|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main group is pretty set in their ways. The 4E trial was a disaster. The group was just getting the hang of 3E when 4E launched. I tried to give it a whirl with them and they were not interested in learning a new system. That ended up being a blessing in disguise because in side groups I gained a great distaste for 4E. I went back and poured more poison in the well with the main group and probably just entrenched them further.
All in all, the main group is in the middle of Iron Gods and having a blast. It probably be another year or longer before we wrap up IG. At that time we will probably do some Traveller and other one shots before coming back to PF. We can evaluate at that time.
I do have some groups of newbs who really want to try it out. I have a few friends that started in 5E, and also are really interested to try out PF2. I'll go ahead and playtest with them instead. This time im going to keep my trap shut and let the players make their own decisions about mechanics. I'll gladly participate in discussions but ill do my best not to lead them.
My advice is if your group has reservations, dont push them into a playtest. Find other alternatives to learn the system and form an opinion. Bring it back if you love it because then you will be in a position to sell it; Or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We lost a bit of morale, true. Our group, for the most part, truly loved all the different things PFe1 had. Sure, we had to do some major houseruling on some stuff, but we absolutely loved the crazy amount of options and choices we had. I think what finally decides if I truly stick with the system in the long run is the conversion rules, when we get them. I don't like being herded into cookie cutter classes and whatnot, so until PFe2 either gets more options or shows me the conversion rules I'm iffy. I do understand this is a playtest and it has some pretty bare-bones options to test out, but it is still a concern of mine.
So far, I'm not extremely impressed. I don't hate the new action system, I think it will help at least ONE person in my group that gets confused with all the action types and what you can do in PFe1 in one round. I personally have no strong feelings about it one way or the other.
I haven't had a chance to go over the classes in depth yet, work and whatnot keeps me busy, so I'm reserving final judgement on that for a bit. I don't like the formatting or layout of the book at all. It's not fun to read. The character sheet provided was sideways. I hated that. Couldn't even edit it or anything. Do they want me to waste my printer ink on this? I play online, I don't need to print anything.
Solid 3/10 first impression. Not great, but I didn't immediately delete all the PDFs so that's something. Room for improvement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people really trying to say that it's a smart idea to emulate 4e, which bombed, and 5e, which already exists and has the issue of content aka the real reason PF survived?
Pathfinder has more content than 5e by an order of magnitude. Everything 3.x can be migrated with basically no problem, moving from 3.5 to PF is easier than moving from 3.0 to 3.5, and on top of that Pathfinder had been rolling for a bit when 5e came out. PF2 is the other way around, it's the new guy in town, competing with the titan - Dungeons and Dragons is a name that carries power on its own - except they have less content. "5e but different" is not a winning formula because 5e exists. "3.5 but different" was a winning formula because it launched at a time when the sentiment of many people was "wtf, 4e is completely different, it sucks, who will support 3.5e and my thousand dollars of splats now???"
Challenging 5e on its own turf is suicidal and that's not even taking into account the marketing or the fact that Critical Role, whether you love it or hate it, exists.
Was 4th Ed actually one of the best selling RPGs of all time, I know initial sales were good. I guess the real money came from the DDI subscriptions?According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.
Per ICv2 reports and other industry reports, 4e was ahead of Pathfinder (the number 2 product) for virtually the entire run of 4e (including Essentials). At the tail end, PF began occasionally pulled ahead of quarters where the 4e releases were Heroes of Shadow or Heroes of Elemental Chaos and then pulled ahead for good when all product releases were stopped completely and development began on 5e (interestingly, 4e was still number 2 in sales solely by virtue of continued sale of legacy products like the 6-year old PHB1; one wonders if Pathfinder could have stayed in the top 5 if they stopped releasing new products for two years). These numbers are born out by all the top 4e products on the bestsellers lists (New York Times, Amazon, other), where 4e products placed far higher for far longer than any Pathfinder product.
Interestingly, one of the first posts on the D&D section of the Paizo forums (for 4e and beyond), was a poll on how long 5e would be higher on the industry reports than Pathfinder (under the assumption that any enthusiasm for 5e would eventually die down and Pathfinder (1) would once again have the lead). However, we now know that not only will that not ever happen (by virtue of the death of PF1), but it was never even close (PF had even fallen to third, behind Starfinder).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people really trying to say that it's a smart idea to emulate 4e, which bombed, and 5e, which already exists and has the issue of content aka the real reason PF survived?
Pathfinder has more content than 5e by an order of magnitude. Everything 3.x can be migrated with basically no problem, moving from 3.5 to PF is easier than moving from 3.0 to 3.5, and on top of that Pathfinder had been rolling for a bit when 5e came out. PF2 is the other way around, it's the new guy in town, competing with the titan - Dungeons and Dragons is a name that carries power on its own - except they have less content. "5e but different" is not a winning formula because 5e exists. "3.5 but different" was a winning formula because it launched at a time when the sentiment of many people was "wtf, 4e is completely different, it sucks, who will support 3.5e and my thousand dollars of splats now???"
Challenging 5e on its own turf is suicidal and that's not even taking into account the marketing or the fact that Critical Role, whether you love it or hate it, exists.
Paizo have explicitly said it’d be a bad idea to compete in the same space as 5E. “Bad for Wizards of the Coast, bad for us and bad for players”.
There’s many people who see similarities between PF2 and 4E or 5E, but it’s not the goal. (One of several reasons for producing PF1 was that the designers preferred 3.5’s approach to 4E’s take).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people really trying to say that it's a smart idea to emulate 4e, which bombed, and 5e, which already exists and has the issue of content aka the real reason PF survived?
Pathfinder has more content than 5e by an order of magnitude. Everything 3.x can be migrated with basically no problem, moving from 3.5 to PF is easier than moving from 3.0 to 3.5, and on top of that Pathfinder had been rolling for a bit when 5e came out. PF2 is the other way around, it's the new guy in town, competing with the titan - Dungeons and Dragons is a name that carries power on its own - except they have less content. "5e but different" is not a winning formula because 5e exists. "3.5 but different" was a winning formula because it launched at a time when the sentiment of many people was "wtf, 4e is completely different, it sucks, who will support 3.5e and my thousand dollars of splats now???"
Challenging 5e on its own turf is suicidal and that's not even taking into account the marketing or the fact that Critical Role, whether you love it or hate it, exists.Paizo have explicitly said it’d be a bad idea to compete in the same space as 5E. “Bad for Wizards of the Coast, bad for us and bad for players”.
There’s many people who see similarities between PF2 and 4E or 5E, but it’s not the goal. (One of several reasons for producing PF1 was that the designers preferred 3.5’s approach to 4E’s take).
And PF1 is a far cry from PF2. I know PF1e's entire reason for existence, let's not mince words and pretend Paizo had a flash of inspiration or something - PF1e was made to take advantage of the OGL and copy 3.5e, letting 3.5 players have a recourse. PF2? Who is it appealing to?
Yeah, I've read all this before, but that does not mean it was one of the best selling RPGs of all time.Per ICv2 reports and other industry reports, 4e was ahead of Pathfinder (the number 2 product) for virtually the entire run of 4e (including Essentials). At the tail end, PF began occasionally pulled ahead of quarters where the 4e releases were Heroes of Shadow or Heroes of Elemental Chaos and then pulled ahead for good when all product releases were stopped completely and development began on 5e (interestingly, 4e was still number 2 in sales solely by virtue of continued sale of legacy products like the 6-year old PHB1; one wonders if Pathfinder could have stayed in the top 5 if they stopped releasing new products for two years). These numbers are born out by all the top 4e products on the bestsellers lists (New York Times, Amazon, other), where 4e products placed far higher for far longer than any Pathfinder product.Was 4th Ed actually one of the best selling RPGs of all time, I know initial sales were good. I guess the real money came from the DDI subscriptions?According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.
Well there are hundreds (if not thousands) of RPGs. Presumably, *every* edition of D&D could be considered one of the best selling RPGs of all time (even White Wolf’s World of Darkness never had the industry lead, which makes the fact that Paizo did, for however brief a time, all the more impressive). I’m just assuming that Paizo is aspiring more toward the WOTC end and less towards White Wolf/Fanatasy Flight end (and the difference is significant when talking financial success and mainstream exposure).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am afraid that is not as much as play test but more this is how things will now be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And PF1 is a far cry from PF2. I know PF1e's entire reason for existence, let's not mince words and pretend Paizo had a flash of inspiration or something - PF1e was made to take advantage of the OGL and copy 3.5e, letting 3.5 players have a recourse. PF2? Who is it appealing to?Are people really trying to say that it's a smart idea to emulate 4e, which bombed, and 5e, which already exists and has the issue of content aka the real reason PF survived?
Pathfinder has more content than 5e by an order of magnitude. Everything 3.x can be migrated with basically no problem, moving from 3.5 to PF is easier than moving from 3.0 to 3.5, and on top of that Pathfinder had been rolling for a bit when 5e came out. PF2 is the other way around, it's the new guy in town, competing with the titan - Dungeons and Dragons is a name that carries power on its own - except they have less content. "5e but different" is not a winning formula because 5e exists. "3.5 but different" was a winning formula because it launched at a time when the sentiment of many people was "wtf, 4e is completely different, it sucks, who will support 3.5e and my thousand dollars of splats now???"
Challenging 5e on its own turf is suicidal and that's not even taking into account the marketing or the fact that Critical Role, whether you love it or hate it, exists.Paizo have explicitly said it’d be a bad idea to compete in the same space as 5E. “Bad for Wizards of the Coast, bad for us and bad for players”.
There’s many people who see similarities between PF2 and 4E or 5E, but it’s not the goal. (One of several reasons for producing PF1 was that the designers preferred 3.5’s approach to 4E’s take).
Gamers who like that kind of thing, I guess?
My point was that Paizo are explicitly not trying to copy 4E and 5E but to carve out their own space.
Personally, I think one can find similarities between most systems. How a game feels is much more holistic than specifics like whether classes are all presented the same way or whether you add your level to a stealth check or whatever.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or possibly: Starfinder is in a different genre and thus not a direct competitor to 5E.
Or along similar lines, since the current edition is 10 years old, people might have all they need of that and are more interested in a variant in a different genre than in a tweaked upgrade to the same chassis they already have.Starfinder sales don't necessarily have much to do with what people want in the basic game engine.
Maybe. Possibly. It's really hard to pin down what the playerbase wants, IMO, because we are such a diverse bunch. I think it's premature to make sweeping declarations, but inevitably there are people who like the complexities of PF1E and for us (or me, at the very least) it seems like kind of a punch in the face that now Paizo as well seems to be going the "simplification" and "classes are roles" route we've seen from WotC.
It remains to be seen what the intention from the devs is in regards to players who like more complexity. Are we to be discarded as customers in hope of draining players away from WotC? That seems a poor strategy, IMO. Or are there still changes that the devs can add to this playtest so that we are given a bone? I am incredibly disappointed with the new versions of spells, which have through the bank been nerfed in their utility (with very few exceptions) and am left with the feeling that, at least in regards to magic, the devs have written a "Pathfinder with training wheels" version of the game. Can I help influence them to not nerf everything from the last version of the game?
Can I help influence them to not nerf everything from the last version of the game?
Exactly this, if magic remains in the final version as it is in the playtest I will never play PF2, so it will be good to know if the nerfs can be reversed or the playtest is a waste of my time.
Nah my group is pretty excited, trying to find a day to play that doesn't conflict with our schedules.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely zero interest in playing the playtest as it’s written if my first impressions are even remotely similar to how it actually is.
I’m still going to play it, though, because I want my voice to be heard and to actually comment on things that come up. However, I highly doubt that I’ll ever play PF2. Why?
It’s not because of the foundation. I kind-of like the new skill system, though I have issues with it, I mostly like the new way classes work, it’s at least workable. I also like the new action economy, and Resonance will still bug me regardless.
It’s not the lack of options or the limited ability to customize, along with general nerfing across the board. That can be fixed easily through the playtest and future supplements.
What is the problem, then? It’s the direction the designers are going with design. I could care less that a few spells here or there are a little nerfed. I’m not concerned that some of the racial abilities are really weak and underwhelming. What is concerning, though, is how all interesting or slightly powerful options have all been dialed back to the point where nothing stands out, how virtually no racial options are interesting or powerful in the slightest, and you can’t have a central concept to build a character around. What the designers seem interested in doing in PF2 is so fundamentally different from the reasons I actually like P1e that I can’t imagine any amount of playtesting or revamping could change what the developers are trying to do with the new edition.
They seem to be making it so someone’s first character and their hundredth are only different in a few abilities and options. I enjoy playing (and continuing to play) P1e for the very reason that it allows me to grow my skill as a player and figure out better ways to accomplish my design goals. My 1st character and latest character, despite being built around the same concept, are astonishingly different, and that’s what I like.
....And now I’m ranting/rambling. I’ll stop now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?
Quite the opposite -- my group ended our current campaign in order to get going on a PF2 playtest, and so far our email responses have been positive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, there is a 5th edition of D&D and it is apparently super popular. I'm not sure if there is a big market place for "hey, we are 5th edition, too, but slightly different!". I'm pretty sure there is one for "we are a better 3.5 edition", because we are here.
4th edition was very successful financially at the start as everyone bought the first 3 books. Then it started to fall off as player reception to those books was not so good.
Paizo will have to worry about the same thing. The playtest may actually be a sign of that if it doesn't go well. Why buy the new CRB if you hate the playtest. Its very risky, especially as they have gone in a radically new direction. 2E is not close to 1E. This in no 3.0 -> 3.5 -> PF -> WTF?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No morale issue here. My group has a total of 10 players, and only one has expressed any interest in PF2 at all. We're not even doing the playtest, although part of that is we just started an AP, and are slated to have another member of the group run another AP when that's done. Reaction after reading a good portion of the rules released yesterday only confirmed our lack of interest. We went from 1e ADnD to PF basically, after an ill-fated dip into 4e in between that was overwhelmingly disappointing. We went back to 1e ADnD for a bit, but then went to PF1, which is what we love. I think part of it too for us (aside from the fact that we're all older, and yes, know what we like, but I will emphasize that we're happy when people find what works for them, we're not the sort of older gamers that will tell you that you're doing it wrong, we like our hobby, and we like when people find their fun) is the sheer number of PF1 products we've all bought, and that was one of the things that kept us from buying wholly into 3.0/3.5 was we all owned all the 1e ADnD stuff and didn't want to spend anymore money since we had something we liked. PF1 came along, same thing. I've got a bookshelf full of all the PF1 hardcovers, they serve me well, and the other members of my group do as well, and honestly, we like it. I'm glad other people are liking what they see in PF2, but we just aren't interested. There's nothing wrong with that, and I hope Paizo does well with their release, but we've got all we need to keep playing PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As GM for my playtest group I am trying hard not to bias my group regarding the issues I have with the system (Resonance, Halt-Its, etc). Because I want to get their real opinions. It will be doubly nice because I think my wife's CotCT campaign will be running concurrently.
My morale dropped a little though when I finished my skim through. There were lots of details I found disappointing, sometimes subtly important ones to me. I console myself with the argument that worst-case-scenario, I can use it as a kind of Pathfinder Unchained II.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where "here" is "Pathfinder sells worse than its Sci-Fi offshot".
I mean, I would argue that the reason Starfinder did (and is doing) so well is the same reason the first book of Skull and Shackles sold out long before any others; it's unique in the world of RPGs. There are plenty of sci-fi tabletops, but Starfinder was the first time a big company came out with one utilizing the familiar d20 system.
It got exposure to lots of new people outside the Pathfinder and D&D world because it was the first time a product emerged that was essentially "Dungeons and Dragons in space". Similar to Skull & Shackles, which was the first time d20 players got to be pirates, so the first book got snatched up.
The sci-fi offshoot of Pathfinder is a fairly unique product, so it reached outside of the core PF community. The playtest doesn't tout drastically new concepts or new content, just more reconfiguration of existing rules and reintroduction of long-standing mechanics.
The concern is that PF 2.0 is just an attempt to compete with D&D 5e; which Paizo simply cannot do. Starfinder sold so well because there is no sci-fi version of D&D, only one of Pathfinder. But there already IS a 5e, so trying to make a new 5e is a very worrying decision.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The actual delivery of the document was a bit of a bomb here.
"It's just a total mess".
Let's take someone who wants to play a Paladin. For me, most of my players flip to their favorite class and start there in order to get excited.
PF Playtest
1) Page 105 reads great, it's nice fluff about paladins
2) Page 106 has this incredibly dense table which makes it at a glance look like a ton of stuff is going on every level. The word density here is just too high versus the old tables that made leveling a paladin look less tedius
3) I get some friction here as "what if my paladin isn't retributive?" and "where's good old smite evil?"
Here's where it goes downhill FAST
4) Pages 107-111 start to make the game look "messy" and "a lot like what made 4e bad". There's tons of little light grey boxes filled with [Paladin] and the word FEAT dozens of times and tons of horizontal divider lines and the number (14) a bunch of times under a heading of "14th Level" for example.
I'm battling a gut reaction to just how the game is presented which is "an ungodly mess".
5e PHB
Flip open to the 5e Paladin, pages 84-87 and consider the first impression of it "at a glance". The readability here is so much more engaging to a reader versus with PF2e it feels like you're trying to parse information like a code compiler or computer might, like you need HTML tags around each ability to be self contained.
The general notion of "just having spells" vs if you read PF2e having to deal with all kinds of terms from "Spell Points" to "champion powers" to "feats" to "litany" to "metamagic" to "oath".
PF1e Core Rulebook
Pop open your Pathfinder Core Book on the paladin, pages 60-63. There's so much less distracting/business/messiness in the formatting, you can read through your future paladin and the features are organized in the order you'd level up with them, so if you were just worried about a low level paladin you're basically done on page 61.
The main takeaway is that there's some magical about the presentation of game mechanics in 2e, 3e, PF1e and 5e for my player groups. 4e and PF2e do something that the general sentiment is "messy" which derails the desire to fight through the mess and want to play. A lot of the excitement to play fantasy comes from reading fantasy fiction and when the game rules deviate from that simple pleasure of reading fantasy fiction and morph into an appendix for special abilities at the back of a CRPG manual, the enthusiasm wanes significantly.
Me and a fellow GM have been reading through the playtest book for a bit now, him starting the Ancestries, and me going through the classes (only really finishing up Barbarian now). I'm further along than him, but we do have a couple varied perspectives on things, which means our viewpoints on them are different. (I might hear more from him later today or something, who knows.)
As of right now, the other GM does like a lot of direction that some of the ancestries went. He's strangely not a fan of the attribute generation system, perhaps because he fears for some strange sort of power creep, or feels that a meaningful "flaws" system should be in place for players who want such characters without being just purposefully worse, but does seem to like Resonance on its face based on a Dwarf Ancestry feat he read (which I absolutely despise for personal reasons).
In my opinion, I agree that there is still much work to be done to balance proper feat choices around and such, as well as cleaning up and tidying both the word count and the formatting of the book, but it does have a workable chassis. The three actions/reaction system seems to be a solid foundation that lets players change up how they play, and weigh the benefits of certain options at their disposal. However, I need to further investigate how these options compare with what's normally available (such as the Strike, Stride, Casting, and so on) to determine if the action system is providing the meaningful choices that the players should be expecting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
It's called organization. It's the difference between
Feature 1:A - [does this]
A1 - [does this in this specific instance of A]
A2 - [does this in this specific instance of A]
A3 - [does this in this specific instance of A]
...
...
Z1 - [does this in this specific instance of Z]
Z2 - [does this in this specific instance of Z]
Z3 - [does this in this specific instance of Z]
AA1 - [does this in this specific instance of AA]
...
Feature 2:
And
Feature 1:
A advances through AD, gaining a new letter every level. See page 391 for details on specific uses.
Feature 2:
...
One of them slams you facefirst with a huge block of powers you have no clue how to use or what they mean even. The other eases you in, presents rules in the order you need them and order of how fundamental you are (PF2 puts levelling up behind feats and entire spell lists. Somehow. The PHB for 3.5, on the other hand, puts it smack at the beginning of the chapter about classes.), and makes sure to keep it simple - give you the things you 100% need to know to play, leaves the rest in the back.
If I'm running a game for a bunch of new players I can say "don't read the Feat and Spell lists if you don't have time; I can point out some good choices for you, just read up on how combat works, how your build your character, and what skills do." - and the book is organized in a clean fashion that makes it possible. For 2e? Everything is all over the damn place.
It's like a code parser, you're right. The infinite number of tags looks like something a database uses to filter spells. The layout shows this idea that whoever's reading can parse the entire PDF and then jump about at will to the parts he needs. It's just plain bad. You don't even want to read the class power and feat lists and once you're done you realize that you still haven't gotten past the other categories of feats and the spells and so on and you're just 100% done.
It's only been 28 hours and a half since the book release... At least try it out before saying "it's trash, I'm out". Like that, if you think something is wrong, you can point it out and come out with data so that Paizo can see the problem and take action.
As for my Pathfinder players, most of them seem to have a slight interest in testing it out even though they did not follow the blog previews, and my only player who followed the blog previews was already making up character concepts one month ago, waited with me to download the PDFs the second they came up, and will probably spend a big part of his next week reading the books and creating characters to play with the rules.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The concern is that PF 2.0 is just an attempt to compete with D&D 5e; which Paizo simply cannot do. Starfinder sold so well because there is no sci-fi version of D&D, only one of Pathfinder. But there already IS a 5e, so trying to make a new 5e is a very worrying decision.
Oh, it's entirely possible that PF2 will tank next to 5e.
But given the choice of "continue printing your declining 3.5 clone", "tweak your 3.5 clone slightly but let it still be a 3.5 clone" and "let's move in a direction (width of options) which was a success for us married with what made 5e go big (accessibility, ease of play)" Paizo went with the third option, hoping to attract new players, because right now they're bleeding people.
A slightly tweaked PF1 won't get them anywhere.
Well, dunno, from my usual table only I cared enough to check out dates and the launch of 2.0. I told them about it, for now as far as i have seen they were neutral about it.
Tonight we will sit to play, i will be giving my first impressions, which to be honest are... mostly negative and we will see from there.
With this said, i do intend to playtest it, if nothing else because i have played PF1 for so damm long, that i think 2.0 should atleast get a shot until it is released and fixed in stone.
The overall idea was nice, the execution, to me atleast, was poor.
Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?
My group had someone look at the playtest material and sent me this link over messenger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FjWe31S_0g
So no, not just your group.
What the hell is AoS?
(unfortunately, Roll20 is not an option)
You missed their announcement
[
The Pathfinder Playtest is here, and we’re making it as easy as possible to jump in on Roll20!
We’ll be unveiling the first version of the official Pathfinder Playtest character sheet on August 7th, which will be freely available to everyone on Roll20. To access it, simply create a New Game, and from the Character Sheet dropdown select Pathfinder Playtest (official). Your Pathfinder Playtest experience awaits within.
As an added bonus, all Roll20 users will have free access to the Pathfinder Playtest Flip-Mat Multi-Pack, converted with all the bells and whistles of dynamic lighting and advanced fog of war (these features are available to all plus and pro subscribers).
To claim yours, go to the Pathfinder Playtest Flip-Mat Multi-Pack item on the Roll20 Marketplace, make sure you’re signed in, and click CLAIM to claim your Flip-Mat pack. You can now add it in to any of your games by going to the Addon section of your game page and selecting Pathfinder Playtest Flip-Mat Multi-Pack from the dropdown menu, then clicking Add to Game. More instructions on adding an addon to your game can be found here.
Thanks for taking part in the Pathfinder Playtest on Roll20! If you have any questions or find any issues with the character sheet or anything else, please let us know in the Official Pathfinder Playtest Bug Reporting Thread.
:)
Tom
What the hell is AoS?
Age of Sigmar.
Apparently its a Warhammer thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... On the plus side I find the playtest to be a good sign for future Starfinder content. It's much easier to concentrate on only one product line, after all! Snark aside, I like ~20% of the changes/material, am ambivalent about ~20%, and actively dislike ~50%. I loathe entirely ~10%. Coming from the PF 1.0 ruleset, I cannot imagine enjoying a game of PF 2.0; if I want something "streamlined" i will play 5E.
I have actually read most of the playtest since yesterday morning, and I am very unimpressed and disappointed. (Skipped the monk, Paladin, and skimmed the spells; read almost everything else word for word).
I will say the animal companion changes are much easier to understand and much more balanced, in general and against each other, if slightly underwhelming.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what folks, I have this little festival of hurt feelings we're having right now here in one browser tab and the Facebook PF2 playtest group (which just passed 1.000 people in couple of hours) in the other tab and let me tell you, there's a world of difference when people post under anonymous aliases and when they (mostly) post under their real names in a public group where their friends and family can see their posts. :P
|
|
On the Facebook group, the "Top Recent Posts" it gives me:
#1) Alex B : "Many of us are disappointed in the new skill system..."
#2) Valas D : "There's a bunch of stuff I'm disappointed about.."
#3) Ethan C : "I'm really excited for some of this new content, but just reaching the magic item parts I have some serious reservations..."
When I drill in deeper and look at the feed, I almost feel like the Facebook group has MORE negativity than the Paizo forums?
Might be a difference in how it prioritizes feed entries by the proximity of posters in your social graph?
|
Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?
We'll see, but I don't think so. My main problem might be that they might not be willing to pause our ongoing PF1 Runelords game in favor of us taking part in the playtest, especially when I'm the only Rules guy and everyone else just want to play the game.
But group morale will certainly not suffer. They love roleplaying and have done so with different rules sets by now, so I'm quite positive that if we do it, PF 2 will get a fair treatment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what folks, I have this little festival of hurt feelings we're having right now here in one browser tab and the Facebook PF2 playtest group (which just passed 1.000 people in couple of hours) in the other tab and let me tell you, there's a world of difference when people post under anonymous aliases and when they (mostly) post under their real names in a public group where their friends and family can see their posts. :P
so, Facebook, the End of Civilization, agrees with you? Never a good sign
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.
Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.
Certainly not alone on that one! I'd like to see some unarmored proficency + some feats that benefit unarmored barbarians in more interesting ways. (intimidation? seduction?)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what folks, I have this little festival of hurt feelings we're having right now here in one browser tab and the Facebook PF2 playtest group (which just passed 1.000 people in couple of hours) in the other tab and let me tell you, there's a world of difference when people post under anonymous aliases and when they (mostly) post under their real names in a public group where their friends and family can see their posts. :Pso, Facebook, the End of Civilization, agrees with you? Never a good sign
It's the end of your civilization, but beginning of mine. The wheel turns, once again.