A little bit of positivity


General Discussion

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.
... Sorry, but, can you explain this to me? Because I fail to see how the fact there is 3 actions and a reaction not interferes with you implementing your own house rules.

I'm equally confused are you suggesting that I should just drop the action system and all associated mechanics to implement pathfinder 1e system plus my my own house rule. I could do that, yes, then I guess your right. But, why would I want to, why not just stick to what I have and like? You're right, I'm wrong in that it's possible, but why would I?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, totally. Quantitative data allows you to see which direction The Silent Majority is going in and where and when you should feel free to ignore the Vocal Minority.

Only if the survey is a representative sample of the population of current and potential players.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, totally. Quantitative data allows you to see which direction The Silent Majority is going in and where and when you should feel free to ignore the Vocal Minority.
Only if the survey is a representative sample of the population of current and potential players.

I'm quite confident that Paizo is able to reach out to that sample.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Potential players" are literally everyone in the world.


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

I'm still only going through it slowly...I actually really like the underlying system, and most of my complaints have been things that would be very flexible and easy to change.

I think the thing I was most happy with was looking over spells. Almost all the complained about spell options from the first core rulebook have been fixed:

Scry and Fry is truly dead

Simulacrum doesn't exist

Wish is gated by a feat and not an option for the majority of the game.

Teleport, at least over long distances, is not going to completely skip an adventure.

Coming back from the dead carries a price.

Save or suck has been toned down and been granted degrees of success.

I am sure there are tons of minor things I missed or glossed over as well on just the spells alone.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I love this thread.
This has been my point in some of my other posts.
I've never told people don't give negative feedback. Negative feedback helps the developers as much as positive feedback does.
But my point was that people had literally had the book a few hours, and already started posting. Fill-in-the-blank sucks, and this or that got nerfed. And almost none of it was constructive.
It seemed like mostly the power gamers were the ones mad and posting.
I am liking most the systems I've seen. My main criticisms are with the layout. For instance, I'm still looking for a list of the paladin's champion powers. It seems as though there is a lot of flipping back and forth to find all the class abilities. And I keep having a sense that I'm forgetting something.
I work a lot, but I'm trying to get with some friends this week to run thru Doomsday. And I'm super excited about it.


Ched Greyfell wrote:


It seemed like mostly the power gamers were the ones mad and posting.

Just as an anecdote, I'm a power gamer and I really like the new system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a power gamer and don't care for the new system. But, I've come to accept that people make broad generalizations.

Dark Archive

Having ran a single session I can say that 1) it isn't that hard to pick up, 2) it doesn't feel that different from 1e 3) it does feel slimmer and some what less clunky. Now that is from only one session at lv1 so I'm sure things will change, but I'm glad we're getting a new system


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Fluffy Bunny wrote:
Graystone, would you prefer they continue supporting Pathfinder 1e, or do you think it's approaching a place where they can comfortably say they've "finished" it in as much as you can "finish" a TTRPG?

I'd prefer if the new system allowed you to easily and painlessly convert your old material into the new system. That's pretty much what I want as they are continuing a game and NOT making a new one. There are things I wouldn't mind in an actual brand new game that i don't want to see in a continuation of pathfinder.

GM Fluffy Bunny wrote:
Would you like to see them continue, maybe in a slower fashion, to print new material dedicated for Pathfinder 1e? I know I'll still be playing it for a good long while even if they don't generate new content.

For me, they might as well just drop any pretence of publishing pathfinder IMO. For me, the new game seems better as fantasy game x than what I've come to know pathfinder.

GM Fluffy Bunny wrote:
I can see why you might be disappointed if the playtest truly doesn't interest you

More it doesn't interest me as a continuation of the game I've been playing for years.

GM Fluffy Bunny wrote:
Basically, I'm just trying to say if you don't like the playtest and what comes out of it, I hope you still have lots of fun and enjoy gaming with 1e for a long time to come.

We'll see. It'll depend on new content [both publish and homebrew] as I've seen the majority of currently published material. I doubt it though as removing infusions of new material also tends to remove excitement in the game itself: then couple that with the general DM rule for 'official only' from most DM I play with and it looks grim to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ulgulanoth wrote:
Having ran a single session I can say that 1) it isn't that hard to pick up, 2) it doesn't feel that different from 1e 3) it does feel slimmer and some what less clunky. Now that is from only one session at lv1 so I'm sure things will change, but I'm glad we're getting a new system

I'm impressed as I'm on day 4 of trying to make it through the pdf to make a character and STILL haven't managed to do that. The constant jumping around from list to an entirely different section for everything sucks the momentum I have quickly. So I disagree on 1 and 3 for creation at least, and I haven't gotten the pathfinder 'feel' as of now. Stealth keywords, unseeable rarities and the new symbol based actions also slows me down to something slower than a crawl. :P


Matthew Downie wrote:
"Potential players" are literally everyone in the world.

a sample, by definition, is not everyone in the studied grou, tho.

sample
ˈsɑːmp(ə)l
noun
1.
a small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
GM Fluffy Bunny wrote:
Graystone, would you prefer they continue supporting Pathfinder 1e, or do you think it's approaching a place where they can comfortably say they've "finished" it in as much as you can "finish" a TTRPG?

I'd prefer if the new system allowed you to easily and painlessly convert your old material into the new system. That's pretty much what I want as they are continuing a game and NOT making a new one. There are things I wouldn't mind in an actual brand new game that i don't want to see in a continuation of pathfinder.

Fortunately for all of us that loved 3.X and their derivatives for almost two decades, Wizard of the Coast did not follow that pattern when they made 3rd edition, trashing everything that AD&D had.

Change is daunting, but it might be worth the risk if properly executed.

Dark Archive

graystone wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
Having ran a single session I can say that 1) it isn't that hard to pick up, 2) it doesn't feel that different from 1e 3) it does feel slimmer and some what less clunky. Now that is from only one session at lv1 so I'm sure things will change, but I'm glad we're getting a new system
I'm impressed as I'm on day 4 of trying to make it through the pdf to make a character and STILL haven't managed to do that. The constant jumping around from list to an entirely different section for everything sucks the momentum I have quickly. So I disagree on 1 and 3 for creation at least, and I haven't gotten the pathfinder 'feel' as of now. Stealth keywords, unseeable rarities and the new symbol based actions also slows me down to something slower than a crawl. :P

I managed the character building process by seeing it more from the Modiphius' 2d20 system character creation process than the old PF1. Just go by each section and pick what you want and systematically build the character rather than everything in one go and that turns it fairly straight forward. The caveat I guess is that you need to know what you want to build and want to build a character rather than seeing how to exploit the system or what is the best combination.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
"Potential players" are literally everyone in the world.

Do you find it realistic to achieve a sample that includes someone from every locale in the world? Especially given Paizo’s resources?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
"Potential players" are literally everyone in the world.
Do you find it realistic to achieve a sample that includes someone from every locale in the world? Especially given Paizo’s resources?

Let's be honest, US+CAN is enough, they're something like 80% of D&D/PF market.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the critical 10 mechanic. It is elegant.
I think it will be as defining for Pathfinder 2 as the double roll for advantage / disatvantage is for 5e.


Phantasmist wrote:
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.
... Sorry, but, can you explain this to me? Because I fail to see how the fact there is 3 actions and a reaction not interferes with you implementing your own house rules.
I'm equally confused are you suggesting that I should just drop the action system and all associated mechanics to implement pathfinder 1e system plus my my own house rule. I could do that, yes, then I guess your right. But, why would I want to, why not just stick to what I have and like? You're right, I'm wrong in that it's possible, but why would I?

That's... that's not what I said? At all?

I said that the Pathfinder 2.0 Action System, doesn't stop you from implementing house rules in regard to that system, as it seemed to be that your complaining that you can't use your super awesome houserules any more in a completely new edition?

Which, quite frankly, is a bit of an absurd complaint, because why would you expect otherwise? And complaining about how X edition doesn't allow for Y house rule is not a criticism of the system in the slightest and unhelpful to the n'th degree.

OddLore wrote:

I like the critical 10 mechanic. It is elegant.

I think it will be as defining for Pathfinder 2 as the double roll for advantage / disatvantage is for 5e.

Theoretically talk here - would having both mechanics make it too easy to get good crits?


OddLore wrote:

I like the critical 10 mechanic. It is elegant.

I think it will be as defining for Pathfinder 2 as the double roll for advantage / disatvantage is for 5e.

I agree. That, and the 3 action system, makes for an excelent milestone for they system.


OddLore wrote:

I like the critical 10 mechanic. It is elegant.

I think it will be as defining for Pathfinder 2 as the double roll for advantage / disatvantage is for 5e.
Fury of the Tempest wrote:


Theoretically talk here - would having both mechanics make it too easy to get good crits?

When you reach the extremes (low and high) I would think so. It is an interesting thought.


ulgulanoth wrote:
I managed the character building process by seeing it more from the Modiphius' 2d20 system character creation process than the old PF1.

I've never even heard of that game. If that works. great for you.

ulgulanoth wrote:
Just go by each section and pick what you want and systematically build the character rather than everything in one go and that turns it fairly straight forward.

That's not really how I make characters and it doesn't really seem feasible as the parts interconnect and often you need multiple sections at once. You need the skill section, the class section, the feat section, the background section, the race section, ect JUST to get skills done. Now say I pick a sorcerer or cleric or wizard. What do the bloodlines/domains/schools do... Flip to bulk power section and look up a SINGLE power... Flip back and do the same with another.... and time passes.

ulgulanoth wrote:
The caveat I guess is that you need to know what you want to build and want to build a character rather than seeing how to exploit the system or what is the best combination.

If you already know every option, I suspect it'd go quickly... As I know none of the options, it's a VERY, VERY, VERY tedious process I have yet to master.

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / A little bit of positivity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion