|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks... okay. I mean, it seems like it responds to a lot of the lawyer-y issues of Pathfinder 1 (everything is codified, and I mean pretty much EVERYTHING), conditions are all condensed with really specific effects, and language regarding classes is all simplified. I really like the way stats are done, I like that races are a little homogenous, but also dislike that races aren't more distinct. The classes are okay. Barbarian seems like one of the better designed ones, and cleric seems pretty decent as well, but a lot of the options for classes across the board seem really conservative. The gish options are particularly meh, and many class options are too interdependent (This ability requires X class ability, which requires Y class ability). I'm disappointed that the classes are so specific as well.
Overall, I kinda understand that this is mostly a systems playtest to see how the game runs, but I feel like part of hyping people about the game would involving boasting about what pathfinder did best: build variety. I feel like the playtest doesn't really stress that part of the system. Still, I suppose I'll have to wait until actual play to see how it runs at least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestries feel mostly ok but the Ancestry Feats thing feels wierd to me
Backgrounds are fine
Classes honestly feel more restrictive than before. There is a lot of "if you want to do X, you HAVE to be Class Y". Like Class Feats in general but then they go and break them up by level and that starts feeling Really 4E. I'd rather have Feat Chains to be honest.
Kind of Don't like the attributes system. feels way too cookie cutter to me.
Have Never liked Fixed Hit Point Advancement
Archetypes are lacking, need more of them.
Multiclassing looks bad.
Dice Rolls aren't going to be so out of control, so I'm ok with that
First reaction. Dislike more than I like. Not gonna switch
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knee jerk.
Why the skill prerequisite (traîned in (skill) of the skill feat given by my background is not included?
I receive Assurance as a bonus feat... but I am not trained in the skill. I need to use a ressource to have it. And this is the same thing for every background. That likes a skill tax!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first started reading this thread I was honestly very confused by all this talk about 1E and 2E. I said to myself, "Self, I think that some sort of Renaissance is occurring." I provide the following key to eliminate any further misunderstandings:
BECMI = Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal
1E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, first edition
2E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, second edition
3E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, third edition
3.5E = AD&D, third edition revised
4E = AD&D, fourth edition
5E = AD&D, fifth Edition
PF1 = Pathfinder, first edition
PF2 = Pathfinder, second edition
And, if you're like me and too invested in PF1 and the home brew globe you've created, I can keep playing PF1, right? I won't be compelled to by the new system?
And, if you're like me and too invested in PF1 and the home brew globe you've created, I can keep playing PF1, right? I won't be compelled to by the new system?
You most certainly can. The rulebooks will stay in print (in pocket book edition) as long as they continues to sell (and even then they have to sell out any leftover stock). The SRD is still there perpetually and you still have your PDFs (if you've bought them, Paizo probably won't stop selling them, "ever").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My initial knee-jerk reaction is that there is more I dislike than I like. I'm willing to wait and see what, if anything, gets changed in the final product but as of now I'm likely to cherry pick things I like and use them in my own game.
As for the adventure that comes with the play test .. Oh I have so many issues and questions. Not about the tests, necessarily, but a great deal with the overall concept and the issues it could cause. So, so many questions.
I believe that is what the general feat Adopted Ancestry is meant to solve. Like it's saying "Hey, these are the things most commonly associated with dwarves, but if you are a dwarf somehow raised by elves, then you can have some of those things with this ability right here!" I think there could be a better way of accomplishing this without having separate physical vs cultural traits.
Ahhh...thanks for bringing that to my attention; I hadn't yet seen it.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I really find it shocking that people whine about the learning curve of system mastery.
Whine? Seriously?
I'm gone 11 hours a day for work. Counting getting ready, making breakfast, etc., it's an even 12 hours. I also have three teenagers, along with the accompanying school events, games, and other commitments. Two hours of free time a day is pretty typical for me. Sometimes its hard to carve out the six or so hours to play a game, even on a weekend.
Is it seriously "shocking" to you that people like me might want to roll some dice without spending every waking moment reading the multiple books of player options Paizo puts out in a month?
You really just don't get it, do you?
[snip]
Your entire post generally amounted to calling the developers and employees at Paizo for liars and money-grubbing corporate people not interested in the game. I'm sure they'll appreciate that gesture.
That is, however, not in any way the way I see them and I have great confidence in their way of handling the playtest and how much they care about the game (yes, based on, among other things, history, which you seem to have not witnessed).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knee-jerk reaction is that you don't make characters anymore, you basically just choose between premades. And that is AWFUL
It feels as cookie cutter as 4E....It's, to me at least, as bad as 4E if not worse.
My initial knee jerk reaction was along these lines as well. I'm quite surprised to see the list of fighter feats. Not at all what I was hoping for. It seems like we're going to get lots of special attacks we can use all day long, but no way to modify and stack multiple feats onto a single attack (except for at 10th level with one feat then).
I'm trying to keep an open mind. But I'm struggling to see how the spirit of Pathfinder lives on in this playtest rules thus far.
I'm tempted to make a Dwarven Fighter 6 in PF1e, D&D 5e and PF2e and see which one is closest to the PF1e version. At this stage my knee jerk reaction says fifty-fifty chance on it being the PF2e dwarven fighter. But I'm going to read more of the rules first and try to understand and appreciate them in isolation (alas making characters is how I learn the rules).
I disagree and I'm not quite sure how you came to some of these conclusions.
That might be why they're called knee jerk reactions?
Then, quite simply, you shouldn't be playing a class-based game. Putting abilities into silos to reinforce flavor is the reason the class concept exists in the first place.
We weren't this restricted in Pathfinder 1e and I think it's reasonable for things to be as flexible as 1e in 2e. I personally expected more flexibility in 2e, but I certainly don't expect to see less flexibility.
In all seriousness, how do you add options into a class and level based system without creating a menu of options to pick from?
They didn't create a menu of options to pick from. They TOOK the menu from options from all the other classes and doled out each option to one or two classes at best (knee jerk reaction here. Haven't even started digesting the rules).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...
Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.
Way to go, guys.
SMDH...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.
Way to go, guys.
SMDH...
Universally? Hardly. I rather liked 4E. It was super easy to prep, and played quite well.
But really, your posts amount to "I don't like this game." Which is fine. But you seem to be mistaking your preference for objective truth. (Though if it makes you feel better, it's going around...)
I would say this edition is more dnd 4.5, than 5.5...
I had the same thought.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am looking through it now and have mixed feelings so far. I like some of what I am seeing but am getting a D and D 4th or 5th edition feel to other parts.
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.
Way to go, guys.
SMDH...
Universally? Hardly. I rather liked 4E. It was super easy to prep, and played quite well.
But really, your posts amount to "I don't like this game." Which is fine. But you seem to be mistaking your preference for objective truth. (Though if it makes you feel better, it's going around...)
That's Awesome. I enjoyed playing 4e (was an avid player of it until I found the PF Beginner Box), sometimes I feel almost like a Pariah around here.
It was easier to DM then some other versions of the game.
I'd call it more like a 4.75 (4.5 being essentials)...but yeah, the same gist overall.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design trends. The designers clearly set out to make the game overall less high power...
And yet, they'll immediately busy themselves generating new splats that do exactly that, because that's what they all do because the market clamors for it. Then, ten years down the road, they'll heave it all over the side and start over yet again.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.
Way to go, guys.
SMDH...
PF1 was great as it took heart of 3.5 and polished it.
this playtest is mostly on 4e with bits of 3e and 5e.
But looks like they took random bits of 3 edition, stuffed them in their mouth and sneezed on the screen.
Then they looked in-between the snort and said: Yeah, this might work!
My kneejerk reaction is that this is a different game, and that's fine. I like how things are generally more codified, but I think the game does take a slight hit in intuitivity for it. I also share people's sentiments that things look kind of cookie cutter, but at the same time, I expect we'll get more options on the actual release (and honestly, good characters in pf1e did very cookie-cutter builds anyways -- we just lost the ability to make really bad builds).
That being said, I also think it's a lot more similar than people are giving it credit for. A lot of the 4e-like stuff in feat choices is only superficially so: they just made stuff you did along with an attack or move action into its own unique kind of action. There's not a ton of actual change, in that regard.
You play PvP Pathfinder?No, but there are far too many toxic players who talk down to others for not having system mastery.
Well, that is actually PvP, which after all means "Player vs Player", not "Character vs Character".
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.
Way to go, guys.
SMDH...
PF1 was great as it took heart of 3.5 and polished it.
this playtest is mostly on 4e with bits of 3e and 5e.
But looks like they took random bits of 3 edition, stuffed them in their mouth and sneezed on the screen.
Then they looked in-between the snort and said: Yeah, this might work!
Couldn't agree more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They nerfed everything except +1 per level power creep.
And they added it to AC. hahaha!!
Actually, adding it to AC, and making everything +1 per level rather than varying with class and ability is a good thing. Makes it far easier to strip that rule out entirely as a house rule.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, which is what I have done, easy-peasy, I did the same thing with 4th Ed.Actually, adding it to AC, and making everything +1 per level rather than varying with class and ability is a good thing. Makes it far easier to strip that rule out entirely as a house rule.They nerfed everything except +1 per level power creep.
And they added it to AC. hahaha!!
Yes, you can.
But, what does that say about core game mechanic if people on the 1st day of playtest are talking about axing it before any test.
+1 treadmill didn't even pass theorycraft in peoples heads.