attitude is in itself a negative attitude.

Anyway, yeah, both of those things are annoying things and I'd imagine that people selfishly trying to make you happy because they think you should be happy would be annoying frustrating experience. However, I'd like to point out that idea behind positivity leading to more positivity is basically the "if you see someone smiling at you, humans have reflex for smiling themselves" aka it shouldn't be about someone trying to force you to be happy by being pushy but by them just being positive making you feel more positive.

Anyhoo, weird to think in month we will finally have access to playtest. It feels like its still so far away until 2e rules can be read :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

Psychology wise, people acting happy positive to each other is more likely going to make you feel positive. Though that doesn't really work in internet because people can't recognize other people as people in Internet according to brain chemistry stuff

Only about 1/3 of the population are highly susceptible to this effect and about 1/4 are immune to it entirely. It's actually distressing to those not in that 1/3 highly susceptible group because it appears to be either collusion or madness. The studies done on this effect are... demographically focused and not something I'd want to talk about on Pathfinder's forum. However, regarding online emotional contagion:

The Cornell/Facebook emotional contagion study showed that while there was a little nudge in emotional expression, it wasn't significant. However, overall reduced emotional interaction reduced emotional engagement of either type as well as engagement overall. So as long as people are feeling ways about stuff, others will also tend to have an emotional response to it. Just not always the same direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
You want the impossible!
It is hard for sure, especially when we don't have the actual book to examine the whole of! But I hope before folks get angry about anything take a moment to think "how does this relate to everything else we have seen so far."

Until we actually see the entirety of the rules in a month's time, I'm not really sure how we're supposed to discuss them any other way than piecemeal...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

I think the potential problem would be better described as "group think," where everyone is all "great job Paizo," "all this PF2e stuff is so cool," etc. To the degree that this is occurring, critical analysis becomes more difficult.

My problem at this point is that I find myself increasingly disagreeing with the entire premise and logic of PF2e. I don't particularly want a radical and revolutionary replacement for PF1e. If I wanted to learn a new and different RPG, there are a lot out there to explore. I'd really like a better version of the game that I'm playing now. However, that option doesn't appear to be on the menu.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Crayon wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
You want the impossible!
It is hard for sure, especially when we don't have the actual book to examine the whole of! But I hope before folks get angry about anything take a moment to think "how does this relate to everything else we have seen so far."
Until we actually see the entirety of the rules in a month's time, I'm not really sure how we're supposed to discuss them any other way than piecemeal...

The previous blogs are still there. They haven’t been deleted from the internet. We can put new things in the context of what we have already seen.


I am glad i am not the only one that is starting to get aggrivated by the line "I am dissapointed" or "This is bad" or similar when something doesnt go their way.

Forexample Ranger they reworked Favored enemy to study target like the slayer and people are not comming out of the woodwork telling how flavorful it was and its THE thing that make ranger a ranger...

I feel like i have been infulenced too much by this negativity, and i have a hard time not sounding sarcastic in writing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
You want the impossible!
It is hard for sure, especially when we don't have the actual book to examine the whole of! But I hope before folks get angry about anything take a moment to think "how does this relate to everything else we have seen so far."
Until we actually see the entirety of the rules in a month's time, I'm not really sure how we're supposed to discuss them any other way than piecemeal...
The previous blogs are still there. They haven’t been deleted from the internet. We can put new things in the context of what we have already seen.

A dozen pages worth of commentary and preview materials does not a 412-page rulebook make. I admit we can make many suppositions about game with very little concrete information, but one must still recognize that our credibility is nonexistant. Until we can read the document cover-to-cover we cannot credibly analyze it and Paizo has no particular reason to listen to us rant about something we literally know next to nothing about.

Those blogs weren't posted so that we could start ripping into a system we haven't actually seen, and it isn't like they could make any changes to the document now anyway. The rules were carved in stone before we even saw the first preview. No... the blogs are just intended to generate hype (and sell it to those of us who wouldn't have bought the book anyway)*. As well as keep Paizo printing money, being between editions can be deadly for a big studio.

*I for example, had completely lost interest in the future of Pathfinder (and have no faith left in paizo as a company), and I was considered jumping back over to WotC/D&D... that or go back to GMing dead systems like Champions/Fantasy Hero Complete.
Instead I've bought the playtest, and plan to test it; if for no other reason than as an interesting example of game design. I just don't expect anything meaningful to change between Playtest and Core-Rulebook: I expect it is just a glorified editing pass. As an artist and writer, it is really hard to kill your own sacred cows. So even if a rule obviously doesn't work, it will be hard for them to abandon it. Nevermind that past history has shown that paizo has an obsession with consistant page-counts that defies all logic and reason. If a change requires adding or removing a significant amount of text... it just ain't happening!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
The rules were carved in stone before we even saw the first preview.

Actually, this isn't true. Mark Seifter specifically noted that Halflings got changed somehow after the Blog on them (based on wording they probably have a bonus to Wis rather than Cha now), we know Acid Splash and falling rules got changed between the two Glass Cannon podcasts, and some other changes very clearly got made as well.

That's all in the past now that the book's gone to the printers, but it remains worth noting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
A dozen pages worth of commentary and preview materials does not a 412-page rulebook make. I admit we can make many suppositions about game with very little concrete information, but one must still recognize that our credibility is nonexistant. Until we can read the document cover-to-cover we cannot credibly analyze it and Paizo has no particular reason to listen to us rant about something we literally know next to nothing about.

This exact same refrain was repeated over and over during the lead up to the release of 4E. It was proven wrong then and it will be proven wrong now.

I'm not drawing any equivalence between D&D4E and PF2E. I'm just stating that the flawed reasoning here remains flawed in both cases.

There are a lot of people on these boards with a great deal of experience with a lot of different systems and styles. They know what they like and don't like. And a lot of that comes down to a connection between mechanics and concept. That can be hard to put a finger on, but each person still knows it for their own taste.

There are tons of things I'm seeing in 2E that really look great and have me enthusiastic. But there are also some real shining red flags. And I know that a couple significant warts on the experience will outweigh ten new cool things.

If you have an overwhelming majority of your fanbase loving 80% of the game, but half of them have two things that just kill it for them, then you have a really big problem. And if it is hard to find two people with the same two things, you have an even bigger problem.


BryonD wrote:
This exact same refrain was repeated over and over during the lead up to the release of 4E. It was proven wrong then and it will be proven wrong now.

Please, note that I didn'y say Paizo "wouldn't" listen to us, nor did I say our suppositions are automatically wrong. Having credibility, and being correct are entirely different.

I feel that I am often correct on matters of game design; having studied it to the exclusion of all else for a quarter of a century tends to instill confidance in one's opinions... But as an anonymous voice on the internet, or as someone without any professional credits to my name, my opinions just don't have any credibility beyond what little I could gleen from the effects of consensus (the opinions of others supporting my own).

I wasn't trolling the boards when 4e D&D came out, so I will have to take your word regarding the historical similarities (as someone with more credibility on the subject than I).

Dark Archive

Any rule pazio made can be changed.They changed a core part of starfinder just before release because of universal hatred that was toward it.They dont say what it is.Anything can be changed as long as there is a universal hatred towards it.So dont worry about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really hope they have a better plan for implementing those changes than what they did for Starfinder. I was last playing a Pilot in an SFS game just a few months ago, long after release; and I knew nothing about the changes because all I had read was the actual PDF rulebook. Thankfully the GM included the changes on his campaign page, so I didn't stay ignorant for too long. But had it been a Face-to-face game (and/or I been the GM), using impossibly hard DCs for all my/my player's ship-combat actions would have soured the whole experience for me even further.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
BryonD wrote:
This exact same refrain was repeated over and over during the lead up to the release of 4E. It was proven wrong then and it will be proven wrong now.
Please, note that I didn'y say Paizo "wouldn't" listen to us, nor did I say our suppositions are automatically wrong. Having credibility, and being correct are entirely different.

And there is certainly a huge difference between 4E and now because this *IS* a playtest. The real game will be different and is at least a full year away.

That said, the people on these boards have absolute "credibility" in their ability to express their own opinions. I don't accept that hair-splitting as changing my response. If something feels off to them now, it will feel off to them in at least 3 out of 4 cases when they see the complete game.

Quote:
I feel that I am often correct on matters of game design; having studied it to the exclusion of all else for a quarter of a century tends to instill confidance in one's opinions... But as an anonymous voice on the internet, or as someone without any professional credits to my name, my opinions just don't have any credibility beyond what little I could gleen from the effects of consensus (the opinions of others supporting my own).

And I've got 40 years of gaming and an excellent track record of accurately predicting market reactions to new things in gaming because, imo, I'm very good at seeing my own personal opinions and also trying very hard to ignore my opinions and look objectively at the market.

So, did that little appeal to authority change your view of my position?
I didn't think so.
You don't, and shouldn't, care about my background. And you presenting your background doesn't add anything to the conversation either.

If your background makes you an authority, then use your keystrokes to say things that make a compelling case.

And if I say something you disagree with, make a compelling case why it is wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
Any rule pazio made can be changed.They changed a core part of starfinder just before release because of universal hatred that was toward it.They dont say what it is.Anything can be changed as long as there is a universal hatred towards it.So dont worry about it.

Universal? I don't think there is close to universal hatred in anything in the presented material.

If too many fans decide they don't like the complete package, the fact that no one change was a common complaint won't help.
And people react more strongly to things that irritate them than to new good things.

All reactions need to be taken with a healthy grain of salt. But once you filter through the miasma of internet noise, the complaints should be weighed with more serious consideration than the praise.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Card Game, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
RiverMesa wrote:

Personally I'll take an overt amount of positivity and happiness over too much cynicism and unhappiness any day of the week, but I do think that excitement and hopefulness shouldn't completely drown out genuine and critical discussion.

The problem is that right now it's kind of difficult to have said genuine and critical discussion without having the full playtest rulebook to argue over, only bits from blogs, interviews, podcasts and people's experiences from cons and such - which are good, but still only at best good for speculation.

I too would like to "examine the whole", if I had the whole to actually examine.
That's always the problem with discussing almost anything pre-release (especially something as big and potentially ground-breaking as a new edition of an RPG, as opposed to, say, yet another splatbook) - you lack the full information on the subject matter so you fill in the blanks (of which there are still many as far as PF2e goes), and everyone fills in those in their own unique way, so discussing things without misinformation or huge personal bias getting in the way is nigh-on impossible.
Luckily it's 'only' one more month of us existing in this weird state of flux before we get to dive deep into the playtest.

On a tangentially related note: this isn't Paizo's first such public playtest (though it's certainly their most ambitious one), if I remember right?
Broadly speaking, how did they handle it for Starfinder (or, if anyone here was around for that, Pathfinder 1e)?

Starfinder did not have a public playtest.

For PF1e, there was a series of alpha builds (PDF only), and then a print beta. there were sub forums for the different parts of the rules, and i believe there were some updates even beyond the beta. The beta rulebooks did also have some alternative ideas for systems as sidebars to look at - I'll grab it out when I get home for some examples.


Dracoknight wrote:
I am glad i am not the only one that is starting to get aggrivated by the line "I am disappointed" or "This is bad" or similar when something doesnt go their way.

Out of curiosity, how are people that are "disappointed" and and think something is "bad" supposed to express that? What way wouldn't annoy you? What is a playtest for if you aren't meant to say what something isn't the way you want it?

Dracoknight wrote:
Forexample Ranger they reworked Favored enemy to study target like the slayer and people are not comming out of the woodwork telling how flavorful it was and its THE thing that make ranger a ranger...

LOL I've always hates favored enemy/terrain so I'm pleased it got axed. I don't understand the desire of some to keep it, but I'm not annoyed by it. To each their own. I'm only annoyed when people try to tell me I'm wrong for liking or hating something.

Dark Archive

Eh, while I also get tired by the constant "This is bad" thing, its mostly because its usually connected to the "Company has betrayed us somehow" or "I have lost my faith in paizo, future and humanity" type of melodrama.

Like, it is possible to express opinion without being overly dramatic and it is possible to express opinion while understanding both sides. So all the "They are lying about new edition being needed because they just want money" is just overly spiteful. Like, sure, of course they want money, they are company in business for making money, but that doesn't eliminate possibility that game needs update or they want to do update. Either way, whether update should have been new product or "Same but little tweaks" is subjective opinion.

Anyway, back to those two lines: "This is bad" is tiring because it sounds like an objective fact based statement rather than stating an opinion. "I'm disappointed" itself isn't that bad, but if you see someone posting it every time new info come out, it starts getting tiring.


CorvusMask wrote:
Anyway, back to those two lines: "This is bad" is tiring because it sounds like an objective fact based statement rather than stating an opinion. "I'm disappointed" itself isn't that bad, but if you see someone posting it every time new info come out, it starts getting tiring.

LOL Well I've seen plenty of 'this is great' and 'this is awesome' with JUST the same sound of being "an objective fact based statement"... And much like you see people posting "I'm disappointed" every time new info come out, so to do you see some posting "this is the best thing since sliced bread" in those same threads.

So I can understand getting tired of people with a set attitude, it seems disingenuous to focus on those set on 'don't like' and not include those set in the 'the new game can do no wrong' attitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sigh pessimists... XP (almost forgot the emoji)

But seriously the thing that gets me is when people keep hammering there opinion in over and over posting it on multiple threads and acting like it is the only correct opinion and anyone that doesn't see that is stupid. I don't care what side you are on that crap gets under my skin. I see them try and do this thing like "well everyone else in the world thinks your wrong so you must be wrong!" It makes me give the biggest eye roll where I have to actually hold the eyes in to keep them from coming out.

oh an personally what I do is igther use an I statement something like Oh I think this is X or I offer suggestions for improvements or compromises.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
But seriously the thing that gets me is when people keep hammering there opinion in over and over posting it on multiple threads

In my defense, they've had it in just about every blog... Khaaaaaaannnnnnnn!!!! er... Buuuuuulllllllk!!! ;)

Khaaaaaaannnnnnnn!!!!

PS: I do try to always have some kind of I/IMO statement somewhere in my posts.


I wasn't thinking of you in particular but the Bulk thing is funny. The only thing I see you pushing TO hard is your pessimism! basically your very cynical. You feel about Paizo how I feel about human life. You want them to do well on one hand but you don't trust them to do well on the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I wasn't thinking of you in particular but the Bulk thing is funny. The only thing I see you pushing TO hard is your pessimism! basically your very cynical. You feel about Paizo how I feel about human life. You want them to do well on one hand but you don't trust them to do well on the other.

I see it more as pragmatism: I take my experience with Paizo products, thier FAQ/errata rulings and general comments and use that as a lens with which to examine the playtest. For me, they clearly are on a different page than I on several different things so that colors my hope that it'll turn out great. Take resonance and CLW wands: they are clearly trying to solve a problem I never had and IMO trying to enforce a playstyle different than mine.

PS: I had similar hopes for 5e and that turned out to be a huge disappointment. I went through all of that playtest only to have each stage get further and further from the type of game I wanted to play. By the end, it was a product I'll never play. As such, I'm not going to assume that a playtest is going to end up being a game I want to play with.

PPS: I didn't think your comment was about me. I just recalled your comment about bulk in the other thread and thought the Khan reference would be amusing. ;)


graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I wasn't thinking of you in particular but the Bulk thing is funny. The only thing I see you pushing TO hard is your pessimism! basically your very cynical. You feel about Paizo how I feel about human life. You want them to do well on one hand but you don't trust them to do well on the other.

I see it more as pragmatism: I take my experience with Paizo products, thier FAQ/errata rulings and general comments and use that as a lens with which to examine the playtest. For me, they clearly are on a different page than I on several different things so that colors my hope that it'll turn out great. Take resonance and CLW wands: they are clearly trying to solve a problem I never had and IMO trying to enforce a playstyle different than mine.

PS: I had similar hopes for 5e and that turned out to be a huge disappointment. I went through all of that playtest only to have each stage get further and further from the type of game I wanted to play. By the end, it was a product I'll never play. As such, I'm not going to assume that a playtest is going to end up being a game I want to play with.

PS: I didn't think your comment was about me. I just recalled your comment about bulk in the other thread and thought the Khan reference would be amusing. ;)

The khan was amusing.

Long post ahead

See I disagree on you about the CLW thing but I don't think I can do any thing to change your mind on it. I think its kind of a personal preference kind of thing. My reasoning for not wanting it to be a thing is almost as much of a Hmm I don't know like a feeling like a It just doesn't feel right. I find it hard to put into words. However I think Resonance can work I just think It should be replacing 3/day 1/day magic item use instead. it shouldn't work with both it shouldn't be 3/day as long as you have resonance to activate them. For wands honestly I hate the spell battery items anyways. I would Drastically change wands. I think as long as we get a good number of resonance it will work. plus its a way to balance out casters and martial. because I've seen this argument before where oh well wizard don't actually run out of spells because of wands and scrolls etc. and when there primary balance point is suppose to be "running out of spells" but it doesn't happen because of spell battery items. (I mean 50 charges really is to much comparing that thing to the price of a scroll.) There is a few other plus sides to it to but I'm not in the right thread.

Edit: OK so after catching up on my forum reading apparently wands and per day items will in fact just be using resonance. So I'm ok with resonance replacing charges and per day uses I have to problem with that its just a matter of getting the right amount of resonance to fuel them.

This is why I prefer to wait to see the whole playtest document before forming any definite opinions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
See I disagree on you about the CLW thing

Oh, I understand some people found it an issue so I understand that: It's most likely playstyle. My issue is that your playstyle has been made the exclusive one and my playstyle sent out to pasture... :P

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think Resonance can work I just think It should be replacing 3/day 1/day magic item use instead. it shouldn't work with both it shouldn't be 3/day as long as you have resonance to activate them.

For me, I'd be fine if it replaced item slots and per day uses.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
For wands honestly I hate the spell battery items anyways. I would Drastically change wands. I think as long as we get a good number of resonance it will work. plus its a way to balance out casters and martial. because I've seen this argument before where oh well wizard don't actually run out of spells because of wands and scrolls etc. and when there primary balance point is suppose to be "running out of spells" but it doesn't happen because of spell battery items. (I mean 50 charges really is to much comparing that thing to the price of a scroll.) There is a few other plus sides to it to but I'm not in the right thread.

For me, I don't mind if we got rid of charges for wands but i don't think it should come out of the same pool as your magic items. For me it's taking away FAR too many options, in an edition that marketed on expanding options, by taking away wands, staves, potions, scrolls ect uses because you put on a magic item...

On balance out casters and martial, I'd prefer to allow martial dudes to have trinkets that access the pool that wands use instead of linking it to magic items used [and worse potion/scrolls].


graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
See I disagree on you about the CLW thing

Oh, I understand some people found it an issue so I understand that: It's most likely playstyle. My issue is that your playstyle has been made the exclusive one and my playstyle sent out to pasture... :P

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think Resonance can work I just think It should be replacing 3/day 1/day magic item use instead. it shouldn't work with both it shouldn't be 3/day as long as you have resonance to activate them.

For me, I'd be fine if it replaced item slots and per day uses.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
For wands honestly I hate the spell battery items anyways. I would Drastically change wands. I think as long as we get a good number of resonance it will work. plus its a way to balance out casters and martial. because I've seen this argument before where oh well wizard don't actually run out of spells because of wands and scrolls etc. and when there primary balance point is suppose to be "running out of spells" but it doesn't happen because of spell battery items. (I mean 50 charges really is to much comparing that thing to the price of a scroll.) There is a few other plus sides to it to but I'm not in the right thread.

For me, I don't mind if we got rid of charges for wands but i don't think it should come out of the same pool as your magic items. For me it's taking away FAR too many options, in an edition that marketed on expanding options, by taking away wands, staves, potions, scrolls ect uses because you put on a magic item...

On balance out casters and martial, I'd prefer to allow martial dudes to have trinkets that access the pool that wands use instead of linking it to magic items used [and worse potion/scrolls].

On further research people (like mark) are saying that it will be replacing charges and item slots.

I think to me the CL wand thing feels like a video game exploit. Like for example the guy that has the high score on Donkey Kong. Basically he learned an exploit that is really just a glich in the game and he just takes advantage of that and an extreme amount of patience. Its not that he is plying through the game and doing everything flawless he just stand there an hits the jump button untill his numbers are really high. The CLW seems like that to me. Taking advantage of an unintended glitch in the system.

Sorry that it hurts your style and I would suggest house ruling it but I know that is not an option for you. Still though you might actually end up liking the changes once your try em. *fingers crossed for you*

As a side note I think there is a big part that is also trying to emphasize the skill system which is long over due. So before you could probably get a want to deal with most skill related challenges and easier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Sorry that it hurts your style and I would suggest house ruling it but I know that is not an option for you. Still though you might actually end up liking the changes once your try em. *fingers crossed for you*

As long as the magic item pool is the drink potion pool, I'm going to loathe it. it means I can't have minor 'fun' items because to takes away from things that'll keep me alive. Hat of disguise so my gnome looks like a halfling? nope, I may need a potion later. Apprentice's Cheating Gloves? I LOVE the cartrips but are cool roleplaying options worth not having magic armor on? Who is ever going to USE a feather token, or any other quirky item like that when it takes away from items worn and your healing/defensive consumables?

Sorry, I dont have to play to know that's all awful.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
As a side note I think there is a big part that is also trying to emphasize the skill system which is long over due. So before you could probably get a want to deal with most skill related challenges and easier.

That's cool and all but that's a sidegrade move at best. It moves the CLW to forcing someone to have a good enough healing skill. What does that change other than optics: it's moved one required item to another one. I'm all cool with new options, just not enforced ones as they aren't options anymore.


graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Sorry that it hurts your style and I would suggest house ruling it but I know that is not an option for you. Still though you might actually end up liking the changes once your try em. *fingers crossed for you*

As long as the magic item pool is the drink potion pool, I'm going to loathe it. it means I can't have minor 'fun' items because to takes away from things that'll keep me alive. Hat of disguise so my gnome looks like a halfling? nope, I may need a potion later. Apprentice's Cheating Gloves? I LOVE the cartrips but are cool roleplaying options worth not having magic armor on? Who is ever going to USE a feather token, or any other quirky item like that when it takes away from items worn and your healing/defensive consumables?

Sorry, I dont have to play to know that's all awful.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
As a side note I think there is a big part that is also trying to emphasize the skill system which is long over due. So before you could probably get a want to deal with most skill related challenges and easier.
That's cool and all but that's a sidegrade move at best. It moves the CLW to forcing someone to have a good enough healing skill. What does that change other than optics: it's moved one required item to another one. I'm all cool with new options, just not enforced ones as they aren't options anymore.

Now but I think there saying both armor and weapons are not going to work on resonance. Were not going to have the big 6 so you shouldn't have to choose between a cool flavor item and a essential one. I think they saying only about 3 items are going to be in the required place. and I think 2 of those are weapons and armor. so really your only spending 1 res on 1 item. everything else can be stuff like feather tokens and what have you. If the first aid skill can handle the majority of your healing (which I think they said that is the intent if you invest in it.) then you should have plenty of resonance for fun items and if thats not the case then we can try and get them to give us more resonance.

Also I see this argument and it seems like people are always assuming there out of resonance or only having 1 point left or something. If your entire party has burned through all there RES then maybe you should rest for the night. The way the developers were talking you have to really work at it to run out of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Now but I think there saying both armor and weapons are not going to work on resonance.

The only thing immune to resonance are weapons. Armor uses it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Were not going to have the big 6 so you shouldn't have to choose between a cool flavor item and a essential one.

So we have less required items but add in every single charged/consumable... To me that sounds like a lot LESS usable items than more.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
you should have plenty of resonance for fun items and if thats not the case then we can try and get them to give us more resonance.

You play a FAR different game than I if you use fewer than 6 items + consumables/charges on a 5th level character [excluding weapons]. I know I've used far more than 1 consumable at 1st. I also tend to collect those minor quirky items instead of selling them for the newest shiny item, often having more than my level in JUST them. No more.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also I see this argument and it seems like people are always assuming there out of resonance or only having 1 point left or something. If your entire party has burned through all there RES then maybe you should rest for the night. The way the developers were talking you have to really work at it to run out of it.

If I look at some of my characters, I'm exceeding my resonance at the start of the day... It's not a case of 'burning through it' but not having enough at all. Are we meant to force someone to be a Cha based resonance battery so the rest of the party can wear/use the items they want? Or is everyone assumed/forced to max out their Cha so they can have a spare point or two?

And I know some will say 'but those quirky minor items might not use RP: Looking at the elven cloak, it's an RP to get ghost sounds at will so I'm not seeing getting Apprentice's Cheating Gloves and it not costing. :P

Dark Archive

It is kind of rare to be able to use more than 1 potion at level 1 though because you don't have much money at level 1 and you level up really fast. But yeah, just because you might be rare type of player doesn't make it less annoying that your playstyle is harmed.

But yeah, I'm actually in the "If potion use should be restricted, they should do separate mechanic for it like Potion Miscibility table instead" because it always sounds weird that you have to use pool to use one if items that you consume. Like with scrolls at least I can understand it, but with potions it feels weird.


graystone wrote:
As long as the magic item pool is the drink potion pool, I'm going to loathe it. it means I can't have minor 'fun' items because to takes away from things that'll keep me alive. Hat of disguise so my gnome looks like a halfling? nope, I may need a potion later. Apprentice's Cheating Gloves? I LOVE the cartrips but are cool roleplaying options worth not having magic armor on? Who is ever going to USE a feather token, or any other quirky item like that when it takes away from items worn and your healing/defensive consumables?

That's kind of how I feel about PF1. Hardly any of the quirky items ever get used, because they can be sold to buy stuff that actually helps you out in combat, or because they take up the slots that are needed for a cloak of resistance or other 'mandatory' item.


I frankly don't tend to see magic items until about 5th level. How are you getting magic items at level 1? If your already playing outside the norm of a standard pathfinder game your already house ruling which is something I thought you weren't able to do in the first place. So they reward you for putting a point into charisma so you can drink 2 of what I have to assume are potions at first level after that you make a check to use further items which I can understand not wanting to do that.

To me your argument keeps going to a worst case scenario that to me seems unlikely to happen. I really don't think I use 10+ consumable items in one pathfinder day. in a party of 4 surely not 40 consumables. That just seems ridiculous.

I frankly don't have enough information about how all magic items are going to work to say anything for sure on the gloves and those sorts of items. I'm still wondering how a bag of holding is going to work for example.

If the problem is not enough RES at all Which I guess we will see when the play test full document is revealed I'll be right there with you pushing for some more.

I'm still confused at you having multiple magic items at level 1 however.

101 to 150 of 193 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Examine the whole. All Messageboards