First Knee-Jerk Reaction


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Since both sides of the argument refuse to budge, I guess I'll just google it for everyone :P

Google result I got: Wizards has never released their sale data so its unknown how well or badly it sold. Only thing you can tell that it sold well, but evidently not well enough for their liking considering how 5e went back to inspiration from 2e times. Image I got in my head is that initial book sold well, but later products less well as time passed on due to lot of folks abandoning the game and it gaining bad reputation.

Edit: Huh, I got ninja'd


CorvusMask wrote:

Since both sides of the argument refuse to budge, I guess I'll just google it for everyone :P

Google result I got: Wizards has never released their sale data so its unknown how well or badly it sold. Only thing you can tell that it sold well, but evidently not well enough for their liking considering how 5e went back to inspiration from 2e times. Image I got in my head is that initial book sold well, but later products less well as time passed on due to lot of folks abandoning the game and it gaining bad reputation.

Edit: Huh, I got ninja'd

Yeah, initial sales were great, but something went horribly wrong rather quickly. Some people like to blame 4th Ed's failure on an unrealistic monetary goal set by Hasbro, but of course there is way more to it than that.

Dark Archive

The idea I got from googling is that 4th system was great as tactical wargame, but it's feel was too different from previous editions to feel like D&D game and it didn't really have support for roleplaying. So not case of it being bad game but case of established apple audience being given orange instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
The idea I got from googling is that 4th system was great as tactical wargame, but it's feel was too different from previous editions to feel like D&D game and it didn't really have support for roleplaying. So not case of it being bad game but case of established apple audience being given orange instead.

We removed +1/2 per level and true it is a great tactical wargame, better without treadmill.

But, roleplay is what you make of it. Majority of time during sessions was spent on roleplay.

But still, I rather play 5e or PF1

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sulako wrote:

I have, however, seen recent stock reports for the company that showed a sharp decline in their stock prices beginning...

See? Wasn't that hard, wasn't it?

But it still doesn't tell us why 4e tanked. You (and Vic Ferrari. And the Croatian guy) will argue that it was because of mechanics, I'll argue that it was because of MMO-like presentation and slaughtering of sacred cows, neither of which goes well down with American D&D gamers. And the truth will, we will never know.


Igor Horvat wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
The idea I got from googling is that 4th system was great as tactical wargame, but it's feel was too different from previous editions to feel like D&D game and it didn't really have support for roleplaying. So not case of it being bad game but case of established apple audience being given orange instead.

We removed +1/2 per level and true it is a great tactical wargame, better without treadmill.

Us too!

4th Ed was very much based on the Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures (plastic crack) game, which was very popular at the time, and some WoW.

It was also designed with a VTT for play, but that never came to fruition (some tragic accident or something).

Dark Archive

Igor Horvat wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
The idea I got from googling is that 4th system was great as tactical wargame, but it's feel was too different from previous editions to feel like D&D game and it didn't really have support for roleplaying. So not case of it being bad game but case of established apple audience being given orange instead.
But, roleplay is what you make of it. Majority of time during sessions was spent on roleplay.

Well yeah, technically you don't need any mechanics for roleplaying. However, you can notice from system how much it supports roleplaying by either giving mechanical support(such as how many abilities class has that are helpful in out of combat situations as well), gives advice on subject or opportunities to use it in adventure modules.


Gorbacz wrote:
But it still doesn't tell us why 4e tanked. You (and Vic Ferrari. And the Croatian guy) will argue that it was because of mechanics, I'll argue that it was because of MMO-like presentation and slaughtering of sacred cows,

Totally, all of the above and more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

And don't forget alienating their customer base with ill-advised PR telling them basically "your old game sucks and you are stupid for playing it".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To those saying to playtest before expressing opinion on the ability to build characters: I have. Building characters is my playtesting. Nearby groups are either so intermittent as to basically not exist, or have sufficient differences that I'm not a good fit for them. But I still bought and used PF1 books because I could enjoy what they had to offer, and have fun thinking through what I can do. So what I'm focused on in the playtest is how I enjoy the system i.e. making interesting characters. I don't need to run adventures to have a good opinion for my interests, because the characters actually being run though any adventures is going to be a rarity.

And sure, maybe I'm the type of gamer Paizo neither needs nor wants. But until they say that to my face, I will keep commenting on how the system works for me.

Dark Archive

4e had lot of things going on against it huh.


Since this has somehow turned into a "what killed 4E" debate...

In my opinion, bad mechanics didn't kill 4E. Wotc's "we know best" attitude killed 4E. But as Gorbacz correctly pointed out, we will never know for sure.

Can we get back to Pathfinder 2E now? :P


Yesterday, I wrote up a summary of Pathfinder 2nd Edition character creation and emailed it to my players. I don't expect them to read the entire 434-page rulebook before the first playtest session Tuesday.

The 3-step character creation process took 8 steps.
A. Ancestry
B. Background
C. Class
4. Ability Scores
5. Feats
6. Skills, Languages, Alignment, etc.
7. Calculate numbers
8. Gear

Steps 5 and 6 are much shorter than the same steps in Pathfinder 1st Edition. Step 4 is longer because the background ability boosts ("Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Constitution or Wisdom, and one is a free ability boost.") adds solving the puzzle which score to chose to avoid an overly high stat. It doesn't have to be the stat that I want at 18. Technically, step 7 would be done continuously among the other steps, but I had to do the other steps first due to unfamiliarity with the rules.

I had to send out a correction an hour and a half later. I knew from the Paizo Blog Previews that level was added to skills and attack rolls, but I hadn't seen that anywhere in the character creation chapters. I sent my character-creation email without it and resumed looking for it. It was in a table on page 291, the 2nd page of the Playing the Game chapter.

Some people are commenting on the cookie-cutter feel. I had that feeling while choosing feats. I had assumed that class feats would be class features that were now optional, like how the Qinggong Monk archetype had taken a lot of fixed monk class features and put them into lists of optional ki powers. Apparently, the Paizo designers did not have enough class features for the Fighter, so they took several combat feats, such as Power Attack and Point-Blank Shot, and made them fighter class feats, denying them to all the other classes. (Not that Power Attack and Point-Blank Shot are the same feats in PF2, but they have similar uses that other classes would like.)


CorvusMask wrote:
4e had lot of things going on against it huh.

Weirdly enough, there was quite a bit to like. As someone who plays World of Warcraft, I could see a lot of fun elements to be had but it just kind of boiled down to if I want to play World of Warcraft, I'll play World of Warcraft.

I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires. Some were cool but most were trash.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.

Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.


My initial reaction is simple and has been the deal breaker ever since this was announced. I refuse to switch to a system that changes the flow of combat by removing attacks of opportunities and making them exclusive to fighters and five foot steps should be possible during full round actions. That's all it took. I could put up with most of the other changes, but changing combat like this takes it backwards to a direction I don't want to go.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

My kneejerk reaction is that the game tries to do too many things well and ends up doing nothing well. Really, it reads like some sort of demented homebrew. It's like a strange mixture of 5e, 3.5e, and 4e. The fact that I'm not even really comparing it to Pathfinder and that even the 2nd Edition immediately brings to mind not one but three separate editions of Wizards of the Coast is a problem.

Let's begin with the weird fact that, despite the massive number of modular feats, a lot of them amount to needing to buy back what you already had in PF1e. Dwarven Spell save bonus? Spend a feat bub. Heck, to play a half-X at all you need to spend a feat.

I'm also not a huge fan of half the things the feats do. Make up your mind, is someone at level 18 a massively powerful legendary entity? Or is he someone who can improvise a g~$++$n snare trap, because an 18th level Ranger can't afford some rope? For all that Pathfinder, and even D&D in general references legendary acts, it sure doesn't support recreating them. Fergus mac Roich blows the top off three hills by accident when he misses. Beowulf essentially does the equivalent of ripping an Ogre apart using just brute strength. He makes the Break DC for an Ogre barehanded, and he shatters a sword that has to be at least +3 by swinging it too hard. Can you do that in 2e? Well, ok; you could never do that in 3.5 or 1e, but you could come closer. The legendary skill uses seem...honestly they just seem boring. Yippie, I can read a code fast, I'm so excited. Alright, great, I can fall any distance without taking damage, but I mean it's not as if I don't probably have a means of flight or at least feather fall by then.

Onto the problem of being half-between everything, it really shouldn't need elaborating. Everything feels samey despite the rigorous niche-building implemented. It lacks the depth and options (and the b*~#%** insane imbalance) that made 3.x great. Multiclassing being out is something ridiculous - did variant multiclassing get that great of a reception? Sure, it usually was a poor idea to multiclass or dip too hard in PF1e, which didn't frontload as hard as 3.x and had far fewer PrCs, but the concept of "nope, you can't multiclass :)" is horrible. Don't tell me the anaemic multiclass is somehow a substitute. This even ties into the whole class system being even more gimped than it used to be - and by gimped, I mean pigeonholed. It's like every class is a paladin with their flavour directly influencing their mechanics, except paladins only had one or two real restrictions. What's that, you want to play a fast, agile spearman wearing light or medium armour? Too bad, the Fighter isn't for you, and due to the way multiclassing is out, you can't even dip in for the parts you want. Did you want to play a ranged Paladin, maybe worshipping Erastil? There's no support for that. Not to mention what the hell is are the exclusive features? Worse than features you can't get rid of or that you don't receive, are the ones you can't get because apparently, that's some other class' niche. What? No AoOs? Only fighters get cool things to do with shields? My only options as a Sorcerer are to use the lists you present and if I have a special concept in mind I just have no options? This isn't a case of "oh no my Wizard can't Rage", this is a case of "The Holy Warrior can't tank effectively." Why? It's just out-and-out a bad idea. Let me do what I want, I don't care what you the writers think is appropriate. There is no niche-stealing when you're building a character, that's for the party to deal with on their own time. If someone thinks their niche is being stolen they bring it up with the group, we don't need the g~~*++n rulebook to do it for us.

It could be that the playtest book simply doesn't include the options. Maybe there are actually many more feats unprinted in the interest of space. It could be - we see that the Rogue has a single feat for bludgeons, which simply...stops, there's nothing to continue that chain. But if that's really the case then Paizo needs to CLEARLY state somewhere that however many archetypes and feats are being withheld. In fact, I'd prefer them to give us a percentage too - are 20% being withheld? Are 50%? Are 60% being withheld, of which half aren't finished yet? Or is this really just all we're getting?

It's not actually very simple or easy to parse like 5e - what the hell is going on with the layout? Flipping back and forth and back and forth and back and forth looking for things that don't even have a page number next to them, hell 3e handbook knew better than that. Someone with a hardcover version is going to walk through the grey wastes and back before he even knows the gist of making his character. And the abilities and usages, no matter what Paizo says, aren't easy to understand or read. It almost looks like 4e's eye-wateringly brain-numbingly boring tables of class features at points. At least Paizo remembered to put in a table of class features. Also the icons really have to go, I don't know what they were going for if they were trying to look modern and chic for the people whose eyes are too shrivelled to read the word "Attack" or even "Atk", but for example the diamonds for actions are confusingly similar at first glance, especially 2 actions and 3 actions. Just use text. Writing was invented when people realized g~#!@#n drawings were insufficient thousands of years ago, and no, Chinese and Japanese aren't pictographic. It's not even numerically simple and at first glance doesn't look very balanced, which for all of its faults 4e did do well - the weird wargamey way it played succeeded in, if nothing else, making your characters more or less equal. Yes, it did this in large part by making them in many respects the same, but Pathfinder manages to make your characters feel cookie-cutter but is still magically unbalanced.

Last complaint - why didn't Paizo port in 4e's martial powers and/or take inspiration from Tome of Battle or Path of War, and then adding things for martials to do out of combat? It just seems like a good idea, and might dispel the entire fundamentally flawed concept of the mundane martial. If you absolutely stick with a mundane martial then at some point you hit the wall called physics and the Wizard wins again. I'd hoped that 2e would at least try to address the differences but at first glance, the disparity is almost bigger than ever, heck people like the Monk even lost their amazing Tongue of Sun and Moon for the horrible gimped version. The only real thing Wizards lost was a few lower level spells and Time Stop (and they can get Time Stop back). They even have a way to hotswap spells now, including ones already prepared - even faster than they used to be able to. Batman Wizard is well and truly alive here, even with the worse spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Candlestick wrote:
My kneejerk reaction is that the game tries to do too many things well and ends up doing nothing well. Really, it reads like some sort of demented homebrew. It's like a strange mixture of 5e, 3.5e, and 4e.

Yes, I very much feel this.

Dark Archive

On sidenote since Beowulf was mentioned, Grendel is unique level 19 creature in the bestiary : D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.
Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.

Dude. Enough with the gasoline.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.
Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.

Hey, now later in that post I did say that MOST of what the 3rd party publishers was bad. Some of it was good.

Paizo also sort of had an inside track as they took over Dungeon and Dragon Magazine in 2003. They knew what would and wouldn't work within the system.

But I stand by my former statement. A majority of the 3rd party stuff was terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.
Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.
Dude. Enough with the gasoline.

Now why not? More gasoline, I say. We got a lot of weenies to roast. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My knee-jerk reaction was anger at elves having Constitution flaw...again...when every class listed below has Constitution as a secondary stat. It's like they know how importation Con is and still makes a race less interesting to play because now I have to spend the Free ability score strength on cancelling out that Con garbage.

Also, why is Grey Maiden here to be tested? Are you able to join the Grey Maidens in their play test adventure? I hope so, because otherwise why bother including it when that's a requirement to get it?

Other than that...I still have to read. Not super into it so far but willing to give it a shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.
Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.
Dude. Enough with the gasoline.

He was blunt but a lot of PF splat is not great. I liked the early stuff Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Players Guide those were good.After that though.....

Great APs though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually no, I actually forgot something to rant about. A couple things, really. I could go on all day but there's a couple of big ones.

Signature skills are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE. Once you hit Expert you just magically plateau on your skill progression and there are not even many ways, for some classes no way at all to my knowledge, to switch them up. This also ties to the poor formatting, there are rules on different pages for apparently no reason whatsoever. If you thought the Turning Rules in the 3.5 PHB being 100 pages from the actual Turning class feature or the strength of alignment auras being on the opposite end of the book was bad, you haven't seen anything yet. It might be that I simply missed the options, but that's nobody's fault but the guy who organized the book. In fact skills in general. Half of the skill feats are things that really should just be part of the basic skill in the first place. A number of them used to literally be part of the basic skill - Forager, for example, is either redundant in most, hospitable places, or makes no sense whatsoever, since unless I'm horribly misreading the description, "Wilderness" includes...basically everywhere that isn't a city or village, so you'd be able to "forage" on the Astral plane, the Grey Wastes, hell you'd be able to Forage from Asmodeus' restroom. Student of the Canon, on the other hand, doesn't even make sense - surely anyone who's Trained in Religion is obviously educated in basic tenets of faith, and considering that Religion is all religions (you don't take a penalty as a Sarenite to recall something about Desna or Lamashtu), shouldn't having training automatically imply that you've researched the tenets of a number of faiths?

The "everyone wins" deal of 2e also ticks me off, and the racial floating bonus doesn't even make sense. Surely the idea is to represent that say Elves are [on average] less sturdy, more agile, more intelligent? What does the floating bonus represent that your base stats don't already? Also this has nothing to do with anything but why do Goblins have a Charisma bonus considering they're pyromaniacal, illiterate pieces of garbage? They didn't showcase strength of personality or force of will in any of the APs and they're certainly not charming, it's just Kender that burn your stuff down instead of taking it. The drizzt treatment is weird enough, giving them a Charisma bonus is a bit much.

And something else that bothered me. I mean, this is a nitpick, and I say this as someone who never liked the whole "PCs shouldn't be Evil" or "Evil Gods are comically wicked" angle in core rules, but specifically pointing out racism as not allowable for a character is weird (Knife-ears? Stumpy? Beard-for-brains? Greenie? All these are out? Despite Dwarves having a literal 1st level racial feat that weaponizes racism? The whole "bring real-world issues into your games" bit ticks me off but that's because I'm a stickler for hard roleplaying, and honestly, sometimes it doesn't make too much sense to bring real-world issues into games where they don't always apply. Respecting all religions might be laudable in real life, for example, but then Asmodeans can literally call forth the Devil.


Zardnaar wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Sulako wrote:


I can, however, see why Wizards felt they needed a new edition. The OGL was just tearing them apart. The 3rd party material was just a travesty of hodge-podge dumpster fires.
Hey, you really shouldn't speak that harshly of Pathfinder.
Dude. Enough with the gasoline.

He was blunt but a lot of PF splat is not great. I liked the early stuff Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Players Guide those were good.After that though.....

Great APs though.

I'll never forgive Wit for having such great flavor but being ruined by their tie to social combat rules.

Dark Archive

GayBirdGM wrote:

My knee-jerk reaction was anger at elves having Constitution flaw...again...when every class listed below has Constitution as a secondary stat. It's like they know how importation Con is and still makes a race less interesting to play because now I have to spend the Free ability score strength on cancelling out that Con garbage.

Also, why is Grey Maiden here to be tested? Are you able to join the Grey Maidens in their play test adventure? I hope so, because otherwise why bother including it when that's a requirement to get it?

Other than that...I still have to read. Not super into it so far but willing to give it a shot.

Playtest documents mention that devs also want home campaign feedback so that is probably reason for grey maidens, they are there as example of prestige archetype


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:


Playtest documents mention that devs also want home campaign feedback so that is probably reason for grey maidens, they are there as example of prestige archetype

Sounds neat.

Curse of the Crimson Throne was the first campaign I actually ran so I personally LIKED seeing the grey maidens in here. Just thought it was an interesting choice. Unfortunately, we won't be homebrewing for our test run, just running their provided adventure to try out various mixtures of things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My first knee-jerk reaction is that this was written by a programmer. The nature of the ruleset, the way the information is presented, the heavy reliance on keywords and icons and codifying everything.

It takes some getting used to.

Personally, the way the information is presented feels a lot like 4E to me, and it's not my favorite style. (5E comes back somewhat in the direction of more natural language IMO, but not as much as I'd like.) PF2 feels more mechanical and "code-ish" than PF1. I understand that many people do like this style.

The actual mechanics may have some gems. I like the ability score changes a lot (e.g. no gain for dumping stats, system supports MAD over SAD, etc.) and if I stick with PF1 these are concepts I could port back in. I need to read the skills section in more detail to get a better handle on how those work.

If there is a way to change how the information is presented, to make it more like natural language and less like code, that might help uptake. Or not. I'm not an expert on the market. Just thought it was worth throwing out there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.


Sulako wrote:

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.

It annoys me slightly for the same reason Starfinder's take on Iron Gods annoyed me, it kind of makes a canon end to the APs. Which, granted, most of them did have.


Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Sulako wrote:

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.

It annoys me slightly for the same reason Starfinder's take on Iron Gods annoyed me, it kind of makes a canon end to the APs. Which, granted, most of them did have.

I developed a headcanon that only required the canon end to exist, not necessarily occur

Spoiler:
The "global memory" used for pre-Gap information was recorded through prophecy, and thus has potential inaccuracies after Aroden's death. Assuming the gods are not immune to the gap, Triune may have woken up wondering who their third aspect is and decided "sure, that looks right." What it is if it isn't Casandalee is an open question, but I lean towards a starstone-ascended minor AI that is continuing it's directive to make Absalom Station an excellent transport hub.


Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Sulako wrote:

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.

It annoys me slightly for the same reason Starfinder's take on Iron Gods annoyed me, it kind of makes a canon end to the APs. Which, granted, most of them did have.

It's just nice to see something the characters did have an in-game effect.

Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms really didn't have this. It was always just explained through the novels and what have you and not through game-play.

That always bothered me.

But I do see what you're saying. The Adventure Paths (at least some of them) had some pretty open-ended endings. Doing it this way does sort of assume the players went the standard way with things but still, it's better than what happened to other settings.


Sulako wrote:
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Sulako wrote:

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.

It annoys me slightly for the same reason Starfinder's take on Iron Gods annoyed me, it kind of makes a canon end to the APs. Which, granted, most of them did have.

It's just nice to see something the characters did have an in-game effect.

Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms really didn't have this. It was always just explained through the novels and what have you and not through game-play.

That always bothered me.

But I do see what you're saying. The Adventure Paths (at least some of them) had some pretty open-ended endings. Doing it this way does sort of assume the players went the standard way with things but still, it's better than what happened to other settings.

I don't know man. I mean, I can see the basic idea but the thing other settings did basically said "oh and btw the Circle of Eight hired some Plucky Young Adventurers to raid the Temple of Elemental Evil/some Adventurers managed to stop what the Lady of Pain couldn't". I just dislike the idea of choosing a standard ending for everyone.

I'll like it much better if it's the Iconics who did it, since then I can just imagine them as legendary heroes, and ones seperate from the PCs I made. I mean, I sure as hell didn't follow Skulls and Shackles the way the APs were written.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their responses.

Profanity is not allowed on our forums. The use of alternative characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable. It is not something I want to do to remove relevant points because they are expressed in an unacceptable manner. Please avoid this in the future.

Personal attacks are not allowed on our forums. This extends to all members of the community, including Paizo staff. Blanket assumptions about the intentions, motivations, and personal characteristics of Paizo employees is regarded as a personal attack, and is unacceptable. Criticism is best approached constructively and respectfully. Focus on accurately portraying your specific critiques, rather than attacking Paizo staff or your fellow posters. This will be most effective in communicating your views.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My first take? I love a lot of it!

+ The ability to customise your heritage so you can fine tune your character. Brilliant. I can see the ability to expand this like the advance race guide being really good.

+ I like that classes have niche protection on abilities. It makes the party work together rather than just trying to build a character that is super awesome at everything.

+ again, love the ability to fine tune your class with the feats.

+ action economy is good.

- Goblin, I’m not feeling in core. If we must have it, definitely should not have a charisma bonus!

- please give halflings some love.

- I don’t like some class “powers” being in the spell section. I found this confusing. I feel they should be in the class description. To me, it’s like putting pf1 Su abilities in the spell section.

- Resonance, I don’t have the vitriol for it some have, but it “feels” a bit clunky. I can’t put my finger on it. Sorry I can’t be more specific.

What I would like to see:

One thing I wish had been included in Starfinder and I would like to see here, is have a suggested “quick gear” build for new characters. This gives people the option of shopping for the exact gear they want, or, if they are new players or doing a one shot and aren’t sure of direction/ not fussed, they can quickly build a functional adventurer without poring over the minutiae of the gear list.

Also, what’s the point of high quality ammunition if the high quality bow confers the bonus. This has confused me so does anyone have some insight?

Anyway, that’s my 2cp. Congrats on the system and I hope this feedback helps.


Sam Phelan wrote:

Removed some posts and their responses.

Profanity is not allowed on our forums. The use of alternative characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable. It is not something I want to do to remove relevant points because they are expressed in an unacceptable manner. Please avoid this in the future.

Personal attacks are not allowed on our forums. This extends to all members of the community, including Paizo staff. Blanket assumptions about the intentions, motivations, and personal characteristics of Paizo employees is regarded as a personal attack, and is unacceptable. Criticism is best approached constructively and respectfully. Focus on accurately portraying your specific critiques, rather than attacking Paizo staff or your fellow posters. This will be most effective in communicating your views.

Will you remove some of the worse posting offenders, and by that I don't mean flamers and haters but the rules being flamed and hated on? The forums are pretty much in flames right now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Did you miss 5e and it's popularity??

Problem is, everyone who liked that is already playing 5e. It is the superior option, as D&D is the superior brand name.

If Paizo wants to compete, it can't try to mimic D&D.

To reference The Art of War, you don't pit strength against strength, you pit strength against weakness.

Because if you try to be 5e, you don't have to be as good as 5e, you don't have to be better than 5e, you have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER than 5e. And frankly, I don't think Paizo has it in them to do that.

So the obvious answer is to do well what 5e can't.

Its like owning a mom and pop store when Walmart comes to town. You don't try to fight Walmart, you're going to lose. You change and offer things that Walmart doesn't so that you can both co-exist.

If it comes down to "PF2e and D&D 5e are similar", then 5e is going to win, no questions asked.

Paizo doesn't play by system superiority. That's really hard to do. Especially at a time when D&D has a system which is widely accepted as being fun and inviting.

Paizo's business strategy has always been a subscription model - it started as a magazine company, after all.

Paizo continues to compete against Wizards by publishing APs. It doesn't compete by having a better system - it competes by having a better EXPERIENCE. People like getting their stuff in the mail every month, and are willing to pay for it.

Sure, more people play D&D than Pathfinder. But Wizards doesn't have more people paying them every single month (i wouldn't think) than Paizo does. heck, I don't even play pathfinder anymore (Starfinder ftw) and I still subscribe to the APs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Did you miss 5e and it's popularity??

Problem is, everyone who liked that is already playing 5e. It is the superior option, as D&D is the superior brand name.

If Paizo wants to compete, it can't try to mimic D&D.

To reference The Art of War, you don't pit strength against strength, you pit strength against weakness.

Because if you try to be 5e, you don't have to be as good as 5e, you don't have to be better than 5e, you have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER than 5e. And frankly, I don't think Paizo has it in them to do that.

So the obvious answer is to do well what 5e can't.

Its like owning a mom and pop store when Walmart comes to town. You don't try to fight Walmart, you're going to lose. You change and offer things that Walmart doesn't so that you can both co-exist.

If it comes down to "PF2e and D&D 5e are similar", then 5e is going to win, no questions asked.

Paizo doesn't play by system superiority. That's really hard to do. Especially at a time when D&D has a system which is widely accepted as being fun and inviting.

Paizo's business strategy has always been a subscription model - it started as a magazine company, after all.

Paizo continues to compete against Wizards by publishing APs. It doesn't compete by having a better system - it competes by having a better EXPERIENCE. People like getting their stuff in the mail every month, and are willing to pay for it.

Sure, more people play D&D than Pathfinder. But Wizards doesn't have more people paying them every single month (i wouldn't think) than Paizo does. heck, I don't even play pathfinder anymore (Starfinder ftw) and I still subscribe to the APs.

If that really, honestly worked, they would not be making PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

4th edition tried to fix something that was not broken, hence Paizo and Pathfinder's rise. 1st edition Pathfinder wasn't broken. Could it be updated and streamlined? Of course but not by doing something which was already not popular,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Yakman wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Did you miss 5e and it's popularity??

Problem is, everyone who liked that is already playing 5e. It is the superior option, as D&D is the superior brand name.

If Paizo wants to compete, it can't try to mimic D&D.

To reference The Art of War, you don't pit strength against strength, you pit strength against weakness.

Because if you try to be 5e, you don't have to be as good as 5e, you don't have to be better than 5e, you have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER than 5e. And frankly, I don't think Paizo has it in them to do that.

So the obvious answer is to do well what 5e can't.

Its like owning a mom and pop store when Walmart comes to town. You don't try to fight Walmart, you're going to lose. You change and offer things that Walmart doesn't so that you can both co-exist.

If it comes down to "PF2e and D&D 5e are similar", then 5e is going to win, no questions asked.

Paizo doesn't play by system superiority. That's really hard to do. Especially at a time when D&D has a system which is widely accepted as being fun and inviting.

Paizo's business strategy has always been a subscription model - it started as a magazine company, after all.

Paizo continues to compete against Wizards by publishing APs. It doesn't compete by having a better system - it competes by having a better EXPERIENCE. People like getting their stuff in the mail every month, and are willing to pay for it.

Sure, more people play D&D than Pathfinder. But Wizards doesn't have more people paying them every single month (i wouldn't think) than Paizo does. heck, I don't even play pathfinder anymore (Starfinder ftw) and I still subscribe to the APs.

If that really, honestly worked, they would not be making PF2.

the stone age didn't end because people ran out of stones. kodak didn't go out of business because people stopped taking pictures.

PF is showing its age. it's roots are in a system that was published in... 1999?

game design has moved on. in order to stay relevant, PF had to be updated. that doesn't mean that it has to go head-to-head with D&D, it can continue to be its own thing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
1st edition Pathfinder wasn't broken.

A level 12 Wizard who begins the battle by summoning 20 things which trivialize the encounter AND slow the game to a crawl begs to differ.

Dark Archive

I do wonder why when 2e wasn't announced there were lot of folks who are like "When is 2e coming up?" and "1e is broken, please make 2e" and now that 2e is coming up folks are like "Nobody wanted 1e" and "1e was perfect, don't fix what isn't broken!"

(also, seriously, how many folk run pathfinder 1e without house rules. Like giving power attack free or such)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracovar wrote:

I find myself in agreement with a lot of what both Edymnion and magnuskn have said already.

My first pass through the material was "this is interesting, but it's not what I want to play when I think of 'Pathfinder' or 'DnD'.

It's a radical enough departure from the 3.0/3.5 mechanics that I have to ask - WHY would I choose this system over Dnd 4E or Dnd5E (or GURPS, for that matter). Myself and the group I game with all ported over to Pathfinder as "Dnd 3.75" precisely because it was closest to what we've played all these years.

For anyone whose running persistent homebrew campaigns, how do you implement such changes cleanly? How magic works, etc all help define, over time, how the campaign evolves. Sure Forgotten Realms was regularly blown to bits to accommodate changes in how magic worked, but I found that to be a pretty brutal way of doing things, and NOT suitable for my own campaign. That also helped Pathfinder pretty much be the shoe-in as the next logical step from 3.0/3.5 evolution. When WotC came along with 4E, I pretty much took one look and "noped" right out that - it wasn't DnD (despite marketing and branding). Pathfinder WAS.

I'm left with a distinctly 4E deja-vu feeling that I can't quite shake, and I'm not liking that.

I'll see how gameplay is, and I'm sure it can be a fun system, but 2E is going to fall into the same category that GURPS, Call of Cthulhu and other 'non-DnD" systems fall into for me.

I've got enough 1st Edition material to last 20 years. And two more AP's coming. In a year, it will be 3rd party publishers I'll be relying on more and more.

Meh.

I'm right there with you. PF1 will last us another 20 years worth of AP. Our group can easily skip this edition and the next.

Then we'll all be retired and have the time to write our own world or play with grandkids ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
1st edition Pathfinder wasn't broken.
A level 12 Wizard who begins the battle by summoning 20 things which trivialize the encounter AND slow the game to a crawl begs to differ.

That is within the rules of the game, that doesn't mean that it was broken. You might not have liked it but not liking something and saying it is broken is not the same thing.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm, do you define broken differently than "something that utterly breaks game balance and/or gameplay"?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
1st edition Pathfinder wasn't broken.
A level 12 Wizard who begins the battle by summoning 20 things which trivialize the encounter AND slow the game to a crawl begs to differ.
That is within the rules of the game, that doesn't mean that it was broken. You might not have liked it but not liking something and saying it is broken is not the same thing.

So, what's your definition of broken?


Because of action economy. There was no way for a wizard to summon 20 things in the first round of combat so your example is not valid.

151 to 200 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / First Knee-Jerk Reaction All Messageboards