Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared? (Also, I am recruiting)


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Gorbacz wrote:
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

That's just the Russian bots. :) (JK, obvs)

My thoughts, as if anyone actually cares:

Do we actually know that there's more non-standard options going to be available? Like has it been mentioned anywhere or something? Because ~without~ them, it feels (and this is purely subjective on my part) like they're going for the VTT angle that 4E was supposed to take before THE GREAT TRAGEDY. And since 5E dropped the digital implementation ball ~and~ Paizo has experience with publishing online game content now, that's kind of a Blue Ocean for them. I could see it happening, but I don't know if it IS happening.

But a lot of the complaints are easily explained from that lens, so I don't know what others think about that thought. Not that that's necessarily bad, 4E was never fully implemented, what DID get implemented had plenty of fun segments (and admittedly a few unfun ones, I'm looking at you samey magick items), and if anyone could do it right it's Paizo, but is it just an illusion caused by wanting to test only the most common archetypes is kind of my question.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

True. Shifter got worse backlash than this.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am proud I can ninja in the PF2 forums at least :)

Shadow Lodge

We shouldn't get too far off topic.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
A slightly tweaked PF1 won't get them anywhere.

I heavily disagree, which is probably no big surprise. If they'd adjusted the math to make higher level play better, cleaned up problematic areas of the current edition and nerfed casters a bit + made martials more capable, I'm pretty sure it would have had a way better reception than what we got on our hands now.

But of course we heavily disagree on what direction the game should take, that much has been made evident and clear over the last two days.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, sure, but people are way more nice about it.

Uh-huh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm certainly a outlier when it comes to initial impressions, but there was a lot that fell flat for me upon reading this. Perhaps worse, I think the reveals from Paizo essentially covered most of what I was excited about/love about the system, but then to get it, and discover that there's not a lot more, and there's some pretty glaring holes is fairly disappointing.

For a concrete example, we had bard spoiled, but if you go through the bard feat list, well, there's a grand total of 24 feats to potentially select through all 20 levels... That's not a very fleshed-out class with lots of variety.

Similarly the block of spells, powers, rituals, (ducks and castles) at the end just feels like an overwhelming block of "stuff", and isn't really organized in any useful way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have no problem keeping group morale up.

None in my group are interested in it outside of a few things possible to port over to PF1.

The reasons vary; in games, can't transfer character, it's still a playtest wait for the final release, etc etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm also not that impressed with this new edition but I'm also understanding that the range of bonuses seem to be smaller deliberately so I'm not going to judge until I've actually PLAYED the game hence the playtest.

It took me over a little over an hour to make a 1st level human barbarian using the rulebook. I wasn't even certain that I'd calculated everything correctly.

Later that evening (even though I said that I never would) tried Hero Lab Online to make that same character and had it done in a little under 20 min and only becasue I was unfamiliar with the interface.

I'm going make a few more characters "by hand" now that I kinda know to go A(ncestry)-B (ackground)-C (lass). I know that I learn through repetition and growing familiarity. I see some of the responses here and while some of the gripes seem legit and would go toward possibly making the game better I've also learned to ignore the hyperbole.

I don't think the game as it stands now is the garbage fire that some people here are making it out to be. I'll reserve my judgment until after I've played it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
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.
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.
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?

Probably because it is D&D but it is probably on the low side of D&D sales.

With various sources (Gygax, Dancey)the highest selling D&DS in order are.

Probable sales rankings.

5E?
1E or B/X red box.
2E
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder
4E
OD&D

5E may have also outsold 1E and/or the red box. Its doing very well. No one even TSR knows how well 1E and Red box sold but generlaly its 1 million+ to 1.5 million.

Adjusted for inflation 5E may not have hit the peak year of 1983, but they have done better than say 81 and 82 with less product which likely means the 5E PHB is carrying the bulk f the sales.

No one knows how well 4E did but Mearls admitted they drove away their fans and one of the designers called it a disaster. If it sold alright it would have been on presales, seems sales tanked fairly hard afterwards.Some numbers are knowns about (500k 3.0, 750k 2E, 40k OD&D).

One of the Paizo staffers also gave a figue of Pathfinder at 250k in 2014, while Dancey gave 3.5 250k-350k sales. Not all 3.5 players went to Pathfinder so 3.5 probably outsold Pathfinder but its possible PF is ahead of 3.5. Note 3.5 did not do that well by D&D standards it only outsold OD&D at 40k and maybe 4E.

Only 1E and the Red Box are viable contenders to 5E sales, maybe even put together 12 or 15 million players for 5E apparently. Online its about 5 times bigger than Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
TOZ wrote:

....but that's not a new thing.

Edit: 5 seconds, dragon! By 5 seconds!

BTW, I want to apologize for exploding on you yesterday. I had a really s@&&ty first impression of the game and overall not the best day and then, you know, *that guy* went all "graaah, leave and never come back!". So I went way overboard. Sorry about that, I was a douche.

Happens to all of us.

Dark Archive

Its honestly weird to me. My impression is that Paizo forum is negative about playtest, my local PFS scene is overall interested in trying out with both positive and negative thoughts about it and my own player party I don't know what their opinion on the released playtest is because all of them haven't had chance to read it, but they were based on blogs positive and they wanted edition change even before edition change was announced <_< Meanwhile on places like enworld overall comment section seems to be like "Pfft, who plays pathfinder, we play 5e I'm sure 2e will be more of the same"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
so, Facebook, the End of Civilization, agrees with you? Never a good sign
Nice job in completely ignoring the actual point made.

Sorry, Gorbacz made a point? I must have missed that.

Anyway, the playtest forums are pretty civil, I must say. I see a lot of disappointment and negative feedback, but not the hysteric outrage that usually accompanies change. So, I really don't see how hyperbole is a point

This not everyone loves it but its not like the 3E-4E transition or the 4E-5E playtest. It lacks the vicious part of it and most people are civil even if they are negative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:

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.

I like being the shamanistic manly hulk barbarian sometimes yes. Full plate mail is cool sure. But some times you just have to be a sexy pile of murder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.

Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reactions from the table so far:

* Loving the streamlined chassis
* Concerned about individual elements
* Concerned for the "busyness" of the layout
* Concern for decision paralysis


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:

This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.

Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.

With magic I think they just needed to identify the most broken effects. In 3.5 for example the warmage was not broken so you don't really need to fix boom spells, 5E may have messed that part up.

Overhauling the other classes and fixing saves would also help dial back magic but a bit more organically. If save or dies functioned more like AD&D where high level characters are semi immune they become high risk/reward type spells.

90% of 3.5 and Pathfinder spells are probably fine. Its that 10% or so that cause problems and fixing them or even removing them should be options then you can tweak the other classes or things like spell slots.

Then you only have to overhaul the ones that are still broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:

This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.

Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.

Totally agree on both points.

The nerfs on magic went too far I posted my thoughts here


I need to read now through the magic part. I'm trying to. Wake different classes and races to see how things work out.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
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.
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.
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?

Probably because it is D&D but it is probably on the low side of D&D sales.

With various sources (Gygax, Dancey)the highest selling D&DS in order are.

Probable sales rankings.

5E?
1E or B/X red box.
2E
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder
4E
OD&D

5E may have also outsold 1E and/or the red box. Its doing very well. No one even TSR knows how well 1E and Red box sold but generlaly its 1 million+ to 1.5 million.

Adjusted for inflation 5E may not have hit the peak year of 1983, but they have done better than say 81 and 82 with less product which likely means the 5E PHB is carrying the bulk f the sales.

No one knows how well 4E did but Mearls admitted they drove away their fans and one of the designers called it a disaster. If it sold alright it would have been on presales, seems sales tanked fairly hard afterwards.Some numbers are knowns about (500k 3.0, 750k 2E, 40k OD&D).

One of the Paizo staffers also gave a figue of Pathfinder at 250k in 2014, while Dancey gave 3.5 250k-350k sales. Not all 3.5 players went to Pathfinder so 3.5 probably outsold Pathfinder but its possible PF is ahead of 3.5. Note 3.5 did not...

My guesses would be probably varied. From what I've read over the years...It seems the numbers would pan out like this...

AD&D + D&D had around 25 million gamers all told (AD&D and BECMI) at it's height.

5e supposedly has somewhere in the range of 9 to 10 million gamers.

4e I would guess had somewhere in the range of 2 to 3 million gamers.

(though if you take just 30,000 of those gamers and have them subscribe to DDi at $10 a month that makes $300K a month and close to 3.6 million dollars a year just from DDi. That's at 1% subscribing to DDi. Increase that a little higher giving them just 5% and that means they get 18 million a year from DDi. Not the 50 million Hasbro wanted at a minimum, but not something to shirk at either).

3e+3.5 probably had somewhere in the range of 5 million gamers if I recall the numbers spouted out.

(compared to around 500,000 gamers of AD&D near the end of it in the late 90s, a great ways down from it's height. In that light, 3e practically saved the D&D rpg from a dwindling death).

They ALWAYS claim that the current edition is the best selling edition ever for D&D, at least since 3e.

This has made me skeptical of whether they are actually being completely honest, or are saying that from some sort of slanted statistic that they've twisted in such a way that they can claim that it is the best selling ever, even if by most metrics it is not.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:

This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.

Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.

With magic I think they just needed to identify the most broken effects. In 3.5 for example the warmage was not broken so you don't really need to fix boom spells, 5E may have messed that part up.

Overhauling the other classes and fixing saves would also help dial back magic but a bit more organically. If save or dies functioned more like AD&D where high level characters are semi immune they become high risk/reward type spells.

90% of 3.5 and Pathfinder spells are probably fine. Its that 10% or...

Or, in some of the instances, I think they could raise the ability to save vs. spells (increase saves, so good saves and weak saves have better bonuses), and focus on the damage vs. level that they've introduced in the playtest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To echo others, nope. My group is looking forward to it.... aside from some wonky wording everybody likes it mostly.

Maybe its a brand loyalty thing? My group rotates games through different systems - Deadlands, Shadowrun, Rogue Trader.

So perhaps because we have less of an attachment to any one ruleset, the changes don't bug us as much? While more dedicated/conservative tables are the ones rebelling against the drastic changes?

Not saying anybody's opinions are wrong or right, just wondering if there's a pattern.


Zardnaar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
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.
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.
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?

Probably because it is D&D but it is probably on the low side of D&D sales.

With various sources (Gygax, Dancey)the highest selling D&DS in order are.

Probable sales rankings.

5E?
1E or B/X red box.
2E
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder
4E
OD&D

5E may have also outsold 1E and/or the red box. Its doing very well. No one even TSR knows how well 1E and Red box sold but generlaly its 1 million+ to 1.5 million.

Adjusted for inflation 5E may not have hit the peak year of 1983, but they have done better than say 81 and 82 with less product which likely means the 5E PHB is carrying the bulk f the sales.

No one knows how well 4E did but Mearls admitted they drove away their fans and one of the designers called it a disaster. If it sold alright it would have been on presales, seems sales tanked fairly hard afterwards.Some numbers are knowns about (500k 3.0, 750k 2E, 40k OD&D).

One of the Paizo staffers also gave a figue of Pathfinder at 250k in 2014, while Dancey gave 3.5 250k-350k sales. Not all 3.5 players went to Pathfinder so 3.5 probably outsold Pathfinder but its possible PF is ahead of 3.5. Note 3.5 did not...

Thanks, Zardnaar, I know you have been down this road many times on the old WotC forums and Enworld.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
What the hell is AoS?

Age of Sigmar.

Apparently its a Warhammer thing.

One would hope PF2 ends up as well as AoS honestly. Both started similarly enough, since all the old fans of Warhammer Fantasy absolutely hated the old fluff getting nuked and replaced with some really vague ultra fantasy stuff that wasn't even a proper singular world (more sundered elemental realms) and that's before getting into the standard bevy of rule changes and such.

But the thing is...people have turned around on AoS. The fluff has been fleshed out and gotten lots of new people interested, the models are all generally high quality, and the rules have worked well enough. Sure a lot of people prefer the Old World (like me) but the update certainly has gone quite a bit better than the admittedly awful looking early days.

Which is largely why I brought that particular comparison up. Many of the complaints have clear parallels. Which isn't to say that the result will be the same, but anyone feeling discouraged that their positive reaction to PF2 is being drowned out in complaints might like to know that lots of loud objections don't mean the game won't do well.


Bluenose wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
What the hell is AoS?

Age of Sigmar.

Apparently its a Warhammer thing.

One would hope PF2 ends up as well as AoS honestly. Both started similarly enough, since all the old fans of Warhammer Fantasy absolutely hated the old fluff getting nuked and replaced with some really vague ultra fantasy stuff that wasn't even a proper singular world (more sundered elemental realms) and that's before getting into the standard bevy of rule changes and such.

But the thing is...people have turned around on AoS. The fluff has been fleshed out and gotten lots of new people interested, the models are all generally high quality, and the rules have worked well enough. Sure a lot of people prefer the Old World (like me) but the update certainly has gone quite a bit better than the admittedly awful looking early days.

Which is largely why I brought that particular comparison up. Many of the complaints have clear parallels. Which isn't to say that the result will be the same, but anyone feeling discouraged that their positive reaction to PF2 is being drowned out in complaints might like to know that lots of loud objections don't mean the game won't do well.

What does whether or not the game doing well have anything to do with anything though? It's not as if the complaints and 'loud' objections are necessarily wrong or hollow. And AoS and the End Times are still widely hated by some WHFB holdouts, they just slowly attracted new players.


ENHenry wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:

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.

Yes!!!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm running two playtest groups as soon as my dead tree books arrive.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
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.
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.
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?

Probably because it is D&D but it is probably on the low side of D&D sales.

With various sources (Gygax, Dancey)the highest selling D&DS in order are.

Probable sales rankings.

5E?
1E or B/X red box.
2E
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder
4E
OD&D

5E may have also outsold 1E and/or the red box. Its doing very well. No one even TSR knows how well 1E and Red box sold but generlaly its 1 million+ to 1.5 million.

Adjusted for inflation 5E may not have hit the peak year of 1983, but they have done better than say 81 and 82 with less product which likely means the 5E PHB is carrying the bulk f the sales.

No one knows how well 4E did but Mearls admitted they drove away their fans and one of the designers called it a disaster. If it sold alright it would have been on presales, seems sales tanked fairly hard afterwards.Some numbers are knowns about (500k 3.0, 750k 2E, 40k OD&D).

One of the Paizo staffers also gave a figue of Pathfinder at 250k in 2014, while Dancey gave 3.5 250k-350k sales. Not all 3.5 players went to Pathfinder so 3.5 probably outsold Pathfinder but its possible PF is

...

DDI at its height had around 80k IRC. But I don't know if they were active players or ones who signed up for it at some point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:

I'm having a hard time keeping my own morale up let alone trying to sell the system to someone else. I've read a good proportion of the rule book, but I'm not looking forward to either making a character or running the game. It may play a lot better then it reads, but the layout and seemly weird rules are putting me off.

Apparently Vic said in another thread that the action system has been overwhelmingly well received at the convention play-tests. Not sure how I feel about that since not a huge fan of it, but at the same time it's not the thing that bugs me the most about the new edition.

The action system is like the one bit I like in this edition! In fact as other have mentioned, I would love to see activities (spells) that take more that three actions to cast, requiring planning over multiple rounds!

My biggest complaint is the lack of true multi classing, and the way that the classes have had nearly all their abilities pushed off into feats or powers, which means I can no longer just look at a class progression chart and get a feel for what the class can do.

planning weird or interesting builds via multi classing is, as far as I am concerned, the big advantage that tabletop rpgs have over video games, and the reason I have stuck with pathfinder (and dabbled with 5e).

Removing that core feature makes this edition a non-starter for me :(

Silver Crusade

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

The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters:

1. Optimized builds where the player knows EXACTLY what he or she is doing (1 level dip of Fighter, multiclassing into a PrC, some hyper specialized build that requires X levels of Y and A levels of B).

2. Thematically cool characters that end up cripplingly weak. Rogue 3/Monk 2/Sorcerer 3 is hopelessly behind almost every level 7 singleclassed character.

And the problem is that 3.5/PF doesn't tell you that. It relies on meta-knowledge, gleaned from forums and optimization guides, to save you form shooting yourself in the foot. If nobody at the table has that meta-knowledge (read: a group of newbies) then at some point John who made the Rogue/Monk/Sorcerer will discover that Jane and her Druid are just simply that much better than he is.


Gorbacz wrote:

The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters:

1. Optimized builds where the player knows EXACTLY what he or she is doing (1 level dip of Fighter, multiclassing into a PrC, some hyper specialized build that requires X levels of Y and A levels of B).

2. Thematically cool characters that end up cripplingly weak. Rogue 3/Monk 2/Sorcerer 3 is hopelessly behind almost every level 7 singleclassed character.

And the problem is that 3.5/PF doesn't tell you that. It relies on meta-knowledge, gleaned from forums and optimization guides, to save you form shooting yourself in the foot. If nobody at the table has that meta-knowledge (read: a group of newbies) then at some point John who made the Rogue/Monk/Sorcerer will discover that Jane and her Druid are just simply that much better than he is.

There are ways to prevent this within the system. One such suggestion I had is to work off a unified table, but have stat boosts at level 1, 5, 9, 13, 17. Then at each stat boost, you could lose one stat boost (netting 3) to start progressing in a new class, but that would apply all the way until you hit your next stat boost. In other words, you'd have to take classes in 4 levels at a time. That should alleviate shallow the dipping for winning.

Granted, this system would still need some ironing out. You'd need to decide how spell progressions would work across classes (I'd be tempted to say levels outside of your class counted halvsies toward a class you had, so every 4 levels you'd get a new level of spells rather than every 2). But it's a way to allow traditional multiclassing while not allowing it to break the game.

EDIT: Note that under this system you could always switch back to a class you had already progressed in for free at the appropriate levels, so you could go Rogue 4, Fighter 4, Rogue 4, or Rogue 8, Fighter 4 and it would still only cost 1 stat boost.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That might work for martials, but any system where you slow down your spell progression (by more than, say, one level) puts you automatically so far behind straight-classed casters that you don't compete. Suddenly you have a situation where some kinds of multiclassing are mmmkayish (Fighter/Ranger) while others are horribadwrong.

Really, the only good way of doing this is going the way of Muticlass Archetypes, which Paizo kind of did, except of course we should see how they work in practice and how to improve them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
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.

I cannot tell you with certainity, but my gut hunch is that, if those are the only two possible options, the playtest will be waste of your time. Because while I can see some spells being changed, it seems like leaving Simulacrum style spells aside is a design goal, not an oversight.

I don't think PF2 intends to have PF1 style of magic, regardless of what individual playtesters think. Unless it's a massive thing that virtually all players will vote against (and here's a hint, that's not going to be the case if we see how often the martial-caster disparity debates flare up), that's not going to substantially change.

Now, THIS or THAT spell getting a buff, or a further nerf, that's possible based on feedback. The whole spell system going back to PF1 levels, I doubt it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ngai M'katu wrote:

To echo others, nope. My group is looking forward to it.... aside from some wonky wording everybody likes it mostly.

Maybe its a brand loyalty thing? My group rotates games through different systems - Deadlands, Shadowrun, Rogue Trader.

So perhaps because we have less of an attachment to any one ruleset, the changes don't bug us as much? While more dedicated/conservative tables are the ones rebelling against the drastic changes?

Not saying anybody's opinions are wrong or right, just wondering if there's a pattern.

In some cases, you just know what you like and don't see a reason to change? For me and my group, it's that simple.


Gorbacz wrote:

That might work for martials, but any system where you slow down your spell progression (by more than, say, one level) puts you automatically so far behind straight-classed casters that you don't compete. Suddenly you have a situation where some kinds of multiclassing are mmmkayish (Fighter/Ranger) while others are horribadwrong.

Really, the only good way of doing this is going the way of Muticlass Archetypes, which Paizo kind of did, except of course we should see how they work in practice and how to improve them.

It's interesting that in some ways the old AD&D multiclassing might have worked better than the 3.x paradigm. Maybe a bit overpowered overall, but without the problems of broken combinations - in either direction.

Probably wouldn't work well with the rest of the 3.x paradigm though.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
DDI at its height had around 80k IRC. But I don't know if they were active players or ones who signed up for it at some point.

I don't know where you get your info, but this is demonstrably false. Active DDI Subscribers could see the number of current subscribers each month. There were more than 80k subscribers in 2013 alone, 3 years after the release of Essentials and even after the announcement of D&D Next.(via forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?679348-DDI-Subscribers-and-Revenue)

This represented a substantial decrease of the highest numbers I saw on my account, where WotC published that there were 270k+ active subscribers shortly before the release of Essentials.

In addition, I don't know about these 250k, 300k, figures, etc. you are citing, because they are laughably low. The PHB3 (which introduced the monk and psionics) alone was a New York times bestseller (released in 2010) and outsold any Pathfinder supplement other than the Pathfinder Core Rules. And all the major 4e supplements before that were even higher on the bestseller lists, for longer. There was absolutely no decline in 4e sales after release. In fact, there was a demonstrable spike in 4e sales after Penny Arcade began doing the series of live plays with Chris Perkins. In particular, sales in 2010 (2 years after release) were very high (probably bolstered by the release of a new-psuedo edition in 4e Essentials late in the year). I will admit that sales began tanking shortly after the release of Essentials though, in 2011.


Gorbacz wrote:

That might work for martials, but any system where you slow down your spell progression (by more than, say, one level) puts you automatically so far behind straight-classed casters that you don't compete. Suddenly you have a situation where some kinds of multiclassing are mmmkayish (Fighter/Ranger) while others are horribadwrong.

Really, the only good way of doing this is going the way of Muticlass Archetypes, which Paizo kind of did, except of course we should see how they work in practice and how to improve them.

Note that my system suggested that you advanced at half the rate in spellcasting when you took levels outside of a spellcasting class. Interestingly, that'd put you exactly 1 spell level behind for a 4-level spalsh in another class. It would also mean that you cold do a 4-level dip and still get access to level 9 spells with your main class (but just barely).

Proposal: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vaah?Better-proposal-for-traditional-multiclas sing


Is anyone still recruiting for the playtest? I'd be up for a PbP, my old group has problems actually getting it together to game, and I'd like to be able to provide feedback based on play rather than just how the rules read. Can't do voice though, if that's a problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters

Not at all, there are trends, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had my first game session since the PDF dropped. There was a lot of disappointment and anger over certain choices, mostly the way magic and casters have been pretty severely weakened (very few spell slots, lack of auto-scaling, short durations, many spells having limited targets like dimension door and haste until you have a 7th level slot, that removes some of the main uses of them, concentration for summoned creatures that can be dispelled by damage equal to your level, the lack of actions for summoned creatures, etc). Things looked pretty ugly at first. One said we needed to change the topic of conversation away from the playtest because they were just too angry at some of this. I figured we just weren't going to do the playtest.

But things calmed down with time. We started to discuss both positive and negative aspects of the system. The visceral reactions seemed to fade. Everyone agreed that they still wanted to run the playtest, and were actually planning on doing so at that session after the current adventure got to a stopping point. It went longer than expected and basically got to the stopping point at the end of the night. So we'll start the playtest next week, which will give everyone a chance to more fully read the book and have characters ready, I'm certainly way behind in reading and wasn't ready and another player was seeing it for the first time, so that will be helpful. Things started to seem a bit more hopeful by the end. We'll have to see how the actual test goes, but it looks like the initial feelings of betrayal have passed and now we'll just test the heck out of the system and find both what we like as well as what we hate, and contribute with feedback to get an end result we can deal with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters
Not at all, there are trends, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as that.

Pf1e multiclassing is great to customize and built your own class. Let's say I want to play a wizard, that REALLY do damage with fireballs. I dip 1 level into crossblooded sorcerer to get that nasty +2 damage per die if I'm draconic/orc. Or let's say I want to build a sorcerer that it's based on color spray. I dip 1 level into oracle, to get that cool ability to improve color spray.

What Pf1e multiclassing is not good, is to actually build multiclassing options. If you actually want to be a sorcerer/oracle, instead of a custom sorcercer class that has features of the oracle class, it's much worse.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My only issues so far have been with the layout and presentation. I like the mechanics I've seen. It's just that it is difficult for me to make sure I have all the options straight. A lot of page-flipping.
I really like the action economy. The numbers being reined in. Hero points in core. Building block character creation (if I could find all the options). The rarity system. Truly awesome spells being reserved for 10th level spells. Spell heightening. Cantrips.
So much good stuff.
Just... can't find it very quickly.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Insight wrote:
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.
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.
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?

Yes because its D&D. Probably did not sell that well relative to the other D&Ds except OD&D and maybe 3.5 and I suspect a lot of that owuld have been near release.

Can you contact me on the ENworld forums or give me a contact these forums have no private message function (or much of any function).

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

Removed some posts and their replies.

Do not criticize your fellow community members on our forums. Avoid the use of profanity. The substitution of characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable.

I do want to thank everyone for their efforts to keep the forums civil. I also agree that for the most part criticism and feedback has so far been expressed in a way which respects our forum guidelines. As I have said before, we are all responsible for the tone of our forums, and your best efforts to maintain a welcoming and productive tone do not go unappreciated.

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared? (Also, I am recruiting) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.