| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to take a moment here in this sea of negativity and offer some positive thoughts on the playtest.
First off, I think there are a lot of reactionary emotions surrounding this release. I see similar responses every time a new edition of Warhammer is announced, or a new Civ game hits the stores. It seems like a lot of people were hoping this would be Pathfinder 1.5 rather than a full 2nd edition, but is that really what we needed? Pathfinder 1st edition is a fantastic game; it’s big and it’s bulky and I love every +1 and -1/2 per level in its pages. I run a Pathfinder campaign and I’ll keep running it till the last page of the adventure path is completed, and maybe even beyond if my group wants to stay in the world they’ve helped create.
Pathfinder 1st edition isn’t going anywhere. It will still be on your bookshelf or on your hard drive and the game will still be as awesome as it always was. Nothing is changing that.
This playtest isn’t here to patch a few iffy systems or grease up some slow-working templates. It’s a new Pathfinder, and I think the “new” part of it is incredibly refreshing and energizing. I can’t think of the last time I was excited about skill checks, or the way I rolled for initiative. That was all just putting gas in your tank so you could get to the adventure. Now, even these small things are adventures themselves.
I understand much of this is probably excitement over something new, but why is that a bad thing? I’m reading through these books, marveling at how they’re so distinctively “Pathfinder” while also being so new and feeling just like when I was a kid reading my friend’s Player’s Handbook for the first time with my mind seeing entire worlds opening before me. That’s a precious feeling to have at this stage in my life that I refuse to ignore.
The new approaches to feats, the way everything looks so modular and customizable, the proficiency system and how everything feels knit together are all fantastic in my opinion. This playtest is much like the art included in the rulebook: passionate sketches of awesome things with enough detail to help your imagination fill in the blanks. Sure, there’s a lot missing (it’s a playtest after all) but this is a proof of concept, not a final product and what I’m seeing is a framework that allows more freedom in almost every aspect.
I’m excited to see what Paizo delivers to us a year from now. Congrats on such a great playtest release and thank you for all your work keeping my imagination alive and bringing fun to our table. You should know that my partner and I both think you’re doing a great job and that we appreciate everything you do.
The negativity is why me and my group won’t be participating in the playtest. It’s good to read someone pleased with the book. (Sadly, mine won’t get here for another couple of weeks, by the look).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry your group won't be participating but I encourage you to still play around with it. Many of the systems simply make sense once you get into them and everything is laid out in a way that makes it easier to understand since the philosophy of how the different systems work is mostly the same across the game. There are a lot of complaints about having fewer character options, but I honestly believe that's only because this playtest has specific options they want feedback on and the final product will open up a huge world of opportunity.
The way skills, proficiency, and basic actions are calculated is fun and fast, and I'm absolutely loving the way spells are done (the way heal works for channel energy blew me away). Item blocks are written in a way that saves a ton of page space (combining multiple like-items in one block is great), and the graphic design itself is fun and engaging.
I can't wait to get it to the table and begin playing around with it in action; I feel like a kid again. If you want a fresh take on Pathfinder I think you'll enjoy the playtest book.
I figure playing this will be a barrier to learning the real thing (since there’ll be some unlearning to do).
I’ll read along a few posters who I enjoy following (Deadmanwalking, in particular is a great critic). Ultimately though, next August will be my little kid moment, I suspect. It’s good to see some intentional positivity, anyhow. :)
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Steve, if it's any consolation
*burns a troll*
I'm having a
*eviscrates a #gamergater*
real blast
*plunges into a "this playtest violated me sexually" thread with a loud "AAAAAH-KLOOOORA!"*
doing what I love
*wipes the soot, feces and entrails from his face*
in fact, this is going to be a glorious weekend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You and I have slightly differing philosophies on how to deal with the stopdenyingmefreedomofspeechanddoitthewayilikeoreveryonewillhateyourgame crowd. :p
I’m really glad paizo are going the survey route. Hopefully there’ll be some useful data there.
I agree, I think the playtest surveys will give a more realistic view on what people think after experiencing the game in action.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's a playtest and constructive criticism should abound. Personally I plan to spend my time pointing out things that I don't like and not waste time singing praises for the rest.
As long as we have this thread though here's some positivity:
1. The core of the system looks great, I feel a lot can be done with it.
2. "Building" your ancestry with ancestry feats is cool as heck and I'm excited for what can be done there.
3. I'm seeing quite a bit of baseline flexibility in character generation, which is a good sign.
4. The artwork is nice and the book organization is quite functional.
5. I love my leather bound copy, it's swanky as heck
6. Magic feels more diverse partly due to "spellcraft" being no longer general for all magic.
7. 3 Action + 1 Reaction has a load of potential.
8. Archetype based multiclassing has the potential to be great, even if it's worrisome right now.
9. Clear mechanical terms are making me so happy. Even at the cost of sentences reading clumsily, I have already begun to skim them easily and with more confidence about intention.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's a playtest and constructive criticism should abound. Personally I plan to spend my time pointing out things that I don't like and not waste time singing praises for the rest.
As long as we have this thread though here's some positivity:
1. The core of the system looks great, I feel a lot can be done with it.
2. "Building" your ancestry with ancestry feats is cool as heck and I'm excited for what can be done there.
3. I'm seeing quite a bit of baseline flexibility in character generation, which is a good sign.
4. The artwork is nice and the book organization is quite functional.
5. I love my leather bound copy, it's swanky as heck
6. Magic feels more diverse partly due to "spellcraft" being no longer general for all magic.
7. 3 Action + 1 Reaction has a load of potential.
8. Archetype based multiclassing has the potential to be great, even if it's worrisome right now.
9. Clear mechanical terms are making me so happy. Even at the cost of sentences reading clumsily, I have already begun to skim them easily and with more confidence about intention.
I think you should take the time to compliment the parts you like. That communicates to the designers the kind of thing you want, and gives them so direction on what to replace the bad parts with, as well as possibly countering someone else claiming they dislike that part.
Unrelated note: I think I'm in love. With the system.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love it, and I also love 1E. Both for different reasons, but 2E is refreshing because it is so new and not just touching up 1E.
It does what a second edition should do, and sets Pathfinder apart from being just a 3.5 clone with some touch-ups and a new setting.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some more positivity. I like a lot of things about the playtest rules, but one of things I'm happiest about are the changes to spells.
Pretty much all of the spells that lend themselves to sending adventures off the rails (e.g., locate object to find the lost object, scrying to just find out where the escape inmate is hiding, passwall to skip encounters, teleport to skip entire legs of adventures, raise dead to solve the succession worries following the death of the king, detect alignment to immediately identify the hidden serial killer amongst the manor servants, etc) are now uncommon/rare or rituals. This makes these options difficult to access by default, while still allowing them to be things a DM can introduce. I love this.
Likewise, several spells that do weird things w.r.t. game balance (e.g., antimagic field, planar ally, etc) are now uncommon/rare or rituals. Awesome.
And by and large I'm loving the changes to the spells themselves.
Blindness is no longer effectively a 2nd level save-or-die spell (though it's still pretty good - perhaps too good).
Protection no longer offers long lasting immunity to an entire range of malicious effects. Charm spells and the like might become relevant again as threats to adventurers!
Mage Armor now has nicely scaling benefits as its heightened, so it's no longer a "mandatory for levels 1-7, then useless" kind of spell.
Color Spray is no longer an encounter ending spell for the first several levels. (Though Sleep is still arguably at that level.)
Haste is no longer so good as to be the most important spell a Wizard knows (though it's still pretty good).
And so on. By and large, great changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Change is scary and I hope that a lot of the less constructive criticism fades with time, especially considering the current state that the playtest seems to be in.
By that, I mean the new systems seem really great and look like they address a lot of the issues I had with how things played out in pf1, but that these new systems bring with them a lot of new issues that I think can be ironed out while fixing to what they are meant to fix.
Negativity that drives players away is very bad for the health of the game. I am not even talking about pushing people away from pathfinder. I specifically mean that the players who are upset about the changes are a precious asset in that they have a strong feel for what things Paizo may have accidentally broke when fixing something else.
That being said, It is much more helpful to try things out and get a good feel for why it feels bad and arguing your case as well and as politely as one can with the devs. Negativity that lets fear or disappointment get in the way of testing though, is hardly useful.
I agree with the tone of this thread, thank you! I haven't even finished a full readthrough yet, let alone played anything, (so am avoiding all the forum topics that broadcast their confirmation bias in the titles) but so far I'd color myself excited and interested in diving in!
I'm hoping to be able to playtest both with my regular group and with some total-rpg-newbs, but tentatively:
1. I love the Ancestry Feat system! (Maybe more than 1 at 1st level, tho?)
2. The Action System seems Good -- "3 action points (plus reaction)" vs "((standard + move) or full-attack) + swift + free + 5-ft-step if no other movement" or whatever.
3. The Class system seems to be a re-framing of how very familiar concepts from PF1 are presented, more than a wholly "new" system. None of the classes I've read through seem bad-wrong. (Also, having played some (not a ton!) of D&D5e, I have difficulty understanding the comparison some are making -- PF2 seems to offer an order of magnitude more options for character development within each class crunch.)
4. I'm not sure I love Skills / Skill Feats - this is the place so far where I feel there might be too much limiting structure built in, vs "can I use x skill to do y thing?" Maybe getting a skill feat every 2 levels is plenty to overcome that.
5. I do like the concept of Critical Success/Failure on skills - though maybe too much detail is provided on what a critical success / failure is? I feel like Dungeon World's "succeed, but with consequences" and Cypher System's "rolling a 1 means a new challenge emerges via a GM Intrusion" systems address a similar niche with a whole lot less verbage needed on what exactly the consequences are.
6. Some of the changes just seem brilliant, and really show the power of the system re-think: heal / channel energy as one power that can do several things that used to be disjointed is the initial standout here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some more positivity. I like a lot of things about the playtest rules, but one of things I'm happiest about are the changes to spells.
Pretty much all of the spells that lend themselves to sending adventures off the rails (e.g., locate object to find the lost object, scrying to just find out where the escape inmate is hiding, passwall to skip encounters, teleport to skip entire legs of adventures, raise dead to solve the succession worries following the death of the king, detect alignment to immediately identify the hidden serial killer amongst the manor servants, etc) are now uncommon/rare or rituals. This makes these options difficult to access by default, while still allowing them to be things a DM can introduce. I love this.
Likewise, several spells that do weird things w.r.t. game balance (e.g., antimagic field, planar ally, etc) are now uncommon/rare or rituals. Awesome.
And by and large I'm loving the changes to the spells themselves.
Blindness is no longer effectively a 2nd level save-or-die spell (though it's still pretty good - perhaps too good).
Protection no longer offers long lasting immunity to an entire range of malicious effects. Charm spells and the like might become relevant again as threats to adventurers!
Mage Armor now has nicely scaling benefits as its heightened, so it's no longer a "mandatory for levels 1-7, then useless" kind of spell.
Color Spray is no longer an encounter ending spell for the first several levels. (Though Sleep is still arguably at that level.)
Haste is no longer so good as to be the most important spell a Wizard knows (though it's still pretty good).
And so on. By and large, great changes.
So much this. And as I noted elsewhere, haste affecting only one creature and Raise Dead being limited to 3 days and being costly at all levels are also welcome changes.
I recall having a rather tepid reaction to the 5th edition playtest (back when it was called "D&D Next"), and I saw BIG changes from iteration to iteration. So I'm optimistic that any feedback will be listened to. At the same time, there is a lot that is good they have done here that gets me excited to play PF again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The negativity is why me and my group won’t be participating in the playtest.
I may back away from the forums, but I will likely still be playtesting with my group and at local gamedays. I don't have to respond to the garbage to give my feedback. (Note the word 'have' rather than 'want'.)
The negativity is why me and my group won’t be participating in the playtest.I may back away from the forums, but I will likely still be playtesting with my group and at local gamedays. I don't have to respond to the garbage to give my feedback. (Note the word 'have' rather than 'want'.)
This is a good point. I was going on about people being negative and deciding not to contribute, but I wasn't even considering the fact that it could get in the way of others being able to freely share.
I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some positivity focused posts like this becoming a regular thing throughout the playtest!
As for my own bit of positivity, I love how many things still scale when multiclassing! There are so many multiclass combinations that are, if not strong, functional at the very least. What would a bard/cleric look like? I don't know, but I bet I could make one and still contribute to my party, and I don't know if I could do that in 1e. I couldn't. Maybe someone else could, but not me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The negativity is why me and my group won’t be participating in the playtest.I may back away from the forums, but I will likely still be playtesting with my group and at local gamedays. I don't have to respond to the garbage to give my feedback. (Note the word 'have' rather than 'want'.)
For us, game system is largely irrelevant. Rules are kind of loose suggestions at our table - what keeps us coming back is one of us getting enthused (over a campaign setting, a game designer we particularly appreciate, evocative art, the chance to play an anthropomorphic rat mechanic or anything else...). In the case of Paizo, I was drawn to the company by the staff and the community they fostered. Staff participation has understandably dropped off in recent years and the community has become less attractive to me than it was. The playtest has accelerated that change, in my opinion.
I'll keep reading: especially threads like this and pretty much anything by Deadmanwalking - he's a textbook example of how to post critique in my view. He takes the time to really understand things and makes the effort to articulate exactly what his problems are without loading it down with emotive hyperbole. Criticism like that will be essential to the playtest providing good outcomes. Some of the threads are just lots of posts along the lines of: "this is a disaster! Nobody I know will play this!" which hardly helps. (Similarly the vaguely informed business analysis about what they "should" have done).
Alright I think this is the place I can go for this.
I really like this system. I want it to take off. Bards are like this damage increasing support monster that they really always should have been. A knife fighter is actually awesome and contends (doesn't have to be better, but it at least brings it to the table).
I'm super bummed out about +level for everything and how it seems to be making everyone good at everything and leading to the old let's wrap up the campaign at around 13th level and make new characters. Can someone (who isn't a troll, and that's why I ask here) tell me why this isn't completely terrifying?
I built a knife fighter to level 20 and found that I have a good everything. Really, I can intimidate everyone to death untrained. 16 charisma and it's my second lowest stat (which feels a bit nutty). I have a 21 to intimidate. The same is true about arcana, I have a +19 to arcana rolls. With an intelligence of 12 (my low stat). At 20th (or even close to it) how is the point not to start being dumb and having the fighter goblin administer first aid and the dwarf barbarian make a good impression? This seems like a big issue and seems like something that multiple designers gave the nod on.
I really like the idea of +1/2 level and double penalties and bonuses for proficiencies.
What am I missing? This genuinely isn't a complaint. I'm not understanding how this is getting a solid thumbs up from people. Thanks in advance. Let's make this thing work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So now that I've actually read the thing, I'd also like to give some of my highlights:
The 3 action per round system worked beautifully. It took a few turns to get used to, but it works so much better than the old system. I especially love martials getting more than one attack at first level and how spellcasters only get one a round.
How all point pools are called spell points. So much clearer.
How ancestry feats mean your ancestry can grow with you and let you become more in touch with your people.
Druids. Everything about the new druid. I love getting your main schtick from first level. I appreciate being able to specialize or choose to follow multiple paths. Amazing!
The weapon modifiers make the different weapons slightly more meaningful.
Injury and death rules. So. Much. Better! Unconscious and dying at 0, roll one save to be a 1 and unconscious, another to wake up. It's clear, it makes sense, and I understand it.
I'm sorry your group won't be participating but I encourage you to still play around with it. Many of the systems simply make sense once you get into them and everything is laid out in a way that makes it easier to understand since the philosophy of how the different systems work is mostly the same across the game. There are a lot of complaints about having fewer character options, but I honestly believe that's only because this playtest has specific options they want feedback on and the final product will open up a huge world of opportunity.
The way skills, proficiency, and basic actions are calculated is fun and fast, and I'm absolutely loving the way spells are done (the way heal works for channel energy blew me away). Item blocks are written in a way that saves a ton of page space (combining multiple like-items in one block is great), and the graphic design itself is fun and engaging.
I can't wait to get it to the table and begin playing around with it in action; I feel like a kid again. If you want a fresh take on Pathfinder I think you'll enjoy the playtest book.
Bards only get Soothe (Touch heals and buffs target's saves) as a 1st level spell. Really wish we got Heal as well.
But I like that we get Shield.I dislike the nerf to Prestigidation for non-arcanist (can only lift/create).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm super bummed out about +level for everything and how it seems to be making everyone good at everything and leading to the old let's wrap up the campaign at around 13th level and make new characters. Can someone (who isn't a troll, and that's why I ask here) tell me why this isn't completely terrifying?
I built a knife fighter to level 20 and found that I have a good everything. Really, I can intimidate everyone to death untrained. 16 charisma and it's my second lowest stat (which feels a bit nutty). I have a 21 to intimidate. The same is true about arcana, I have a +19 to arcana rolls. With an intelligence of 12 (my low stat). At 20th (or even close to it) how is the point not to start being dumb and having the fighter goblin administer first aid and the dwarf barbarian make a good impression? This seems like a big issue and seems like something that multiple designers gave the nod on.
Sure, the level 20 fighter goblin can administer basic first aid, and the dwarf barbarian can make a good impression...but you also have to consider who you're making a good impression on. Let's take an example. Let's say we have a level 17 negotiator (which is actually an in-game example - that's one of the official negotiators of Cheliax). Let's be charitable and say it'd be a Severe difficulty check to intimidate her into backing down - DC 40. Do you really want your knife fighter to try that?
The general idea is that yes, low level things will seem, well, low-level once you get past a certain point. By the point you're hitting level 13, you're a pretty high-level person in the world, and have a good amount of influence. Is it really interesting that this person, on par with an adult blue dragon, finds a cliff and is just utterly stymied by it?
This is even more true of people at level 20, who are on the power level of a pit fiend or balor demon. In 1E, it's totally possible (likely, even) that this person could fall off a ship and drown in a storm.
Really, it's making the easy checks as easy as they should be after a certain point. It's not very interesting to hear about the legendary fighter who slew a dragon ten times their size and then starved to death trying to get back to society.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe thats just me though.
I agree with you. Epic should be epic. It's also perhaps the best way for martials to keep up with casters.
Well Legendary level stuff is supposed to be epic almost to the point of silly. It seems to be designed that way. Your martials are going to be superheroes to compete with the high level casters.
That being said, you also have to take into account Skill Feats, which will only probably be 2-3 of your Skills. And higher DCs at those higher levels. Somethings have fixed DCs, and I admit that might get silly, but honestly, PF1 level 20s are silly, so I don't find this to be a huge issue. Maybe...
I see what you mean. I was really hoping that this edition would get us closer to the 15-17 levels before things really started to come off the rails. I can deal with it I guess. But if that was also adjusted I would fight people who attacked the system at that point.
Now back to happy. I really want to see more multiclassing. Regardless of how it looks right now I really like the concept, you take a feat that gives you the basics. Then you can tailor it a little more to get the right feeling. I would love to see it opened up a bit more. Mixing the shield fighter feats or something with monk would be awesome. I have always wanted a shield monk. Captain America jokes wouldn't stop me. I want it.
Thanks for the positive thread.
I like the new action system, the new ancestry system, the new (incomplete iproof of concept) multiclassing, the new dying rules, and the overall modularity. There's more I like in fact (though not all) but I won't have firmer opinions until I actually get to play.
They are going to add more multiclassing. They just did the most basic four as a proof of concept for the playtest. I am thrilled with the new Multiclassing. Compared to 3.5/PF1 it is super simple to understand.Well Legendary level stuff is supposed to be epic almost to the point of silly. It seems to be designed that way. Your martials are going to be superheroes to compete with the high level casters.
That being said, you also have to take into account Skill Feats, which will only probably be 2-3 of your Skills. And higher DCs at those higher levels. Somethings have fixed DCs, and I admit that might get silly, but honestly, PF1 level 20s are silly, so I don't find this to be a huge issue. Maybe...
I see what you mean. I was really hoping that this edition would get us closer to the 15-17 levels before things really started to come off the rails. I can deal with it I guess. But if that was also adjusted I would fight people who attacked the system at that point.
Now back to happy. I really want to see more multiclassing. Regardless of how it looks right now I really like the concept, you take a feat that gives you the basics. Then you can tailor it a little more to get the right feeling. I would love to see it opened up a bit more. Mixing the shield fighter feats or something with monk would be awesome. I have always wanted a shield monk. Captain America jokes wouldn't stop me. I want it.
I, too, am excited to see more multiclassing. It's limited right now because it's still in beta, but I can see way more freedom of character expression in this new system than could be allowed in PF1. Just plugging in the dedication feats for the classes you want to influence from just seems natural and intuitive. I can already see them releasing tons of multiclass archetypes for different facets of each class, or even archetypes for multiple classes mixed together (multiclass prestige archetypes?).
I like this because it removes some of the barriers to character performance when simply trying to make your character unique as you stray from the path of a single-class build. I cannot wait to begin running the playtest adventure to see how these work in action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find hiding threads by negative people who just want to grumble is really helpful. It's not like I get anything out of them, and maybe they just want to kvetch in public as catharsis and it's not my job to convince them of anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is like they are just being willfully obtuse and confrontational.
Some of us that are dissatisfied with the playtest can feel this way about people that are positive too. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Video Gamey
IMO, this is people saying they don't like the presentation. From their perspective, they have an idea what works well in a video game setting and what works well in a text based medium. I don't see why this isn't a valid thing to note, though I agree it would be better is the comment is expanded on.
People hating PF2 simply because it isn't 3.X polish further
This I find valid too as they are continuing the setting that has a multitude of material for it. The further you move the mechanics away from the other edition, the more work it requires for any of that to be usable.
To the OP: Thanks.
The negativity on the forums is... intense, and often remarkably unhelpful (constructive criticism and complaining are not the same thing). It is hard to tell whether this is due to the complainants being a majority, or simply an exceedingly loud minority, given that it is human nature for negative emotions to provoke the loudest (and most prolonged) responses.
Hopefully our Paizo staff and moderators - having run this website for years - take the heated comments from some of our compatriots in context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: Thanks.
The negativity on the forums is... intense, and often remarkably unhelpful (constructive criticism and complaining are not the same thing). It is hard to tell whether this is due to the complainants being a majority, or simply an exceedingly loud minority, given that it is human nature for negative emotions to provoke the loudest (and most prolonged) responses.
Hopefully our Paizo staff and moderators - having run this website for years - take the heated comments from some of our compatriots in context.
I think you're right that negativity tends to bring the loudest voices. I try to always figure out at least a little of why a decision was made before I get upset about things because I believe that most decisions, such as not having multiclassing done the way PF1 did it, are made for specific reasons (probably having to do with the modular design of feats, the way class impacts more of a character's stats, or the importance on character level for checks).
I think it's natural to think that something you love being changed is somehow a personal thing, and the natural reaction to personal insults is to attack the source. People take a lot of ownership in Pathfinder and that's a good thing in my opinion, even if it means heads run hot sometimes. It's difficult to see things objectively, but I'm happy to see so many of my fellow gamers doing just that. The act of playing with this beta will bring a lot of understanding to why things are they way they are, and this will help people figure out exactly what they really think doesn't work versus what doesn't work on paper after just a few hours of reading.
Plus, it's always good to remember the person behind the book. I have a lot of trust in Paizo because they've continuously produced quality updates to the game I love, and I trust they know what they're doing here too. I'm sure after a few runs through some scenarios I will find things I think are worth changing, but in the end this is their art and they will need to make it the way their collective vision sees it. I'm just thankful to have the opportunity to help shape that vision.
I am really pleased with the play test rules as well. I think Paizo have done an amazing job.
Is it perfect? No. But it is a play test, why would it be perfect?
I think it is way ahead of PFe1. As enjoyable as PFe1 is, it is a deeply flawed game. PFe2 has addressed a lot of these problems.
will repectfully agree to disagree on trying to keep 3rd alive 20 years in.
It's not 3rd per se, but the pathfinder material that they have bought and used as late as 2 days ago when MORE pathfinder classic material was sold. We aren't talking 10's of years but no even 10's of days.
Secondly, age by itself has little meaning as game elements do not really need or require anything 'modern'. In fact, I'm not sure what would qualify as 'modern' game elements.
I find it silly that you can have these sleek interfaces on your phone
Don't have one.
your favorite websites
They use these new things called words, letters and numbers... When i go to look for movies, for instance, I don't click on the octagon with 6 squiggly lines in it but a tab that is shockingly labeled 'movies'.
your video games
Not so much.
even in your car if you have a touch screen radio
I have a dial...
but when it comes to TTRPGs, it has to be walls of text or its "video gamey." I respect that not everyone sees it that way, but I think this resistence to such things is hurting the medium.
See, I go out of my way to use things that actually make sense to me as opposed to those things I'm told I should like because they are hip and new.
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 know that Pathfinder 2nd edition is quite different and it may not be your cup of tea, which is perfectly fine (the world would be super boring if everyone was the same yeah?). 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.
I can see why you might be disappointed if the playtest truly doesn't interest you and your prefered edition is being phased out of the new content schedule. I respect that the new edition isn't neccessarily what you want. If you prefer Pathfinder 1e, I bet you'll still have decades of fun ahead of you even if you never touch another RPG system again. I think we can all celebrate what Pathfinder is after 10 years, even if some of us are ready to try out the next evolution of the game and if 2e isn't for you, that doesn't mean 3e won't catch your eye one day.
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.
Agreed. More positivity is good. I mean my own thoughts, which most people are skipping over, was a mix of good impressions and bad stuff as I didn't want to come across as just negative.
That, and there are some elements of the playtest that I generally love. Goblin Alchemist seems like he'll be pretty damn fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 know that Pathfinder 2nd edition is quite different and it may not be your cup of tea, which is perfectly fine (the world would be super boring if everyone was the same yeah?). 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.
I can see why you might be disappointed if the playtest truly doesn't interest you and your prefered edition is being phased out of the new content schedule. I respect that the new edition isn't neccessarily what you want. If you prefer Pathfinder 1e, I bet you'll still have decades of fun ahead of you even if you never touch another RPG system again. I think we can all celebrate what Pathfinder is after 10 years, even if some of us are ready to try out the next evolution of the game and if 2e isn't for you, that doesn't mean 3e won't catch your eye one day.
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.
The question is for Graystone but if it's alright I'd like to answer, and the simple answer is yes, you hit it on the head. However, there is a caveat to that. I actually still like to experiment, aka house rule. I just like to do so with the 3.5 shell. For example in my house rules you can move your movement -10' when making taking a full round action. The reason I'm pointing this out is because, I like many people here, like to see more movement in combat. This allows a medium sized creature to move 20' and attack, a small sized one 10'. But, I don't like the new action system, even though it should be right up my alley. The reason I don't like it one word "Accessibility". You see in my house rules I use full round action for a lot of thing, also immediate and swift actions too. I also have a defensive action rule which is very similar to reactions. 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.
Even though, I'm still open to a new and even very different rule set. But, once again accessibility ruins it for me. For instance I would be interested in a very open skill system, one not based around levels. I've even suggested it before. You simply gain skill ranks as you level up, but you can arrange them as you see fit, no class restriction, no skill feats (get to a rank you can do it), nothing extra to buy (like in the case of skill feats), just go for it, the only cap is a max rank say 20 (completely level independent). But, it will never happen, because it's not accessible, the skill system has to work the same way as attack roll, saving throws and so on. Seems to me that accessibility curbs innovation. I can't say I like that.
So much could be said, but I believe that everyone who doesn't like the new rules set has their own reason. It's less of an emotional reaction as people think. I don't think paiso's really thought threw how this going to affect there current player base. I think their main concern is attracting new players. Hence leaving me a bit stumped "Should I stay or should I go", but ultimately there's nothing here for me, or the people I play with. At least if everything stayed the same I could just continue with what I got, even though new ideas or even a second edition isn't necessary a bad thing. Accessibility keeps it from being really innovated, special. That's why I don't like this game, hope you understand.
But in the end that is what PF is, and why it's so popular. I guess because PF started off as a way to support a cancelled edition, it makes a new edition extra tricky.I love it, and I also love 1E. Both for different reasons, but 2E is refreshing because it is so new and not just touching up 1E.
It does what a second edition should do, and sets Pathfinder apart from being just a 3.5 clone with some touch-ups and a new setting.
Was.
Was so popular.
There is a new kid on the block.
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.