Honest questions to those who like 2e


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. Yes

2. No
3. No and No for different reasons.
4. A fun game to play that offers lots of meaningful choices and where there is a strong connection between the game mechanics and the game world the mechanics are meant to affect. Basically if I am playing a monk i want to FEEL like i am playing a monk. I don't like it when the differentiation between options is more flavor text then effect.
5. I am neutral on it. I dont mind simple systems, i dont mind complex ones. They just need to be good for what they are trying to achieve.
6. Yes
7. I play many different rpg systems, so yes.
8. That is hard to say as I am not a proffessional game designer. I dont know what I want in a system until I see it. I like things like fate, the fantasy flight narrative dice system, I have enjoyed Icons, Mutants and Masterminds, countless d20 systems. Had lots of fun in all of them.

Silver Crusade

Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1: Yes.

2: No.
3: I've never touched either.
4: High level play is the most frustrating to me of Pathfinder's problems.
5: I think it's not only a good idea, but a decently high priority.
6: I'm not sure what this means. To give up on accessibility altogether would mean creating a game that cannot be played. That wouldn't be worth any benefit. Otherwise it's a trade off and there's no simple way to answer this question.
7: I'd probably not want to bother with multiple rules sets for the same game like that.
8: IDK.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

0. HONEST QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO LIKE 2E
What a devilishly disingenuous way to limit your opinion pool.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)
Yes. Very much.
And a loaded question is one that makes assumptions within itself, such as "Hank Pym, do you still beat your wife?"

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)
Recent material occasionally feels like it's missing its own point. However, it is rare that, as a GM, I would disallow first-party crunch. I do try to limit player options to what would be available in the game region, though.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
5th edition is a solid return to form for 3e/3.5e purists, while cutting down on bloat (almost too much. There's rather a dearth of material) and reducing the extremity of power level scaling. I like it but it's not without its flaws.
Now let's answer the part that you think is loaded but isn't: It would be inappropriate to make PF2 into a 5e clone

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
Rules clarity (hard math is much easier than abstract terms)
Areas of specialization (current 2e rules make everyone good at all things at high levels and at most a disparity of 5 skill points exists between characters of equal level)
An exhaustive list of creatures affected by Shatter would be nice (the word "crystalline" means more the more you know about atomic bonding structures, but only shows up as a descriptor on 1 monster. In Bestiary 4. Shatter is also listed as an exception to magic immunity on some golems, but they still do not count as crystalline)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
PF2e is supposed to be accessible? It's highly simulationist in some regards and every new build choice feels like I'm chopping off a foot

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
See question 5

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
Yes

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)
I think what many of us wanted was a more refined 1st edition, not a radical system shift. It honestly feels like Lorraine Williams was involved somehow. Systems are too different, porting characters between editions is broken by incompatibility, etc.
You couldn't just backport Starfinder's rules and ditch the ship combat?


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? yep!

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? not really, if anything it's more the opposite. 1e isn't the most new player friendly because you're extremely limited in what you can do with the core - or at least it feels that way when you know how much more you can do if you have more books. in addition, there's too much math for a lot of people stating out. between that and the fct that 1e feels just a little TOO much like D&D, i've seen a lot of people decide they just aren't interested

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? yep, though 4e is in no way shape or form a good system for introducing players to tabletop-leave it to more experienced players who just want some game mechanics to build a world within. i've only played a couple of one-shots in 5e so i can't really say i know anything about it, but i've enjoyed what i have played, it's just a bit more forgiving than i would commonly like when i'm playing with adults

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? more differentiation from D&D and more new player friendliness. while i definitely enjoy ridiculous games that you really probably should get an experienced player to gm so you can learn, i don't think that's a niche pathfinder should even sorta be moving towards. 1e currently feels kinda like d&d's math loving little sister rather than a related but still very distinct game. I definitely want a game than feels like i have more options from the get go, which the endless feats - while irritating- do pretty well.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? please! like i've mentioned a few times already, i really don't think pathfinder should be working towards becoming a niche game. while it needs more differentiating it from d&d, it should also increasing accessibility so it can really stand on it's own as an intro to tabletop game. (a good test of how well it fulfills this is to give it to a bunch of 5th to 8th graders who've never played tabletop games before and see if they can make sense of it....in a similar manner that experienced players do)

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? a tiny bit, like i said one of the things i want PF2.0 is for it to be extremely accessible so while i'd love to see the classes become more of a guideline than something that actually matters and some decidedly NOT d&d like game mechanics get introduced...it doesn't really feel like it fits for me if it makes the game difficult to get into

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will). potentially, it would really depend on what was being changed. there's definitely some things i'd love to see that i don't really want to be part of standard play since they would make getting into the game difficult for those complexly lacking in experience

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)
I'd really like to see more exploration of how the game meta is influenced by the game mechanics and less of an influence from the classes. more easily available fleshing out of the setting or an abandonment of a pre-made setting altogether so that the setting is entirely up to the GM. ancestries setting some things about my genetics and some things that i grew up with rather than throwing all of the above at me over the course of my adventuring career.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

No. The main problem is the sheer number of times I have to interrupt the game to go look up a rule.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

Yes. I enjoyed it for a solid six years. I wad mostly blinded by it's flaws until I started playing other games and saw how much better they flowed - and I could finally finish a campaign with my friends.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4th was fun. I didn't actively pursue it, but I enjoyed it when it came up.

5th is fantastic and what showed me how flawed PF was. I could finally finish adventures in a reasonable time; I could finally finish campaigns. No longer did I have to interrupt the game to find a rule.

5th isn't my favorite system, but it's up there. My current favorite is an off-shoot of 5th that is at the same time simpler and more customizable for players - as well as much more grity. Shadow of the Demon Lord.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Balance is important - but not so much as to remove all difference from characters. I enjoy the balance of 5th, as it makes all *characters* fairly balanced even if all classes are not, while still maintaining unique builds and wonderful charcter concepts.

More options are fine IFF there's still a balanced option that says, "I don't care about options, just let me play" - a simple and easy chargen that allows quick play. If that's available and on the same power scale as option-heavy classes, then options are good. If all players are forced to make a lot of options, then you're removing an entire class of marketable players.

As for what I'm specifically looking for in PF2 - I don't know yet. "Will I have fun playing it" will be high on the list. I like Paizo as a company, so I want to give this an honest shot and hopefully help them make a better game. For me, it's competing with 5e, SotDL, and Witcher RPG.

Edit: I'll take back the "I don't know yet." I'm looking for a removal of caster-martial disparity and a significant reduction is rules look-ups during play.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

Absolutely yes. The game *needs* to be accessable, or else Paizo as a company can't grow in the market. I like Paizo, I like their APs, and I want them to continue to be a strong presence in the table top market.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

The way it's going, I don't think that'll happen. 5e makes for a great introductory game, and PF2 is looking to be the "next step" for those looking for mechanical options. Those provides a unique position in the market, as it uses a more popular and accessable game as a launching pad. This allows them to be slightly reduced on the accessibility part in favor of greater complexity and options for those who want it.

But PF2 needn't necessarily do that if they also provide options that are easily accessible, such as a class where most of the math is in the background and doesn't require many choices on the player's part. (Unlikely, with all the feats).

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

I'd give it a shot. It's effectively what I'm doing with PF2.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I'm not sure. The same as I'm hoping for PF2: removal of caster-martial disparity and a reduction in rules lookups during play.


Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. I do. It's my favourite system, except maybe for Starfinder.

2. Nope! I personally don't find it troublesome. I do find it difficult to explain to other people sometimes however, when trying to introduce new people to it. I also find that 5th edition DnD players seem to see it as having a reputation of being very complicated.
3. I haven't tried either. 3.5 or Pathfinder have always worked for me.
4. Truthfully, none of those are bad things, and I wouldn't mind any of them. I find class balance to be a mostly meaningless term, as it depends too much on how your GM and table operate. You can talk about math and all that, but roleplaying is an effective method of limiting or adding power to an otherwise subpar concept. Player maturity is another often underestimated balancing method. High level play really could be better, but it's stable enough for the occasional campaign finishing boss or one shot. Options are usually good, and I enjoy having them. I like the flexibility of Pathfinder. I can do stuff like say 'Okay, this campaign is Lovecraftian. Break out that Occult book!', and then after that campaign go 'Classic swords and sorcery. Core only!' without needing a new system. There's science fiction rules, Lovecraft, steampunk, and so on. You can really bend it towards whatever you want.
5. I'm not quite sure what you mean by accessible. I'll assume you mean easy to teach to new gamers. I'd love it to be more accessible. Many of the people I play with were introduced to it by me, and several of them don't want to read the books and still ask me to guide them through character creation and other rules. I would find it amazing if the game could be better for those people.
6. No. I would prefer it to be accessibly. The beauty of tabletop gaming is that no one checks if you follow the rules. If I use a stripped down version to introduce people, no one hunts me down. And that means that once someone is indoctrinated, I can modify with house rules and the like. The basic game should be accessible so that hooking new players is easy.
7. I'd try it if Paizo retracted the playtest to give us something new. I'd be really disappointed though. I like wha they have. Whether or not I'd actually play it depends on what it is and how my testing game goes.
8. Honestly? I kind of want to see a complete abolishment of classes. Of course, you could do that very easily from within the playtest. Throw all the class feats into one pile, and use ability scores as prereqs. Multiclass feats already gave us spellcasting feat equivalencies. And maybe give everyone more feats as they level? I've always enjoyed the odd point based character system. However, I also believe that classes do work, and as they're presented in the playtest they work really well.


1) Yes, I do, and I like the new playtest for the most part.

2) Nope, I still like it.

3) I like 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons but honestly I haven't played 4th edition more than once and I didn't really like it that time I played it.

4) All of the above. Truth be told, my group never really goes above level 13 about 99% of the time, so I don't really care about the upper-level so much. What I mostly loved about Pathfinder, more than Dungeons & Dragons, is it's flexible customization. That’s what I enjoy most about the second edition so far. I very much like the idea of choosing different features like Class Feats (or Rogue/Slayer/Ninja traits in 1st edition) rather than static features. I also really enjoy the idea of switching out those same class feats for archetypes and being able to pick up a feat you've passed over later on in your character development.

5) Accessibility is good as long as it's balanced with complexity in player choice. That being said, I don't think the second edition made Pathfinder notably more accessible to those not already familiar with the game. In fact, I think 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons is much more accessible for a newbie then what we see in the playtest so far. Not that that is a bad thing.

6) To a point, yes. I've been teaching people to play Dungeons & Dragons and then Pathfinder almost as long as I have been playing myself. For me, it is important that a game is accessible enough that a new player can pick up a character sheet that I have made and be able to use it with little instructions to give the game a chance to be interesting.

7) Yes, in fact there are a few things in the playtest that I hope get changed, although I do enjoy the playtest as a whole.

8) Honestly I really like the playtest so far and while I do think it requires a little bit of change, in the whole I'm enjoying the spirit of what is going on. In the final version, I would like to see more class feats options for each level of class feats (especially bows feats for Rangers), more archetype options, and I would like the proficiency to be reduced to maybe half you level rounded up and offset by trained, experts, master, legendary bonuses to be doubled.


Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

I definitely like PFe1, but...

Phantasmist wrote:


2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

It is definitely troublesome. It is so thoroughly unbalanced it is difficult to run at times. Especially at high levels.

With a few house rules, I ran a really good campaign last year and the year before.

Phantasmist wrote:


3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

I think some elements of 4th were good, but it was a miniatures combat game, not a RP game. I never played a game of it, I never wanted to run it.

Never played 5th. Sounds very simplified, but better than 4th.

Phantasmist wrote:


4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

I am keen on balance, since unbalanced causes a lot of problems. Fun is more important than balance, but it is hard to have fun without a decent amount of balance.

High level play should be playable. Unlike in PFe1, which in my experience is very, very poor. Does it need to be smooth? Smoothness is not the issue really. The issue is that it is terrible in PFe1.

I like options.

Fun is the most important. All these things can lead to fun. Options and balance can take away from fun if done poorly.

Phantasmist wrote:


5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

I am not that concerned with this. A good system that has a steep learning curve is fine by me. It could be good to have more players playing Pathfinder, but I have a stable group of people to play with.

Phantasmist wrote:


6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Totally.

Phantasmist wrote:


7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Sure. If it is an improvement.

Phantasmist wrote:


8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

-Resonance is a good idea. The current implementation needs some work.

-Signature skills is a good idea. I would like to see a little more freedom with picking signature skills.

-Class feats seems fairly restrictive at times. I am pleased that the power level has been toned down, but I think maybe class options are a bit too limited now. With some classes, you tend to pick a specialisation and then you are going to use at least half of your feats to pursue that specialisation, which neglects some other cool options.

-I think ancestries needs a balance pass.

-I am not 100% sold on the animal companion and mounted combat implementation. But I need to do some more reading. One concern is that reach weapons appear not to have reach when you mounted on a large mount.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
6. This is a dumb question

This is a dumb answer.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
6. This is a dumb question
This is a dumb answer.

This is a good forum sass.


Malthraz wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
6. This is a dumb question
This is a dumb answer.
This is a good forum sass.

Mass sass!

I feel like I'm in a sassy sandwich...


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Phantasmist wrote:
A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it.

Does that mean you don't want to here from fence-sitters?

I'm a PF2 skeptic, but I trust Paizo to create a great game. So I'm a no to the first (I haven't even read it yet, sadly my books are still in transit) but I'm a yes to the second. So I don't really know if I'm happy with the new game, but I probably will be.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

Yes, it's my favorite game.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?

I still like it, but optimization of our PCs mean we have to spend a lot of time to balance premade encounters from APs. And we like optimization and lack the time.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?

5e doesn't have anything that appeals to me. My DM looks at the ease of use for DMing as a boon, as for me I'd rather not run than run 5e. We skipped 4e as we did not like it when it came out, and just got hooked on PF. I'd play a one-shot today, just to compare it with PF2.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Class balance could be closer especially in that non magical classes lack OoC ability. Smoother high level play would be nice but I'm just not seeing it with what I want from high level play (what I want is exactly what PF1 gives me).

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

Would definitely like. PF2 seems to have made some parts more intuitive and organic but I'm not seeing overall ease of use. Actually the playtest looks so cluttered and unreadable. Also, while they made building PCs easier, they've underestimated that picking an action you'll do is face with the same decision paralysis (or even greater in some people I know) than just somebody helping them through leveling up.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Accessibility is important for PF2, more than some of my preferences.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Yes, definitely would like something else than what is presented now in the playtest.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?

I like the basic chassis of PF2 well enough (proficiency scaling, action economy, modularity of classes, degrees of success). Although even there I think that tightness of numbers they are pushing is a bit too much. General feel I don't like - sameness and grittier feel of the game (I like being able to heal between combats at ease, I don't like fixing my shield between every fight, quality of life spells have taken a big hit while also being unable to cast the same number of them). I abhor locking basic competence of combat/weapon styles behind classes. Skill feats which were sold as fixing (or at least narrowing the gap) the C/MD are nowhere near effective and are also pushed as taxes to something you could do before with just putting the ranks in skill.

Lantern Lodge

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yes.. but see #2

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

In particular I find the whole occult class mix quite challenging. Frankly while some folk seem to love them, I think they added mechanical complexity and character power without adding any game depth. I know not everyone feels that way though and some folk love their occult classes.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

I played a bit of 4th edition early on, but met up with PF early in that and found a larger audience to play with so never got deeply into it.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Frankly high level play doesn't work in any system. Sooner or later it comes down to save or (die/suck/whatever) and the characters with the highest inititive modifier pretty much win. I'd prefer that more effort went into the levels that people actually play rather than wasting a lot of time on the high level game that few ever actually use.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

Not too sure what you mean by this.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

I don't know.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Probably, it is just a playtest. I expect there will be changes.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

Better support for different types of characters. I loved the variety that traits brought to PF. I love the variety that the PF and 3.x has with multi classing and prestige classes. I understand they can bring game balance challenges but given the base chassis that PF2 is built on, I'm not too sure they had to be so radically changed.


<big rant incoming>

Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yes, it is my favorite d20 system, and probably my favorite RPG in general. I am currently GMing Carrion Crown, playing in three campaigns, and preparing a group for a one-player module :)

Pathfinder has many things I am searching from a med-fan RPG.

Phantasmist wrote:
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I do not find it troublesome as a whole, but there are some details I do not like in Pathfinder, and I generally houserule them out of my games. From the top of my head :

  • The alignment system : (sadly still present in PF2) in my opinion, you cannot reduce someone to two axis with only three degrees. Most of the time, me and my players do not even follow the alignment of our characters and just react based on their background and experience through the story. And so, it is a data we always forget, because we only use it for specific spells and abilities. (For exemple, I am currently playing a CG eldritch archer in the Emerald Spire. But I take my quests from the Hellknights and follow their rules in their city, even though I, as a character, think they are creepy, their rules are too restrictive, and cringes every time I am reminded of this damn 30% tax on every item sold. Does this make my character LG ? NG ?) It also creates useless debates between players. I remember this one time when I was talking with another GM, and he started telling me that my players were bad roleplayers because the necromancer witch was CN instead of CE and the paladin and inquisitor did not burn her on the spot when she reanimated a dead Troll to defend the party, while in reality my players were roleplaying all the time, and even had a debate about what is acceptable to reanimate a session prior so that the necromancer would not reanimate ennemies unless the group needs it.
  • The age : (corrected in PF2 since everybody is adult roughly at 20 years old) Gods this point infuriated me. In PF1, every race have different ages when they become adult and can go adventuring, with humans being around 18 years old, tieflings/aasimar being around 50-60 years old and elves being 150-ish years old. It led to ridiculous situations. My 130~ years old elf who trained all her life being a hunter and a medic was as good as survival and first aid as the human priestess. Even worse : two characters from our Wrath of the Righteous campaign (a tiefling summoner and an aasimar bloodrager) should have been born before the first crusade even started, and would have waited the fifth crusade before taking part in the fight, with the same power level as the two humans next to them. It was so ridiculous a thought we had to create them slightly younger than the adult age, and our GM had to retcon the crusades and said there was aproximatively 50 years between the fourth and fifth crusade.
  • Monster knowledge checks : (not sure it has been adressed, I have not red the skill chapter yet) again, another thing which led to ridiculous situations. First, I never played with the "you get one info for each difference of 5 points between your roll and the DC" rule, and juste gave my players all the infos, but without details ("this is a werewolf. You know they are weak to silver"). And I always found that a DC based on the monster level to be weird. This meant that you can recognize a goblin easily, but not a goblin with 10 levels of barbarian. You can also recognize a baby blue dragon, which is supposed to be super rare, but you do not have a goshdam' clue about what is supposed to be this giant winged blue lizard beside it (its mother). Some monsters should be recognizable from the get go since they are common (goblins, dire wolves, skeletons and zombies). Others should be harder to recognize based on their rarity (dragons, owlbears, mummies). And some should be unrecognizable because they are unique or so rare you could not have possibly found anything about them (like the Shub Niggurath's larvaes in Carrion Crown, who had a ridiculous DC 15 Knowledge (nature) check while they were supposed to be extinct from centuries). And this difficulty to recognize a monster should not be based on their class level or their age (a goblin with class levels, baby dragon/adult dragon, etc...).
  • Too many underrated feats and feat taxes compared to what you can take : I found that there were too many feats in the end, with feats taxes blocking you from doing what you want. For exemple, you have to take 3 feats to be good at feints. That is a third of your available feats if you are not playing a human.
  • Small races : Strength flaw, malus to weapon damages, moves slowly. They are only good for making casters, and maybe nimble fighters if you rely on on-hit effets.
  • Necromancy is evil : Why ? Again, this is because of the alignment rule. I can totally see a white necromancer who only resurrect soulless monsters/people who accepted to be resurrected once they die. I do not see why most necromancy spells involving the undead should have the "evil" descriptor.
  • AC does not matter at high level : You can try all you want. At high level, except if you have an incredibly high AC thanks to items and spells like the mythic version of Mage Armor, you will be hit 9 times out of 10.
  • Attack of opportunity's interaction with powers and items : (Corrected) I can never remember which item and which kind of power provokes an AoO.
  • Some archetypes are badly written : Eldritch Archer and Synthesist. Sure, they are cool archetypes, and I love playing them. But they are so badly written we have a debate about them aproximatively every session.
  • Summon monster's monster list : (Still here) Starting at level 4-5, there is a vast majority of evil-only monsters who will not answer to your cal. Plus, this is a static list (same for Summon natural ally). In my opinion, it should be treated like animal companions and familiar : in the bestiary, have a box saying if you can summon this monster, and at which Summon Monster level. Like that we can summon newer monsters.
  • Prepared spellcasting : (Still here...) I am a great wizard, with 22 in INT, who can recall ancient arcane knowledge and breath dragons' fire... and I have to read my grimoire every morning to remember how to cast a spell ? Even the spells I use 4 times a day ? What am I, a goldfish ?
  • Stacking bonuses : Which bonus stacks ? Which does not ? Plus, at mid-level, you end up with too many circonstancial bonuses. Starting level 7-10, I almost automatically have to create a formula on Excel which calculates my check's result depending on what bonuses are active, because I am bad at mental calculation and do not want to slow down everyone's game.
  • (Edit) Languages and Linguistic skill : I houserule them out of my games most of the time. I generally just say that a character can read some languages based on its background.
  • (Edit) Diplomacy/Intimidation/Bluff/Sense motive : Social interactions were too separated. I ended up having characters with +20 bluff or diplomacy, but -1 Sense motive. (It has been somewhat adressed in PF2, but I do not like that your Sense motive check is based on your Perception. For me, Sense motive should have been merged with Bluff)

Phantasmist wrote:
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

I never played 4th edition.

As for 5th edition, myeah. It depends. I think it does its job, so I like it. But I largely prefer Pathfinder.
The major thing I do not like about 5th edition is its feats system.

Phantasmist wrote:
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

I'm not sure I understand this question... (english is not my native language)

I'm mainly looking for corrections about the lore and about the problems I pointed out in question 2.

Class balance is not on my top priority, as long as it is not unbalanced enough to make some class unplayable. I'm good with Fighters making a tone more of damage than Bards, as long as Bards have some sick support magic.

Smoother high level play is very important. I like playing difficult classes, but I have to admit that it becomes ridiculous at mid-levels.

As for more options, I would not say "give me more feats I can choose from", but more "allow me to do whatever I want". The latter can be done without giving more creation options.

Phantasmist wrote:
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

It's great ! Less cognitive load for the GM and the players, and it allows me to introduce my friends who have never played an RPG before to my favorite game.

I tried to introduce a friend to PF1 once, and they were having trouble understanding spellcasting (they chose to play a sorcerer).

Phantasmist wrote:
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Hmm... As long as it is at least as accessible as PF1, why not. But the more accessible it can be, the better.

Phantasmist wrote:
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

It depends on the system. Right now, I have red half of the rulebook, and it seems good as it is. If you can make an even better rule system, great, I will probably play it.

Phantasmist wrote:
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

Hmmmmmm... I would like to revert back to skill points instead of skill proficiency. Or maybe have both, so that you can unlock skill feats AND have your skills based on your ranks. This is the biggest point I am missing from PF1.

Also, for multiclassing feats, add feats that allow you to take any class core feature (like the wizard's arcane focus or the warrior's bravery). I like the new multiclassing system, but I miss being able to catch any feature I really want by putting enough levels in my secondary class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.) yes

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.) yes, too much added afterwards

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments) 4th no, 5th better. I didn't play 4th. I played a little of 5th

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.) all of them

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? Yes

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? Yes

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will). Yes

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground) pf1 and pf2.

In general, pf1 was good in a lot things, but some things needed redone. From pf1 I would use the races and skill system, probably the feat system. From pf2 I would the spell system and character generation system. But all of the systems would need some work.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yes, it's my favorite roleplaying system I've ever played. That list includes AD&D 2nd Ed; 3E, 3.5, Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, Star Wars Saga Edition and others in minor roles over my life.

Phantasmist wrote:
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

Pathfinder 1E always had its own share or problems, but most of those have been resolved with houserules by now.

Phantasmist wrote:
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4E being so horrid was the reason I changed to Pathfinder (and how WotC treated their customer base, especially in the case of the Forgotten Realms). I haven't even looked at 5E, given that it is from WotC. Why would I, I already am playing a great game and own most of the books I need. BTW, that last sentence is a hint to the devs here as well. :-/

Phantasmist wrote:
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Smoother high level play and a bit more class balance would be nice. But in general I feel that the latter already is already pretty good. People who scream about linear fighters and quadratic wizards are more theorycrafting than playing the game, it seems to me. Given that characters are played in the context of the adventures we provide to the players, I've yet to see a player at my table be unsatisfied with having played a fighter, because they absolutely destroy opponents at high levels. Rogues are another thing, however.

Phantasmist wrote:
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

Accessible is good. Treating your customers like they need to be led by the nose like cattle is not. Nerfing everything which was standing out a bit as being a good option is bad as well.

Phantasmist wrote:
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Those things are not mutually exclusive to each other, so I think this is a misleading question. There could be a bit more guidance at low levels, so that starting players are not overwhelmed immediately, i.e. a "tips how to build your character" section for each class entry. But otherwise than that, few things you can build are absolutely unplayable and there's always a GM to help a new player out. It's not, IMO, the obligation nor desired position for the developers to force players into having to play a certain way and no other.

Phantasmist wrote:
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Sure. There are good ideas here. But take off the training wheels a bit (remove signature skills, for example), give back some of the nice spell effects (why exactly was Prestidigitaton nerfed?) and don't put too much power into the hands of the GM (uncommon and rare spells/items, resurrection availability by GM fiat, secret and randomized DC's for crafting all are bad ideas, IMO). Players want options and cool stuff. Being swaddled in protective clothing to prevent us from having too much choice will result in losing a good part of your old player base without a certain promise of new players joining you instead of the market leader.

Phantasmist wrote:
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I'll probably repeat myself from the last question but here we go:

1.) Freedom of choice how you want to build your character.
2.) Some guidance in the form of recommendations instead of prohibitions and lack of options.
3.) A compromise between the full versions of spells from PF1E and the "nerfed into the ground" versions we got in this playtest. Un-nerf fun and powerful spells to a middle ground, please.
4.) More staying power for parties. Resonance on consumables has to go. I think that is the worst offender. Or non-magical healing must be made available more than once per day.

If the final version is more close to this playtest document than PF1E, I honestly see little reason to change and continue giving Paizo my money, after they've released the last PF1E supplement. I got a full system on my hands and adventures to run for another 15 years. No matter how much some members of this board seem to want to get rid of veteran players, I think it would behoove Paizo to not gamble too high and discard a very decent chunk of their player base in hopes to nibble away at the edges of 5E.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1. Yes

2. I do find Pathfinder more troublesome than I used to (especially after playing Starfinder for a while), but I still like it.

3. I had fun running characters in 4e, though I didn't play it that often. I've never played 5th, though it sounds like a good system for those looking for a more streamlined d20 game.

4. Patching up the problems with Pathfinder 1, so all of the above, really. I want more bounded statistics for sure, though I'm not sure exactly how bounded I want things.

5. I'm definitely in favor of making the rules simpler and more streamlined, but I don't mind a complex game. I just want one that avoids meaningless complexity.

6. Yes.

7. Of course. I like a lot of what's been presented in PF2 (I have a few issues), but a different direction for the new might appeal to me as much or perhaps more.

8. It's hard to say, really. If I can still run the sorts of adventures I like to, and find the mechanics facilitate a deep and entertaining game, I'm not particularly concerned with the specifics.


magnuskn wrote:

3.) A compromise between the full versions of spells from PF1E and the "nerfed into the ground" versions we got in this playtest. Un-nerf fun and powerful spells to a middle ground, please.

4.) More staying power for parties. Resonance on consumables has to go. I think that is the worst offender. Or non-magical healing must be made available more than once per day.

+1 to this. If I could edit my post, I would add those points.


Phantasmist wrote:

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

With the caveat that I like what I have read, but I have not had a chance to play PF2 yet:

1. Yes. I like it a lot, but I am not blind to its flaws.

2. Also yes. These days I like playing Pathfinder, and I do not mind GMing it short term (like in PFS) but I would probably not run another extended campaign in it.

3. D&D 4e I like a lot. I don't hate D&D 5e, but I was disappointed with it. It felt like a bit of a missed opportunity.

4. Yes to all of them.

5/6. I think PF2 could be made more accessible with a few layout tweaks and another pass at the terminology, with no real change to the underlying mechanics, so that should (and hopefully will) happen.

7. Of course, but as always the devil is in the details.

8. One thing I think would benefit PF2 enormously is static Reflex, Fortitude, and Will defences rather than saving throws. Unfortuately, I think that would smack too much of 4e for a large part of the audience.

_
glass.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:
A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

No. I feel like the game quickly became overcomplicated and obsessed with needless bookkeeping and all the attempts to prevent loopholes and imbalance sucked all the air and creativity out of the game. It became way too gamist for my sensibilities and I just couldn't handle it.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I was an old school champion of Pathfinder in the early days. I went to the first Paizocon. I loved it as a setting under the OGL D&D rules and I loved the first draft of the rules Jason Bulmahn wrote. But the game was forced to grow up too fast when the decision was taken to become its own game. It didn't have the time to generate the fresh perspectives that gave us Pathfinder Goblins and the 'Loguer' (the Texas Chainsaw ogres envisioned by Nick Logue). Everything else became relatively generic. The game became basically D&D. The new nations became essentially knock offs of tropes and real world countries. Even the adventure paths became increasingly setting neutral feeling. The first playtest was extremely pointed. We were a very story and character focused group, largely playing theater of the mind and interested in shaping the new rules in a direction friendly to that kind of play. That wasn't, as it turns out what the playtest at the time was about or what anyone in it was interested in hearing about. The resulting rules were, I think, largely a reaction against 4e. They were very rulesy and not particularly interested in 'realism' of any kind. Slowly the flavor got replaced by math.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4e was deeply troubled. The tone was weird. Powers were frustrating and made the game less about diving into the world and more about picking what thing you do off a list. It seemed to try and abolish theater of the mind play. But at the same time the race writeups were the best ever. The way rituals and alchemy worked were the best ever. The rules for sentient items were the best ever. The multiclassing feats, hybrid classes, backgrounds and themes combined with dozens of playable races and classes made for a rich and diverse world that was deeply satisfying. What sold me most and made me stick with 4e, even through the rough times, was that they gave us the Fallen Lands setting and the Nentir Vale which absorbed all the weird orphaned content released in the 3e days--the stuff that wasn't Greyhawk or any other setting, that was compelling but didn't fit anywhere. Now it did. And I LOVED that. Books that had previously been worthless to me I could dig out now and cherish. That's the greatest gift 4e gave me.

5e was a labor of love. It was the One Edition to Rule Them All and I was its biggest champion. The Hit Dice idea and healing rules remain weird, but on the whole it is an elegant, simple design that embodies the core of what I love about Dungeons & Dragons. As the game has rolled on the sourcebooks have been consistently good and the hardbound adventures have been consistently heartbreaking and flawed. As someone who cherishes the Forgotten Realms they have made the setting almost unplayable now. I can't even look at it.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

I want a more flavorful, fast playing game with more Golarion in it. Something that can evolve beyond being a D&D clone into becoming an original fantasy world and setting of its own. I want elegant mechanics that are friendly to gamers like me who see tactics as more than how you move your minis around on a map, where we're interested in delving into a world and living in it, not just killing monsters. Class balance is only important insomuch as all the classes are fun to play and there's a reason to play any of them, but more than that I dig stuff like the new bard muses that aren't about figuring out what they do in a fight, but are about creating flavor and fun within the constraints of the mechanics. More options is fine if those options are meaningful, but I really don't want to suffer through having to pick which inconsequential conditional +1 modifier I get. I would like to see the assassination rogue we currently have be an option, but also a confidence hustler rogue, a master of disguise rogue, a locksmith rogue, a slave liberator rogue, a scout infiltrator rogue. That's the kind of options I'd be interested in.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

I'm not sure what you mean by accessable. Simpler to pick up and play? Certainly. Appealing to more different schools of gamer? Absolutely. Going beyond the echo chamber to speak to non Paizo loyalists? It's kind of do or die that it does.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

I think my answers to question 4 lead to accessibility, but if I had to choose, I'd want accessibility and then I can add my own options and houserules to make the game more what I want. It's most important that the game do well.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Certainly, if that's what helps the developers in their efforts. The trouble I got into last time we had a playtest was this same problem. If playing an alternative rules set doesn't help the developers with their job, they don't pay attention--and consequently we're not really playtesting. Mostly I just want to help with whatever gets us a great game.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I'd like to see a game that's mechanically elegant, full of fun, diverse flavorful backgrounds, ancestries and classes that each contribute roughly a third of a finished character. I'd want fast fun character creation with powerful, meaningful choices and very little fiddly number crunching. I'd like to see a setting that evolves beyond its roots as an attempt to preserve a beloved old game system and becomes a dynamic world full of original detail that draws from highbrow literary and pulp fantasy roots. I'd like to see the realistic things in the world feel really real and tangible and the magical things feel really wondrous and magical, not just in the flavor text but in the actual mechanics. I'd like a game where the combat is fun and fast and tactical (but in the way that real world fighting is tactical--not board game tactical) but where the setting is so immersive you might not even want to fight or even pick up the dice for sessions at a time sometimes.


this is becoming an interesting thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
It is good at what it seems to want to be: a number crunching, min/max friendly game, with extensive variety in how it can be played. There are ways to play it that I enjoy, I rarely find other players who want from it what I want from it.

Simple answer: not really

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I love pathfinder with just the core book. It's the slow accumulation of optimal choices that make it dull.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
Both are great at what they want to be. 4th isn't really for me, but its better than people give it credit for. 5th edition is a game I like.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Less class balance, and more game balance. A game where the rewards for making the optimal choices in character creation aren't strongly felt, thereby enabling more options (if the optimal choices aren't game breaking, the sub-optimal choices are acceptable to take).
Sub-optimal choices being acceptable means more character variety, and more variety in game play. There is nothing worse than one-trick pony characters who solve every problem with their hammer because the other tools just aren't worth even considering. It's boring no matter what side of the table you're on.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Easier to understand rules means more players, more players means more success for paizo, more success for paizo means more products. Win-Win.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I think accessibility leads to what I want from the game.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
Checking out systems is always fun. Even if that system doesn't stick around.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
A game where min/maxing is not essential to gameplay, it can be rewarded, but not so much that you have "must take" powers/classes/spells/etc. Where complexity always has a purpose and isn't there for its own sake. Anything where creativity and agency matters more than stats is a good start.


Beefriedrice 2 wrote:

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

It is good at what it seems to want to be: a number crunching, min/max friendly game, with extensive variety in how it can be played. There are ways to play it that I enjoy, I rarely find other players who want from it what I want from it.

Simple answer: not really

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I love pathfinder with just the core book. It's the slow accumulation of optimal choices that make it dull.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
Both are great at what they want to be. 4th isn't really for me, but its better than people give it credit for. 5th edition is a game I like.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Less class balance, and more game balance. A game where the rewards for making the optimal choices in character creation aren't strongly felt, thereby enabling more options (if the optimal choices aren't game breaking, the sub-optimal choices are acceptable to take).
Sub-optimal choices being acceptable means more character variety, and more variety in game play. There is nothing worse than one-trick pony characters who solve every problem with their hammer because the other tools just aren't worth even considering. It's boring no matter what side of the table you're on.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Easier to understand rules means more players, more players means more success for paizo, more success for paizo means more products. Win-Win.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I think accessibility leads to what I want from the game.

7. Would you be willing to play...

This whole post is gold. If the new edition gets made for this guy I will love it!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

So, my answers got a little long, and in order to make them both easier to follow and sort through and avoid TLDR I've put them behind some spoiler tags. Enjoy, and I hope they help answer your question man.

1.) Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.):
Yes, but see 2.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.):
Though I still love 1e, I do have things I look at as troublesome or problematic. There are still a lot of things left over from 3.5 that now after 10 years feel archatic like the design of clerics (who are powerful but don't feel like a left hand of god), the overbloat of power that druids have compared to nearly all other classes, the underpowered nature of the rogue even after changes that leaves them kind of unable to do the things new and old players think a rogue should do, or the skills system not always scaling into the late game.

I also have issues with a lot of problematic parsing that comes up in the way certain plot points or narrative pieces are written for Pathfinder in particular their regards to race and narrative about native peoples or as the books often refer to them "primitive". Both of these make it difficult for me to recommend these products to friends of mine of color or certain other disenfranchised ethnic groups, since we run into issues where their cultural history has been co-opted but they, their ethnicity has been replaced. The halfling underground railroad is often my go to example of the latter, and often leads to uncomfortable and long discussions about how awkward it is that for me to write a Django Unchained, Nat Turner, or Hatian Revolution narrative in Golarion for that audience when the game makes that piece of history something that is told with someone who's more often represented by Elijah Wood than Jamie Fox. And though Garund exists, that does not represent their experiences or their history, and having it co-opted is something that many in those communities often take umbrage with and with good reason.

This also appears in things like the bestiaries in more abbreviated forms like how the Blights call out "primitive peoples" as being more easily duped into believing they are gods than "civilized" folk, but the same colonialist sentiment is there, and it makes looking at some of this problematic in ways I'm not a fan of and difficult to share with the more diverse audience I often surround myself with.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments):
Was not a fan of 4e since it kind of boiled all the classes down into very samy mechanically with what felt like a thin veneer of narrative to try and conceal it. I have not played or looked into 5e much, but I do like some of the mechanics I've seen pop up. Weapons just having finesse and dumping the feat makes a stronger game, I like how dragons of sufficient age warp the terrain they live in, and I like advantage/disadvantage as it is easily implemented and intuitive to players new and old.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.):
Class balance I think is a misnomer, so to be clear there, I'd rather see more dynamic and interesting classes who each do something unique with the mechanics of the game or unique with the narrative. I want rogues who can actually split from the party and drop explosive sneaks when they sneak, I want clerics who feel like they work for a god and wield his power (with great hesitation) rather than are just "the buffer", I want fighters who feel like a pit where the enemies hopes of martial victory go to die when played right and like a 20th level fighter is the guy who will have military schools for generations popping up teaching his style (like, your combat feat chain is literally thought of as "Insert PCs name here"). Right now, the system doesn't really do that for every class, and some, like those above, really get the short end of the stick.

I do want higher level play to actually work, but that's an issue for if/when any of my home games ever reach that state and since few do, I'd be fine with light fixes there or even maybe removing some of it altogether, but I do see that it needs a fix for any of it to really work.

I do love more options, but right now I want tighter focus an tune up on what's already here to improve the feeling of play for both new players and old. The CRB is in desperate need of a layout overhaul and NEEDS to have whole chapters restructured to make information that is KEY to the game where it is easily findable and sorted with like terms and ideas to cut the amount of time EVERYONE has to do looking around for anything. I shouldn't have a Core Rulebook where I have to search 3 different parts of the book over 400 pages to find out how low-light vision interacts with dim light, and that interaction should be consistent across the whole book. This also goes for things like feats & spells, which both need more trimming and focus. We have too many of both that are just not flavorful, interesting, or rewarding and as such they get buried and make it harder to find interesting stuff we like or balance the game. Cut spells that cause bottlenecks, combine like spells to give more utility (which buff spont casters), dump feats that don't add anything and/or incorporate them into the core mechanics. Like, make the vigilante talent Nothing Can Stop Me should be something anyone can do, not just something batman can pull off.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?:
I love accessibility, adding more of it, both in mechanical cleanliness, inclusive narrative, and better layout of rules are at the heart of most of my complaints. Make my clerics feel more like they wield the great and terrible power of god but are always flirting with disaster as they try to please them, give me a campaign setting where African Americans can play out their own power fantasy where they can fight the chattel slavery of Cheliax and take over like I can take over and rewrite the history of the french revolution insert in Galt, and give me a rules system and a CRB that doesn't feel like it takes 4 years of study to start finally understanding that has a single unified design theory that helps prevent every gaming group from having a fundamentally different understanding of the rules and by extension the design and balance of the game.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?:
Not really. I feel like a lot of the accessibility issues in 1e come from the nature of it's initial birth, as an expansion/revision of a previous system, and that there were always multiple writers/developers involved but not necessarily working collaboratively to make it. Some of the rules were already 5 years old from 3.5 and written by people that were never on Paizo's staff when PF came out and with the limited window to put it out a lot of stuff feels like it's "in the CRB" but not necessarily in the place it's supposed to be. This, is where a lot of the issues with 1e in my experience tend to start with new players, and with Paizo's system of replies and interactions with players the problems only compound. From here, rules get found to be problematic but once they are in a bound book they are rarely changed, just worked around, and then those work arounds don't get shared with all the dev team and the system starts to buckle under the strain.

Make book layout a priority and think about the way we as players will read it both when we are starting and when we have logged hundreds of hours and design the book for that, and accessibility will increase. Be willing to change the rules, even core ones that have been out for years, if a much better solution comes along and MODIFY THE PDFS WHEN YOU DROP THE CHANGES, and keep older versions of the pdfs on file so we can cycle back if we want to and we will have a more cohesive game. Take a page out of games like DotA or LoL and think of the game as something that has new things added but also cleans up and refines the old as time goes on. Note, that large fundamental changes are not something I want all the time, but if its a choice between continuing to use rules that no one likes for 10 years until 3rd comes along or rewriting them to give all of us clarity now, I'd take the latter. Just let me have access to older versions of the pdfs too when I buy it lol.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).:
Yes! 5e Starfinder feels too much like a beast chasing trends rather than making them. I LOVE the new weapon rules, I think the 3 action economy is compelling, and I love the idea of ancestries having stuff that is gathered over time but good god, all of it feels like it's buried in moves that are steps back. Everything is called a feat and that waters down the uniqueness of each category and hides in each option and overwhelms new players with a big list that is actually a bunch of tiny lists they will have to pick through with a shared name. Ancestries feel like they are giant nerfs to old options and punish a lot of racial choices (particularly half-orcs). Backgrounds feel so much like 5e that it makes me wonder what's the difference and the whole no point buy/background thing feels like it's rife for exploits that will lead to just 4-5 choices being used and the rest just being page filler like how PFS sees a TON of PCs who are either Reactionary or Bullied as their traits.

I'm also not digging how skills are essentially the d100 system from Call of Cthulhu but with all the ease of use and understanding pulled out. Weapons have a ton of cool new abilities but the lack of high crits, crit ranges, and some clarity on how some of the abilities work (like, if a weapon has Charge and does a d8, do I add +1 or +1d8) really kills them. Also, having the Starfinder layout of all melee together and all ranged together is also a pain since if I'm running a character who say, only has simple proficiency, I'm going to be flipping all over the book. Keep it sorted by how the classes naturally sort them, rather than devising a whole new organization method from the way I as a player am taught to sort them in my mind. Along with this, the two tier system of monsters and PCs being built in mutually exclusive ways feels like something that will inevitably lead to problems with design, as monsters feel more like mobs and PCs more like powered up super gods. Like, I'm still confused on how PC vs. evil NPC design is supposed to work, and though I get some of the conceits here, I think that the disconnect that will happen when say I use a weapon and do X dmg but a bandit with the same gear and similar strength does Y "because reasons" will cause problems. Also, I hope that the new better design of stat block does not mean we will get the cramped, headache inducing bunch of math we currently have in the playtest bestiary.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground):
Ohh lord, so much. Beyond the things I mentioned as liking above (with rewrites for things like ancestry feats) I'd love to see tighter and more severe combat. As it stands, combat can drag on in 1e and even more so at higher levels because it's basically just two bags of hp hitting each other until one of them hits -1+ with nothing really changing over that time. What's worse is it that problem plays into all the gameplay, to the point that you learn quick it's better to just dmg a guy than do anything else (dmg in this instance includes summoning things to kill them or magic to say drop them down a hole. Other benefits might happen, but they are ancillary to the dmg). Give me more things that happen along side dmg that make them as valuable if not sometimes better so that I don't have to just bash everything to pulp in combat to be useful.

2nd, make turning people to pulp in combat easier. I know this seems counter intuitive, but hear me out. Making combat deadlier allows it to move more quickly and shortens or removes the amount of time we as players and particularly as martials, spend just hitting each other waiting for something to drop and the game state to change. By making combat more deadly, we also make it both less optimal a decision or response to problems we face in game and as such encourage more interesting gameplay like stealth, intrigue, or subterfuge, while simultaneously rewarding those who do get it down. When done well and with intent this is how games like Dark Souls or Call of Cthulhu work, where you feel really smart for solving a problem without having to draw your swords (which makes classes like Bard or Rogue more valuable and more fun to play) and makes combat more fun when you feel like you really had to think out a fight to solve it. In my home games I have been using rules that model this from Skirmisher's excellent insults & injuries book for bone breaking and I have to say it has done this, and I'd love to see Paizo take a similar route. It feels too good to be able to play a fighter and be able to stop a wizard by breaking his wrist with a baseball bat and then capturing him or watching players think twice about just picking a fight with the giant cause he's mean and instead actually tricking him or outsmarting him to gain an advantage to not be a good thing.

3rd MORE DICE. One of my biggest complaints mechanically about 3.5 and PF is that, after a certain point, the dice really stop mattering. If you're a martial character by 3-5 you usually have more damage coming off of your mods than the dice you roll, which removes a lot of the fun that comes from the actual game and makes it feel more like accounting. Players roll a d8 and somehow do 35 dmg and everyone just kind of stares. The first few times it's fun, but without any sort of visual or sensory feedback it makes a disconnect to the audience and blunts the appeal of that big hit. And, it means that you are constantly running the risk of having to back check a ton of math because of how incredulous that "roll 1d8, do 86 dmg" incident feels. Like, we all know one of the funnest feelings in this game is that moment when you throw a fireball and have that handful of d6's or when you see the rogue crit with a pick, or the terror of the GM saying, "The dragon unleashes his breath weapon" and you see him pick up so many dice he needs two hands. The game needs that, and I feel like their are places we can put more of that in. Let every class use more dice more often and I think we can all have some serious fun.

Those are the starts, I have more and more details, but those are things I'd rather not discuss here and this post has already gotten a little long. Hope that helps!

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Beefriedrice 2 wrote:

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

It is good at what it seems to want to be: a number crunching, min/max friendly game, with extensive variety in how it can be played. There are ways to play it that I enjoy, I rarely find other players who want from it what I want from it.

Simple answer: not really

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I love pathfinder with just the core book. It's the slow accumulation of optimal choices that make it dull.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
Both are great at what they want to be. 4th isn't really for me, but its better than people give it credit for. 5th edition is a game I like.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Less class balance, and more game balance. A game where the rewards for making the optimal choices in character creation aren't strongly felt, thereby enabling more options (if the optimal choices aren't game breaking, the sub-optimal choices are acceptable to take).
Sub-optimal choices being acceptable means more character variety, and more variety in game play. There is nothing worse than one-trick pony characters who solve every problem with their hammer because the other tools just aren't worth even considering. It's boring no matter what side of the table you're on.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Easier to understand rules means more players, more players means more success for paizo, more success for paizo means more products. Win-Win.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I think accessibility leads to what I want from the game.

Great work and I echo a lot of these, especially #4 (which often is described as "The crossbow problem" in my neck of the woods) but I think 2 is kind of inevitable. Paizo isn't WotC, who has other business ventures to fall back on to make money (i.e. Magic the Gathering) and therefore have to keep publishing to keep the lights on and pay their writers. Most of these books are one time purchases so it's not like you can keep selling a core rulebook to the same customers over and over again, so they have to generate new content. That said, I think with a tighter focus on making sure new options let you do new things and approach obstacles in different ways rather than just vast improvements that over optimize already strong options that make "suboptimal" options worse.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Beefriedrice 2 wrote:


2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I love pathfinder with just the core book. It's the slow accumulation of optimal choices that make it dull.

As a Monk player, I will brawl you IRL come at me scrublord I'm ripped.


Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1.- Yes, It's currently my favorite d20 game.

2.- I've always known the game isn't perfect, but I don't exactly find it "Troublesome" I do understand that some people do find it that specifically because of how complex it is and how much the game grew beyond how it was at first.

3.- That is a hard question to answer... First: What is a 4th? ;) Second: I immediately saw the potential in 5th, and that potential is exactly my problem with it. I love how amazing 5th could be, but sadly it will take a long time (I think) for it to become as good as it could. I just think the devs might have forgotten to actually finish the game...

4.- Another hard question to answer... I like long campaigns, with characters I can grow over time and end up playing as high-level badasses. I don't know about balance, but I feel like every class should feel powerful or at least fun enough to play.

5.- I don't think making the game more accessible is a bad thing, as long as the game is still fun. I don't think it should be dumbed down, but I like optimization. Complicated games can be fun if they're complicated for a good reason, if it adds depth to the game while remaining fun. The moment it becomes bad, is when you're rolling 1d1000000 to see if you're a freak of nature. I can see where people come from when they say Pathfinder 1e is not a good starter RPG. I started with 3.5, so I think it's great, but if making it simpler will attract more people, as long as the game is still fun, I'm okay with it.

6.- If I had to press one of two buttons... Yes, because I'm nice, but I'm also selfish.

7.-Sure! It's only a playtest! First look I gave the book, I was horribly disappointed, and I thought I'd hate it, but after a bit, everything started making sense and I started seeing a potentially fun game in there, that I'm expecting to change and improve until it releases. It'd be a shame for me if they changed things like the Action Economy or other small details that I've liked, because I feel that's the gimmick of this edition in particular, and I rather like it... But I signed up for this to be up for whatever.

8.- Make it fun, make it cool, make it flashy, make it make sense, and by all the gods make the spells a bit better! :p

Hope it helps


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?

1. No, I also loathe 3.5.
2. Yes, I thought it fixed some of the balance issues in 3.5, but the shine wore off quickly.
3. 4th, no. 5th, yes. I've played 5e weekly for over two years, though we do play a house ruled version.
4. All the above, but I really am looking for something that is similar to bounded accuracy. I have suggested removing the added level calculations.
5. Accessible is good, but at what cost? Longevity?
6. Not sure that is an applicable question.
7. Sure. And if P2 doesn't get rid of the horrible level scaling, I'll remove it and play that version.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
----
No. I was never a fan of 3.0 or 3.5 and the few times that I've played Pathfinder online and in person have generally been bad experiences. To me the system feels bloated. I think Pathfinder 1, for those who want that sort of game is perfect for them. I also don't think that the second edition of Pathfinder needed to be a system similar to Pathfinder 1e. People who are playing and enjoy PF 1e will continue to play it. They have more than enough content to run for years to come. Not to mention third party support.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
----
No. I've never liked the system.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
----
I enjoyed 4th edition for what it was. I accepted that it was a different sort of game and I eventually found myself enjoying the systems they had in place. To me I think it was still a little cumbersome but ultimately I had a lot of fun with it. 5th Edition is an even better game, they've brought it back to the roots of the original systems while maintaining the clean formatting and tight rules of 4th edition. Wizards did a marvelous job.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
----
I think these things are fine as long the systems are formatted in such a way that it makes character creation easy to follow. I also don't want to be in a situation where I feel like I'm required to own another 2-3 books besides the core rules to create a complete character or to "compete" with other characters.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?----
I think in a world where Roleplaying games are becoming more mainstream and far more popular than they have EVER been, making games more accessible isn't just a good business decision, but a necessary one.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
----
No. Players can house rule content if it's required. I would rather the game be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. I think it's a good thing moving forward in a world where roleplaying games are becoming as popular as they are.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?
----
I play whatever I find fun.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
----
Accessibility. Fun options. Solid systems. Easy math. Limited splat books.


Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1) Yes with minor gripes (c/MD)

2) Some of the rules needed to keep older classes on par with those introduced in Advanced Players Guide & beyond are spread out over multiple books (fighter & rogue mostly) & the revamping of Summoner as well as drastic reediting of a couple of the splat book classes (shifter)

3) 4th ed at first yes but as more books came out everything blended together into one big pile of blah, 5th I enjoy but the options still feel kind of limiting.

4) Class & high level game balance are my main concerns with going from 1e to 2e.

5) I'm cool with it.

6) No

7) So long as those options were also play tested yes

8) I think what is presented is done pretty well, aside from minor gripes about certain Marshall feats (especially style fleets) being locked behind a specific class, some spells feeling blah, the alchemist needing more resonance, the ranger feeling lack luster, & ancestry feats seeming weirdly placed during leveling I'm enjoying the system. Unsure what can be productively improved upon beyond minor tweaks.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

I don’t dislike it, but it’s not my first choice of game to run anymore. We played it for about six or seven years as our primary game.

Quote:
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

Yes. I stopped running it because the volume of options made building things tedious and practically necessitated using Hero Lab.

Quote:
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

My group likes 5e more than 4e, which it really did not like. I don’t think they are bad systems, but 5e suffers from a lack of options and oversimplification. If I had to rank them, I’d say 4e is a better system mechanically while 5e probably hews closer to the feel of D&D.

Quote:
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

None of those things, specifically. PF2 makes core optional rules I was using (e.g., the unchained action economy) or implements things I had long house-ruled (such as how I positioned modifiers versus DCs for determining skill checks). I’m looking for more consistency with fewer pointless special cases and also accessibility, because my players aren’t builders, and having an overload of feats makes picking the right one too time-consuming. I also like the new dying rules, since they were designed specifically to address a situation that happened in my game (PC took a hit that didn’t drop him below zero then took another that dropped him below −Constitution).

Quote:
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

It’s generally a good thing.

Quote:
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

No.

Quote:
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Since we’re currently playing a different system now (Open Legend), and this is a playtest, I’d be willing to try something else. However, I generally like what I have seen so far (although there are a few things I’m not sure about yet and won’t be until I run it for my group in a few weeks).

Quote:
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I’d like to see a more intentioned hero point economy. Otherwise, I’d be willing to try something new for the sake of testing, though I’d prefer it not err on the side of being too much like 5e if it went that direction.

Grand Lodge

1.
Yes, ran a bunch of society games too. Stopped playing because everyone migrated to 5e.

2.
It's always been troublesome.

3.
Sort of. 5e is very flat and lacks a lot of personality, but it's very easy to homebrew so I often steal content and ideas from PF SRD for it. 4e I wasn't allowed to play (which is why I played PF)

4.
I'd like the game to just run faster. Pathfinder doesn't feel 'fast' it feels 'math'.

5.
This may be difficult to come at with fresh eyes, but Table Top RPGs are disgusting to try to 'get into'. I know people who play every new board game that comes out and they don't play D&D type games because they are 'too difficult and weird'. These are people who play Terraforming Mars, Betrayal: House On The Hill and Settlers Of Catan; they have the ability but lack the impetus and it's all D&Ds fault, not theirs.

6.
Less accessible, I don't know how that's possible but lets say the core rule book is only written in sanskrit cyphers I would burn it all and never come back.

7.
I am still struggling to learn PF2s system. I've read the book for 5 hours and managed to run a quick an dirty session with some other interested people- I still feel like I have no idea what I'm doing.

8.
PF2.5 (Lite Edition)


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
Not really. I extensively homebrewed the system as a GM to improve class balance and eliminate trap options for my players. I also find there is way too much content bloat and many archetypes, feats, spells, class are basically taking space for nothing and making it more harduous to understand the system limits.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
I was thrilled back in the days, mostly bu the Setting and the Lore Paizon created. The system was familiar coming from 3.5, but the flavor was in the fluff. I am still playing now, but only because of my homebrew content. If I hadn't a full custom bestiary on my bookshelve, I might have given in to my players's pressure and switched to 5th (god forgive me for saying that).

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
I don't really like 5th edition so much, I find it over-simplified. However, I played a bit of 4th and I actually really liked stuff like Skill Challenges and the more tactical gameplay during the fights for the martial classes.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
I am mostly looking for a more streamlined and effective game engine, as well as better class balance. At least making the martials still relevant past mid-levels.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
It's necessary if Paizo wants to survive in the long run, and I want Golarion to continue to expand.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I would be ok wth a less accessible system, but I think it would defeat the point of attracting new players.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?
Maybe, it depends. I really like the new action economy and most of the changes so far. The lack of options is my only problem, and it's mostly due to size limitation on the playtest book.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
No more traditionnal prepared casters. Go full Arcanist mode or use Spell Pool, but prepared casting is too time consuming for my taste.


Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. No.

2. Yes. I liked it initially as an improvement over 3.5, as it fixed some of the bigger, better known problems with the game. However, the game now suffers from the same level of rules and power bloat that 3.5 had. Also, as the results of promotions and procreation, I don't have the kind of prep time or playing time that I used to have 10 years ago. So I need a game I can run with less prep and that goes fairly quickly at the table. If we only have 2 and a half hours to play on a given game night, I'd rather get through three or five encounters instead of only one or two.

3. 4th was OK, but problematic for me and mine. We played one campaign with it when it first came out, but my group as a whole didn't enjoy it, so we moved on after an unintended TPK around level 6 or 7. I enjoy 5th, and it is the current system I use with my group, though I don't think the game is without its problems.

4. From your list, class balance would probably be my biggest priority. Other things I would want are, as mentioned, quicker play and easier prep. I'd like a game robust with options but without being so bogged down with them such that any character that is not made with options from at least three (or whatever) splatbooks is severely underpowered as compared to everyone else. And let me say that I totally get that having hundreds, or thousands, of options is big part of the fun of PF's hardcore fan base, but it's no longer what I'm looking for in my game system of choice, which is why I'm no longer a Paizo customer. There is, to my mind, a sweetspot for character customization, and currently PF1 is pretty far beyond it (for my own tastes only, obviously).

5. It's a necessity for me to play the game at all. No one in my current gaming circles is playing PF anymore. Many of them came into the hobby outside of 3.5/PF, but a lot of the others left for other systems more to their liking, 5e foremost among them. But if I can't bring those players to the table to try PF, I can't use it. Currently, while two of my friends and I have played around with the system a bit (i.e., making characters and running a couple of encounters), we are having a hell of a time organizing enough players to actually play the playtest adventure. The reluctance of our recruits is due in large part to their perceptions of PF1.

6. Nope. See my answer to question 5 above. Although I agree this is a bit of a false dichotomy as you can have a complex system that is still accessible. For example, I would say compare the HERO system with Mutants and Masterminds. Both are fairly robust systems in terms of options, but I find M&M to be fairly accessible to new players, the HERO system not so much.

7. Sure, I guess? I mean, it depends on what I'm looking at. If it's just another PF1 with a few minor tweaks to fix big issues, I will probably walk away from the playtest. What's got me interested in this one is that it's a substantial shift away from PF1 towards more of the kind of game I'm looking to play.

8. Beyond what I've already mentioned in my previous questions, I don't think anything springs to mind. If Paizo can deliver a game that plays fast, doesn't require as much prep time or system mastery to play, but provides more character customization than 5e currently does, then I'm in.


Beefriedrice 2 wrote:


4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?

Less class balance, and more game balance. A game where the rewards for making the optimal choices in character creation aren't strongly felt, thereby enabling more options (if the optimal choices aren't game breaking, the sub-optimal choices are acceptable to take).
Sub-optimal choices being acceptable means more character variety, and more variety in game play. There is nothing worse than one-trick pony characters who solve every problem with their hammer because the other tools just aren't worth even considering. It's boring no matter what side of the table you're on.

I already posted, but I just wanted to say, very well said!

My distinct impression is that the playtest is achieving this pretty well, the reining in of the power spikes and the variety and flavour of the skill feasts in particular.

Apologies for breaking the thread rule.


Phantasmist wrote:

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yes.

Phantasmist wrote:

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I think there is room for improvement with it, but I still mostly like the system.

Phantasmist wrote:

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

No. I found 4th edition too rigid and 5th edition too bland. There are aspects of 5th edition that I like, but overall the system is rather flat.

Phantasmist wrote:

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

I'm hoping to see some rough spots of the system smoothed out a bit. High level play is one of them, the caster/martial disparity is another (although I wouldn't aim for "class balance" per se), the balance of single-monster encounters, the "stand still and full-attack" strategy, etc. More options will come as the system matures.

Phantasmist wrote:

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

Great! Pathfinder is very complex, and I don't know if I could have gotten into it without other experienced players to guide me.

Phantasmist wrote:

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

I think this would ultimately lead to the death of the game.

Phantasmist wrote:

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

I would be willing to play and give feedback on whatever Paizo created.

Phantasmist wrote:
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I think the framework of what's been presented so far is very solid. The options and content just need tweaking, and that's why we're playtesting. I'm confident that we'll have something fun by the end of the process.


Full disclosure, I'm not 100% positive on 2e, but I definitely think its base system is solid, so I expect the playtest to solve most of my issues, since my issues don't seem to be unique.

1. Yes, though I see many of its faults.

2. Essentially the same answer as 1; From day 1, I wasn't so keen on just how closely they stuck to 3.x, retaining many of its well known faults, but I know why they did it.

3. They're not terrible, but they aren't systems I'd want to do an ongoing campaign with. 4e's been the "sum of its parts are greater than the whole" system for me, ever since I first played it, because it has some good ideas, but fails in its execution. 5e is just too bare bones for me. Not enough customization and if I wanted mechanics light fantasy, it's far from the first system I'd go to.

4. To an extent, all, but not strongly so. Class balance isn't so much a thing for me as C/MD, since balance is pretty nebulous, and C/MD to me is more about not being outshined in your own niche. Higher Level Play is a nice bonus, as it is a shame that PF1e campaigns often petered out around level 12, rather than having a chance to reach the capstones, but it's more of a bonus than anything. And options are probably what I'm most looking for, but also the area that PF2e is most disappointing me, as class feats and such seem to provide an artificial increase in options, where things like signature skills and less impactful general feats restrict options to mostly class-stereotypes.

5. Accessibility is a good thing, but I think pushing accessibility over making a good game is a losing proposition, since trying to fight out the accessible market with 5e won't work out for them. So I think making the game a strong, options-heavy, mechanically interesting game first, and then making that system as accessible as it can be, second, is what I'd like.

6. Largely answered in 5, but I wouldn't give up the high level of options (at least in so far as I expect them to actually deliver in the final product), for accessibility, but I think the other things in 4 are ok to be sacrificed.

7. Probably. The rules system presented is solid, but I don't think it's more than just one way of solving the problems. I do like a lot of the base system, though, so I'd be open to it, but not necessarily swayed.

8. High level of meaningful options is crucial, and in that vein, I'd like to see more of an ability to stray from the stereotypical expectations of the class. So whatever system would be the alternate 2e, I think doing away with Signature skills and allowing for greater overlap in feat choice between classes and removing what feel to be artificial restrictions, at least compared to 1e (Totem anathema, for the most part, as well as deity requirements for paladins, ect). Apart from that, I think the skill feat system (if not the skill feats themselves) would make for a good thing I'd want to see kept in this alternate 2e, as well as the stat generation system (though I'd maybe separate a class' key ability score from the ability boost the class grants). I haven't played much with the 3 action system, but that's also something that I think the alternate 2e should keep.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

A. Yes, I do. Very much.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?

A. No, I find myself still enjoying both the majority of the mechanics as well as the lore of the campaign.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?

A. I do, they both have their own appeals.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?

A. I was looking for a more streamlined experience across the board and a bit better balance. One of my biggest joys of PF2E has so far been the Skill Proficiency System and the Crafting Mechanics in general.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

A. I'm all for it.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

A. I'm not sure I understand this question.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?

A. I'm usually willing to play in most systems, though it really depends where you're going with these questions.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?

A. I've only had some minor concerns and gripes about PF2E. The biggest one has probably got to be the Resonance mechanics. I'd much rather that be fixed in the main system than trying to spin off an alternative system just to allow for that.


SaintBalor wrote:
I immediately saw the potential in 5th, and that potential is exactly my problem with it. I love how amazing 5th could be, but sadly it will take a long time (I think) for it to become as good as it could. I just think the devs might have forgotten to actually finish the game...

Nicely put, 5th Ed is so rule-variant friendly (chassis so easily hackable), and there was all this talk of rules modules during the playtest, and 4 years later, we have Xanathar's Guide to Everything, where everything is apparently some racial feats, subclasses, spells, a way to make up for tool proficiencies being so lacklustre, and a handful of additional rules, such as for falling.

I would prefer them to release a book full of proper optional rules, modules, variants (like a 3rd Ed UA type deal), to take 5th Ed in different directions, I already do that with 3rd Ed/PF1 material (the secret sauce for 5th Ed).


Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1: I love it. 3.5/3.75/PF is the Holy Grail of TTRPGs for me, and it flavors and biases my perception of nearly everything else since it has become such a huge part of how I understand TTRPGs and gaming. It has a few issues that I would love to see officially improved, but overall it gets much, much more right than it gets wrong and I have no problem house-ruling things I don't like.

2: I have liked 3.0 since I first saw it, had no issues switching from D&D 2e. I had no issues transitioning from 3.0 to 3.5; and had no issues transitioning from 3.5 to PF. There are some things I don't like, but I have long since gotten over them or have house-ruled the issue away that it becomes a non issue. The major issue I have with the d20 system in general is making high-level play work well, and trying to support melee type players who think they're really oppressed when they're really not. There are some things I have done at table to make it more bearable but overall it could really use a couple of people who are really good at math to sit down and rework some of the scaling issues. AFTER POST EDIT/DISCLOSURE: I mostly enjoy Pathfinder at this point for the Adventure Paths. I have mostly burned out on 3rd party and even Paizo splatbooks but I love collecting the APs. Haven't ever really played any of them though, mostly only play at tables that homebrew.

3: 4e is a special beast. If it was not called D&D, I may have liked it a lot. In fact, if they re-released WoW-RPG as 4e, I think I'd ACTUALLY love it. However it bears the name D&D and uses the classic worlds that I know and I could never wrap my head around it. It was just too different. 5e was just boring. It was nice to see D&D return to a semblance of the older formula but by then it was too late. I was already entrenched in PF, and I never gave it a fair shake. I did buy the PHB, but after reading what I'd have to put up with to make a Wizard or Sorcerer, I decided it wasn't worth my time. This is my problem with PF2e because now I feel like I not only have to give PF2e a fair shake, but actually go back to 5e and give it its own due. Assuming of course I don't just flip the bird to everyone and stay with PF1.

4: (A)I don't super care about perfect balance, I want all classes to be playable and viable at the table, with an understanding that some classes are only made viable in a group setting. This is fundamentally a team game so I don't need every class to shine in all aspects of the game. I'm not a min-maxer however, so my opinion might be skewed on this. I am a "75% optimal" type person; meaning that I pick my character concept and what I want to do in the world first, and then try to optimize my choices to let me do those things well. Generally this means I will get a high -powered character, especially since I play arcane casters 90% of the time, but I don't play things like uber-charger, zen-archer, or any of those broken builds. But in fairness some things I've seen/done over the years is play as a Wizard in a setting where the school of Divination was made universal and it's spells above 2nd level were all banned. I think the end result was a wash as most of the people I was playing with (including myself) weren't picking up what the DM was putting down, and thus we wandered around aimlessly a lot, and the DM just ended up putting in NPCs that basically told us what to do. I don't remember exactly but I think that game sputtered out around level 8 so I'm not sure it mattered too much anyways.

(B)I really, really, really want better high level play, because that is what I like most about fantasy. I'm not super into the levels 1-6 that most people seem to love. I'm more of a 6-20 (6-30 really), because this what epic fantasy is all about to me.

(C)I don't need more options really, the game has a lot already and I can barely keep track of it all. If anything, PF1 could use some official glut pruning of extraneous feats and spells. (D) I was really looking for some consolidation of glut and re-balancing of features. I think Paizo did an amazing job with PF Unchained and especially the Advanced Class Guide (My all-time favorite publication in the d20 lifecycle). For instance, I think the Arcanist class is the best version ever of an arcane caster, and since it's publication have exclusively played Arcanist over Wizard, Sorcerer, or Witches. I was hoping that the 2e Wizard would just be replaced with the Arcanist mechanics, and am definitely disappointed in the version of the wizard we got.

5: Accessibility is always a good thing. There is more than enough room to compromise on simplifying the 3.x system to make it more stream-lined and accessible for new players, while retaining a lot of what made it perfect in the eyes of basically everyone who has supported Paizo this past decade.

6: Difficult question to answer. In a void of only my opinion with no consequences: Yes. However it's not that easy. Paizo is a company and quite frankly we all benefit from a large and expanding community. I also don't really think compromise is necessary on this issue, and in fact some level of pruning and rebalancing, and focus on making the various tiers of play workable and enjoyable might actually increase accessibility.

7: Again, difficult to answer. I guess if the question is "Would you be willing to entertain ANY game system that isn't d20-3.x?" the answer is "I'm not sure." Really I just like 3.x that much, I don't honestly see much need for change, at least as far as I'm concerned. If change is necessary for Paizo to stay afloat, than I'd be willing to consider any product they put forward. But if it's not what I want, then I'm not going to support it. Paizo isn't a charity charged with making games that I specifically find ideal, but likewise I am not a charity charged with giving my money for a product I don't like.

8: Balanced gameplay only matters from perspective of players A, B, C, D, (E, F, G, H, etc.) It doesn't matter from the DMs perspective. What really matters is player agency, customization, and smoothness of gameplay. From that perspective, I have long played at tables that streamlines the DM's job, since their job is to tell an awesome story that I and others at the table get to participate in. Combat is made a lot easier when you break down what's going on from the DM's side. For a simple explanation, DM's should rip their monsters from 4e. Like really. Your Pit Fiend has 3 spells, and 3 attack options, and defense/hp statblock, and then everything else is DM fiat. One of the reasons why I love Arcanist more than Wizard is because I get a slightly more limited selection of spells, but then I can automatically cast them spontaneously. It makes my choices in combat way more simple, without depriving me of the option to have utility outside of combat in the dungeon or utility during downtime. I would actually like to see bonuses to anything just stack with everything, so that tracking bonuses is a little easier because you don't have to worry about which number was applied by what effect or so on, and maybe a simplification of buff categories to fit them into. For instance: all-day-long buffs, adventuring day- buffs (6-10 hours), multi-encounter buffs (3-5 encounters depending upon exploration time in between encounters), single-encounter buffs; just so were not tracking timers all over the place and can just make a reasonable assumption about when buffs fall off. Really I like the system for its fiddly nature OUTSIDE of combat, but I really like the concept of streamlined combat. I like planning, and don't mind digging into nitty-gritty details during downtime, but I want combat to be exciting and fast paced.


Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

Yes, very much so.

Phantasmist wrote:
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?

The only troublesome thing for me is that the PRD is very out of date.

Phantasmist wrote:
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?

Only in small doses.

Phantasmist wrote:
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?

Non-caster class options that are comparable to spells of equal level, more class balance, more non-spell ways to do amazing/extraordinary/supernatural things.

Phantasmist wrote:
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

I don't understand the question. Please define "More accessible in general".

Phantasmist wrote:
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

See my response to #5

Phantasmist wrote:
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?

Yes, so much.

Phantasmist wrote:
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?

What I want is something more akin to Pathfinder 1.5, the current version of PF2 has almost nothing in common mechanically with its predecessor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. No. I used to play but stopped around Ultimate Magic. Our group disliked the bloat and had issues with high level play > L10.

2. Yes - as above. We tried 4th edition, i liked it, my friends hated it, so we changed to PF.

3. We currently play 5th edition and are loving it.

4. Class balance and better high level play. I am also strongly attracted to playing a game with fewer splat books. A PF2e Core only campaign attracts me.

5. Accessibility is a good thing. Making the ease of entry lower would be good.

6. I am not sure, it would depend on the specifics.

7. Yes. I have issues with PF2e as first presented but i realize it is a playtest and not the final version. I hope I can help make it better even if I never play it.

8. I would like to see a game similar to 5th edition but with more crunch but not bloat (could be tough to achieve).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. Yes

2. Yes
3. No and somewhat
4. Nothing on the list. I am looking for (1) reducing complexity while keeping depth (2) reducing dependency on "must have" magic items and (3) encouraging movement during combat.
5. I love it
6. Objection: assumes a false dichotomy. You can do both.
7. Sure
8. See No 4 above.


Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. No.

2. Yes. After awhile, I felt the game got bogged down with rules. I really enjoyed the Beginner Box and prefer an easier gameplay.

3. Just 5th.

4. An even amount of all of those things.

5. I'd prefer the game would be more accessible. I believe too many rules are a turn off to younger or causal players. I also believe this helps in online gaming as well. At the moment, I feel the playtest offers the right amount.

6. Nope. I'd trade in complex rules for faster gameplay.

7. Nope. I very much like how this playtest is handled. I prefer this new feat, skill and action system now. I'm not interested in playing the same old Pathfinder with minor tweaks. I think the playtest is the way to go. It still feels like the old Pathfinder but getting more in with the times.

8. N/A


Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

Hi. I will try to answer as best I can in corresponding order:

1. Not really. I was a fan of 3.5 but as some who has been playing D&D since the advent of 2E I was ready for a change. I felt 4E was the first edition of D&D that truly pushed things forward and brought innovations to the game (like doing away with Vancian magic). I purchased 1E and did not think it was bad but the action economy and clerical healing still being a standard action turned me off from it. To be clear if my group wanted to play PF 1 I would have played without objection but it would not have been my first choice.

2. Please see answer 1

3.I really enjoyed 4E and still play it. I think 5E is a good and solid system and I do enjoy it as well.

4. All of those things are important but the two that resonate with me the most are class balance and smoothness of play at all levels. I will also add I don't think "crunchiness" impacts how smooth a system is or is not. I love the character customization possible with PF.

5. In general I am all for making games more accessible provided choices are not taken away and the rules are not dumbed down in complexity. I think a system can be complex and rules heavy but as long as the rules are clear and the game flows smoothly there should be no issue. Taking away options for accessibility and toning down feel of the game to be more kid friendly for example would be things that woiuld turn me as a consumer away.

6. Yes.

7. Absolutely. I like Paizo and while our group did not play PF 1 I don't feel it is a bad system. The only issue I see is I am not the game master of my group so while I maybe willing to try an alternative ruleset to PF2 I am not certain if my regular gaming group would play it.

8. That is a heavy question that would take a while. I will say in general I would like to see a game system that puts more control in player's hands. I would to see more powerful and heroic characters. There are two main schools of thought when it comes to fantasy heroes. 1) The heroes are just average folks who decided to take up a sword and spellbook instead of a plough and hoe. They are common people who rise to heroics purely through their deeds. 2) This is the more Howardian school of thought that fantasy characters even before they are famous are not just average people their physical abilities (and mental, etc) put them head and shoulders above the common people. They maybe a lowly street urchin or a rustic woodsman or uneducated barbarian but their is already a mantle of greatness about them and with their abiliteis coupled with their deeds they will rise to change the course of history for better or worse. I am firmly in the latter camp versus the former. Lastly, I would strive for class balance and smoothness of play. I don't have a problem with long combat rounds as long as the time in between player turns is fast. If a fight takes an hour but the PCs are acting every say 2 minutes that is cool. If the fight takes an hour and a PC can go for a smoke break and then to make a sandwich and it still isn't their turn to act in the round there is an issue.

I hope this was helpful. Cheers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

1. Not really. It's too complicated.

Phantasmist wrote:
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

2. I liked Pathfinder as a life raft against 4e Dungeons and Dragons. But, even back then I didn't like the focus on a "rules-based" game. I eventually came to the realization that 3rd edition and Pathfinder took the game in the wrong direction for me.

Phantasmist wrote:
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

3. I like 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons a lot. Fourth edition is why I played Pathfinder.

Phantasmist wrote:
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

4. I don't care much about class balance. I want high-level play to be easier, smoother, and better. I like more options for character customization, but I realize a distinction between core system complexity versus optional character customization complexity.

Phantasmist wrote:
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

5. I generally want the game to be more accessible to new players, but I have conceded Pathfinder to those who want more complexity.

Phantasmist wrote:
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

6. I am willing to give up accessibility in Pathfinder. All of the benefits in question 4 I have found in 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, save for character options, but I believe that grows over time with any edition. Yet, I will concede that Pathfinder will always have the most codified options.

Phantasmist wrote:
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

7. I probably won't play Pathfinder 2nd edition as a home game. I may play it as a part of Pathfinder Society because I don't like the way Adventurer's League is run. I probably wouldn't play an alternate 2nd edition rules system, but I also don't think the Playtest rules are what the eventual 2nd edition rules system will be. I expect that less than half of the playtest rules will make it into the final product.

Phantasmist wrote:
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

8. I didn't answer yes to question 7, but I'd like to see fewer modifiers during encounters. I find it next to impossible to keep track of it all. Plus, I'd like to see the sheer number of bonus types curtailed. I find that armor class, saves, skills, etc. are as fluid as hit points; and all of it with a myriad of durations and sundry conditions. If we need computer assistance to play a tabletop game--then it's no longer a table top game.

I'm sorry if it seems that I don't like 2nd edition Pathfinder (and should not have responded to this survey); I do, I 've been calling for a 2nd edition for years. Mostly I wanted less complexity and dependence on rules. But I got that with 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, and I've come to realize that gamers who want complexity need a game to call their own. I'm willing to concede Pathfinder to them. I'm not loyal to Pathfinder or Paizo. I'm loyal to Dungeons and Dragons, that's why I played Pathfinder. But, like I said, I think the whole 3.x/Pathfinder line took a wrong turn into rules adherence, which just wasn't what I wanted from the game.

In the end, I don't think we should play these games by the rules; but rather, we should play them despite the rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this is not at all what the OP intended, but has anyone else been using this post to look up folks that they've seen posting in the forums to get a feel for what their POV is regarding the game? I certainly have and it's been really illuminating. I think this may be my favorite thread on the Playtest forum so far.

And regarding the redefinition of accessibility, I would not wish being like FATE on any game. I love a game that's elegant and quick to learn and play, but I want to still be able to immerse myself into it without a bunch of awkward minigames and being forced into being an unwilling pseudo-GM. If I want to attack a goblin or remove an evil totem from a pool I want to just be able to do it, not have to figure out what deep seated angst from my past relates to some esoteric quality of the action I want to do. When I take damage I want it to be damage, not strain that I then broker into damage in exchange for being able to stay in a fight longer. That way lies madness. When a GM has me walk into a magic shop and asks me what it looks like I want to give him a deadpan stare and have him do his job and run the game.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Grimcleaver wrote:
I know this is not at all what the OP intended, but has anyone else been using this post to look up folks that they've seen posting in the forums to get a feel for what their POV is regarding the game? I certainly have and it's been really illuminating. I think this may be my favorite thread on the Playtest forum so far.

One of the nice things is that people are not really arguing. Everyone’s just chiming in with their answers and moving on. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
One of the nice things is that people are not really arguing. Everyone’s just chiming in with their answers and moving on. :)

Well and it's great because you see these folks on other threads and kind of want to peer into their brains and see what makes them respond to things the way they do. I think this thread has made a great method for looking folks up and doing just that. It's been really interesting.

51 to 100 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Honest questions to those who like 2e All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.