| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really dig the art and page layout. Huge fan of Wayne Reynolds. I've got prints, his artbook and met him a couple of times. There's a reason why his work is on most the products. It sells. Not just in the respect of money, but it "sells" you on the world and the characters personalities.
I really liked the Beginner Box and Strategy Guide, and I think the layout in this book can help new players. It's a hard sell to get someone that never played a rpg, not be intimated by how big of a tome the Player's Guide is.
Frankly, I'm surprised how many "experts" there are concerning rules, for a game that just came out the other day. I think there are some wonky things, but, I'm going to try the game out before deeming something broken.
I'm more of a rules light player, like Shadow of the Demon Lord and Savage Worlds. I got turned off on Starfinder's complexity. I didn't care for P1's feat system, yet I think it's awesome in P2. I never cared for figuring out where to spend skills points and how many skills never got used, I prefer how it's handled now. Fighters tend to be bland in fantasy games, I really want to try one now.
Glad the economy changed to silver. In most rpgs, any currency other than gold becomes pointless too fast. I like how weapons can have different effects. I think the downtime events sound interesting. There is quite a bit of interesting things here that I feel some folks are glossing over.
I still have 20% left in the book to read, but I've skimmed the end part. I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too, am enjoying it and for many of the same reasons. Good stuff!
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, despite my own complaints (and I made a whole thread for those), I actually strongly agree with most of the upsides you note here. The basic rules are so much cleaner and simpler, and the economy changes are great.
Really, the core engine is just very nicely done. All my complaints are little things comparatively, and easy enough for the designers to change. Which is very much the result I hope for, and to some degree expect, from this playtest.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the view that this whole playtest could have been much simpler. They could have just invited Deadmanwalking around for a chat. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get valid criticisms, it just seemed some threads were heading down some negative roads. I thought it would be great to see some positive threads of what people liked.
I hope all feedback just polishes some rough edges. Ultimately, I'd prefer the final version of the game to be pretty close to what the playtest is because this is a game I really want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty happy as well. You're not alone!
Yes, the system itself is generally agreeable, just the lackluster individual skills/feats and unequal NPCs are my only major berserk buttons.
So it's my job to persuade the devs hard good enough so I can get my 2nd printing hardcover CRB/Bestiary as good as I can... (absolute faith in 1st printing erratas' existence)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I'm surprised how many "experts" there are concerning rules, for a game that just came out the other day.Well, here's where I stopped reading, this is just dismissive and rude, some people on this forum have decades of experience with RPGs (mechanics, rules, etc), and some are professional (not that that really means that much), nothing wrong with mentioning concerns, you do not always have to thoroughly playtest every aspect of a game for an extended period of time to see how it rolls.
For some of us, the disconnect comes from some forum posters thinking it’s ok to be dismissive or rude to Paizo and it’s developers because the PLAYTEST isn’t exactly how they would have done it.
Constructive criticism is fine but there’s been more than a little vitriol, hyperbole, and straight up insults.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like it overall. It needs some polishing, but I can't believe how people are whining about it. It seems like everyone is cranky a because 434 page book doesn't let them chose from 30-some classes and hundreds of archtypes (I actually read a complaint that was exactly this - someone complaining that there were only 12 base classes and not enough archtypes). It sounds to me like a lot of people weighing in on this are just spoiled as hell.
I also like what I've read. I've only done character creation so far, but it was mostly much more fluid and intuitive than 1E and most other systems. I like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I'm surprised how many "experts" there are concerning rules, for a game that just came out the other day.Well, here's where I stopped reading, this is just dismissive and rude, some people on this forum have decades of experience with RPGs (mechanics, rules, etc), and some are professional (not that that really means that much), nothing wrong with mentioning concerns, you do not always have to thoroughly playtest every aspect of a game for an extended period of time to see how it rolls.For some of us, the disconnect comes from some forum posters thinking it’s ok to be dismissive or rude to Paizo and it’s developers because the PLAYTEST isn’t exactly how they would have done it.
Constructive criticism is fine but there’s been more than a little vitriol, hyperbole, and straight up insults.
My point was, for a playtest, on the same day it was released, people claimed they knew everything wrong with it, without actually playing it. There are a variety of different systems interacting with each other. At first, some abilities didn't seem worthwhile, but looking through the book, I noticed how they might be better, typically as a player levels. There probably are some rough parts, but I was amazed at how many people thought they knew how to do it better in one day than two years of development.
Since the 80s, I've played a plethora of games. Sometimes games look bad or good on paper, until you play them.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issues are nitpicks that are easily fixed with some TLC and design work, not just math but feel.
The underpinnings of the system are very exciting though, I think this will be easier to teach than original Pathfinder and I think the game will be smoother at higher levels.
My group is organising our play tests and it’s going to be a good time.
I'm glad you people do and outside of this post not rain on your parade anymore.
The only thing I'm looking forward to is seeing how the community actually takes this later down the road. Should make for some interesting viewing.
|
I am really digging PF2, while some complaints do have merit and after spending some time with it my friends and I all agreed that PF2 has done a great job mixing the complexity of PF1 and the ease of D&D 5e. I think alot of the neysayers are coming from a place of thinking this was supposed to be a expansion of PF1 and not a whole new system like star finder was. While I do wish I could have had a few more classes *cough* inquisitors *cough* I do like what they have going. I mean I am still wrapping myself around resonance which I know I am 100% going to make mistakes on. So keep up the good work and let's have fun with kt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I have my hard copy of the rulebook and not forced to navigate it via my tablet, I'm absorbing things much better, and I'm feeling very optimistic overall.
There are things I feel need to be fixed, and I hope we get some official threads breaking things down by class and sections. I've read some pretty good critiques and hope it can be organized. Right now it feels like a hundred conversations in a crowded room all happening at once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the *idea* of 2.0's design, where one effectively builds their own class--if class feats were actually class ability-worthy in power to actually make them a tough choice between good options (see: pf1e rage powers as my general interest/power benchmark), rather than an annoying one between boring options--and making things more modular across the board by making effects more granular and spells able to be "charged" for greater effects.
the implementation is my main issue: their modular choices have made things ironically more rigid by denying a lot of build diversity (moving several feats to class-only things, build and proficiency denials for no apparent reasons, lack of utility options almost across the board, or those that exist are either explicitly subject to GM fiat removal, are locked behind hilariously high level requirements, or have extremely narrow circumstances to actually use)
despite my tone (it's hard for me not to come off as overly critical, i know), I want 2e to do well and become the good game you can see hiding under all this odd organization and needless limitation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rather like the class feats, feels similar class paths like D&D 5, but you do have the flexibility of not totally going down one path if you don't want to. Add in mutli-classing, and you can get some neat choices.
The feat system also helps new players figure out where to go. Pathfinder 1 can be daunting, that's why I thought the Strategy Guide was great. You kinna need to plot out your character ahead of time to maximize what you can do in Pathfinder 1. If you wanted to be a polearm fighter, you need to do some research. I don't think that works for new players well at all. Plus, I don't like spending hours making a character. It's just nice that it's kinna already spelled out for you in the Playtest.
I am also impressed with the sorcerer. You can basically emulate playing a witch, warlock and oracle by your choices.
There's loads of things I like. Not having to manage skill points anymore. Being able to craft without loads of rules. There is a lot of very cool things in this book!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There probably are some rough parts, but I was amazed at how many people thought they knew how to do it better in one day than two years of development.Some people do.
It is worth noting that a lot of people, myself included, are still often reading the rules assuming things are true about the system that just aren't anymore. Our experience with PF1 is actually making it -harder- to understand PF2, because a lot of things we expect to be rules aren't anymore, or were subtlely changed to function a different way. (A really good example is rogue getting sneak on their first attack in combat -- it took a good two days for someone to point out that Surprise Attack + the new initiative system replicates this functionality. Almost all of us were getting hung up on how it seems like you can't attack without breaking Stealth as per hide and sneak.)
Having a lot of experience can sometimes be a detriment to understanding a new ruleset.
Agreed. Since PF2 looks similar to PF1, I think many people are carrying over their assumptions with the new version. Some things are the same, some are not. I'm still reading about people not playing it but tearing into a few rules. I get there are a few problems, but seriously, you are not going to know until you play it.
The other problem I see is the "Well I would have done it this way", which can work, but it's also someone's personal preference. That and some folks will never be happy.
It'll probably be a week or two till my group plays, so I figure it's best to reread the book a few more times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the action system in PF2 is excellent - so good that other games should poach it, in fact. It's intuitive, smooth, flexible, and fast. I also like deterministic character generation, as they've implemented it.
So, as others have mentioned, much of the core system is quite solid. But, there are fiddly bits. And those fiddly bits seem to have been made extra super fiddly in ways that impede rather than aid play. These, obviously, are much easier to fix than core system issues. But I hope they do get smoothed off and polished before official release.
These are things like Signature Skills, monster/PC equivalency levels, death and dying, 'exploration mode' and so on.
And finally, there are some issues with how information is organized (spells/powers/feats in particular). These are the easiest to change, and will make a huge difference all by themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed.
I keep rereading the book since my group is trying to decide to continue with Starfinder or go with the playtest, most of us have the playtest though. I had quit playing Starfinder because I found it too busy and unbalanced during play. I keep finding more and more interesting things in P2. I am still VERY impressed with the book. This is what I wanted for Pathfinder.
Watching the Gen Con videos are interesting insights into the dev team's thoughts. I would like to see the Relic rules return in some fashion. One thing I don't like in fantasy rpgs, is that you get a +1 sword and eh. You end up selling it at the pawn shop later. A weapon that levels with you (to some extent, maybe every 5 levels), ties it to your character's story. It can be your own Excalibur, or like two scimitars a certain Drow ranger uses.
I was also impressed Jason pointed out people's misconceptions of longbows and agree with him on how they work. I practice archery with a sixty pound recurve, that's a shortbow. In tv and movies, that's what you are really seeing. Longbows are those ones tall as a person, think Zen archery or actual English longbow. They really do have different firing distances. I think most people just pick longbow in game for the damage increase and range, and the shortbow gets overlooked.
I also feel like most the negativity on the boards are people that don't want to give up a 15+yr system. Most rpgs have a shorter life cycle. It's time to move on and try new things.
It's also time to make things simpler for new generations for Pathfinder players. You have tons of them wanting to incorporate it into social technology, it's best not to turn them off. Making the system streamlined, is going to help.