Honest questions to those who like 2e


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? Yes

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

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? I actually liked 4e. 5e is not bad, but I prefer the extra options of Pathfinder.

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

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? I would prefer Pathfinder to be more of a generally popular game, then more of a niche one.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? To a certain degree. I feel that a balance needs to be reached there.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? I guess. I would need to see the system.

To answer the over all question, I feel that Pathfinder 2e as is, is a blend of Starfinder and 13th Age. To me, this is a good thing. I see the need more for fine tuning then a complete overhall. Although to be fair, my opion i based on a first impression right now. I want to run a homebrew campaign to test it out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Haven't played 'em enough to form an opinion. I didn't like 4e at first, but I'm starting to think it got an unfair shake when it came out.

4. I'm looking for a game system where the saving throw and armor class math isn't broken on a fundamental level. I'm looking for a system that doesn't require me to track 25 +1/+2 bonuses

5. If you don't want your game to be accessible, then you're probably in the wrong business

6. This is a dumb question and poses things as if it's a one or the other choice, and it never is in reality.

7. It's a playtest. I need to be willing to play an alternative ruleset.

8. Weapons and armor tables that aren't simultaneously pointlessly detailed and unrealistic for the first time in D&D/Pathfinder history.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Yes.

2) Kind of. It's hard to introduce to new people and it can be hard to teach people. I also feel like the game is a lot more complex than it needs to be in places. (I don't mind the flavor the complexity gives, by any means. I actually found myself missing odd-numbered ability scores as I made my character, of all things.)

3) I don't like 4e, but I don't hate it. It's just not really very DnD. 5e is playable but uninspiring. (Also f%$% not being able to delay initiative.)

4) Looking for in transition from PF1 to PF2? I'd like to keep a lot of the customization and "textural" differences between characters while speeding up gameplay at the table.

5) Yes please. Accessibility and depth aren't mutually exclusive.

6) Some accessibility loss is fine. It's a sliding scale.

7) Sure.

8) Probably just a lot of the more flavorful options I assume were intentionally left out of the playtest. Also maybe a little more class stuff early on, but I'm not sure on that yet -- need to see the game in action.


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?

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) Yes. I like every edition of D&D. I like pretty much every RPG, actually, because I choose to play them for what they are.

4) Since all of those things seem positive and don't contradict each other, all of them would be appreciated.

5) Do you mean easier to learn for people new to the game? I have no problem with that.

6) Since I'm an experienced gamer, accessibility is less of a priority for me.

7) Of course. I'll play pretty much anything.

8) I'd probably drop the level scaling. Bake more powerful options into feats gated behind master and legendary proficiency. Get rid of general feats and put more narratively focused options into its place. (Replace general feats with dedication feats, maybe?) Move some higher level class feats down to open up lower level options, and change them to scale with level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game 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?

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. I love it. I was also, once upon a time, in the "PF1 forever" camp.

2. No. There are things I'd like to see improved upon, but many of those have existed in earlier d20 iterations: commonplace stat-boosting items, the Christmas Tree effect, overpowered spellcasters, etc.

3. No to 4e. 5e is fine. I just find it to be less tactically rich and with fewer options than I prefer. Also, WotC's no PDF policy is assinine.

4. All of those things.

5. Having introduced close to 20 new players to Pathfinder, I definitely want the game to be more accessible to new players.

6. If it was any other publisher than Paizo, maybe. But seeing what they've done with the PF Beginner Box, the PF Strategy Guide, and Starfinder CRB I don't see the need to compromise.

7. Sorry, but that's impossible to answer without knowing something about the game. In the purely theoretical - maybe. I would play PF2 as presented in the playtest doc.

8. My answer would have been different 2 months ago, but after playing Starfinder for 2 months my answer would be "more like Starfinder". It has fewer classes but they are broad and have depth to them. It only has 2 spellcasting classes but it manages to present them as more mystically oriented than PF1s many specialized classes. I can certainly see SF influences in PF2, however, so I'd be looking for tweaks such as removing the ridiculous legendary skill unlocks. I'm also not 100% sold on the whole proficiency thing, but the math looks solid.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

Partly. See below

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

I like Core. I think the Power Creep outside of Core has become too extreme. The difference between characters created by casual players and be players with lots of system mastery is just too large

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

I think both games are very good games that are not to my personal tastes

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

More character balance. That includes, but is not limited to, more class balance. I'm also hoping for smoother play and clearer rules

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

Extremely important

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

To a very limited extent

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).

Of course. In fact, I expect to in about a month when the first playtest revision shows up :-)

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 don't expect major changes at this point. What I hope for is that all the fairly minor burrs get smoothed out.

My general overarching desire would be to see less things completely silo'd by class. Additional signature skills, feats like power attack, etc. Right now if you want some ability you HAVE to play a particular class.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

1) best system I've used, though I use 3PP and 3.x content as I see fit for my individual experience so I may not be pure PF1. (I also use a lot of Unchained variants like RAE)

2) troublesome might be the right word, I think the later PF1 releases show a much more evolved understanding of game design which isn't mirrored in the core book which makes older options feel weaker without some splat book boosts (weapon master's handbook if you will)

3) never got to play 4e, but I don't hate 5e. I just think 5e is a more weakly designed game not intended for robust customization. The core rules for 5e focus on rerolls instead of flat bonuses so I don't feel like my character is improving, but instead I feel more like I'm inclined to suck up to the DM for inspiration points.

4) I want more comprehensive strong choices that cut the fat and bloat from PF1 to get similar play results with a lot less time investment. I want that illusion of balance to feel a little better, even if it isn't it can still feel that way if certain characters have as many options as others despite the genuine scope of those options.

5) not opposed at all, I just want the game's design to be well informed so it's easy to teach and coach my players.

6) I'm willing to fight for a middle ground. 5e has accessibility on lock.

7) yes

8) I want the system to be easier to read, and to have combat be a parallel thing all characters participate in. Combat feats don't need to be reprinted in every martial class write-up, for example. I also want the math to be tighter and for the different combat styles to have identity other than math.


1 person 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.)

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?

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. Pathfinder is ok.

2. I once preferred it to everything out there. Now that's nowhere near true, and I have to house rule several changes and alternative rules.

3. 4E missed the mark in feeling like a versatile tool kit for adventuring. 5E was great and bold, but a very stiff, arrested system as time went on.

4. If you want more options, stick to PF1. I want a game that's more balanced, allows more meaningful expression, and provides a more interactive play.

5. Obviously having the game be more accessible is part of the major issues of pathfinder. I'd always use 5E and never use Pathfinder when playing with my nieces or little cousins.

6. You don't have to give up accessibility for anything listed on question 4. False dichotomy.

7. There's no way other than sarcasm for me to reply to this question.

8. Do you uh intend for me to design a system for you? I don't get what you're trying to get to.

There's several things that need to change in PF2 for me to enjoy the system.
But it's on a good track.


To be clear, I "like" 2E, but I'm not sold on it. That said:

1. No.

2. Yes, but the god the bloat and power creep. And high level play never worked very well.

3. Yes to both, though my exposure to 5E is very limited.

4. All three are laudable goals, although Pathfinder 1E went way beyond "options."

5. Accessibility is good, full stop.

6. Not really, no. But I feel what is generally referred to as "options" ends diametrically opposed to accessibility, because the "options" almost always end up being more powerful, which makes "keeping up with the system" its own meta-game (and one which I despise).

7. Yes, of course.

8. I think my ideal Pathfinder 2E (which is not necessarily to say my ideal fantasy RPG) would be closer to a simplified, streamlined 1E than what we got. Something along the lines of the Beginner Box complexity-wise, but with more depth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


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

Yes

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

Yes also - if anyone in your group uses a guide - then everyone has to or the 'guide' person will be overpowered. There are 10 ways to make a character that is at the very base level of function, for every 1 way that makes them skate through the game.

At the other end of the table - the game balance on published adventures makes me want to start every party at 10 point buy core rules only - because if I don't I have to tune *almost every encounter*. I put the work in - but I'd appreciate a system that didn't have that overhead.

Finally - math at high levels sucks. Making 6 attacks sucks. I hate having to wait 10 minutes while someone rolls 20 die and has to add them all up. I am really hesitant about the new direction of the game because of this.

Quote:


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

Never played it. I took a break from tabletop due to raising kids at that time - by the time I had room for my hobby again Pathfinder was the 'new hot thing' and the group I joined had just transitioned to it.

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.)

Easier ways to balance for the GM - given that every player is 'specialized' in a different thing at level 20 there is no way to make a boss a challenge for the entire party without making it a possible tpk. I balance that by good/bad tactics from the boss a bit - but it's not an easy dance.

This is true all the way down to level 1 really, the game gets harder for the GM as the party levels - the 'shock' levels are around 12, and it's sad because that's when most of the coolest stuff you wanted as a player kicks in.

Quote:


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

Strongly - to the point that I still think the core book needs a class like the current swashbucker - something you can hand to a totally new person that they can't make a mess out of.

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).

There are three things that I need to make a game feel like D&D - A D20 to hit - a level system - and the Vancian casting system. If an alternate rules system didn't have these I wouldn't be interested in it - I own plenty already and I don't play them.

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)


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. No

4. A bit of each, also some changes in the core rules to make up for issues and failings in the rules in pf1

5. I'm am unsure what you mean, if you mean opening up pf2 to a lot more players, then sure, as long as it doesn't bring down the quality of the game.

6. Yup

7. Somewhat, I think the action system, they way characters are created, the critical system, and the levels of proficiency should stay. They are done extremely well imo.

8. Pretty much what we currently have, I'm not that imaginitive of a guy, I can't think of any major changes I'd make to it, aside from an overhaul on resonance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. No

2. No

3. Yes.

4. All of the above.

5. It’s very important.

6. I don’t believe accessibility needs to be sacrificed to gain the above, so no. But to be clear, I don’t believe complexity and accessibility are mutually exclusive. A complex game can be accessible if it is designed and presented well.

7. Of course.

8. I’d like to see more options at the early levels. More of the high level non-magical options becoming available sooner (for example, the Fighter Feat that lets you add your shield’s AC bonus to Ref saves is really cool, but really weak for an 18th level Feat.) Stronger non-magical characters in general. Less bonus inflation, especially at high levels (I’d be in support of just removing the +level to Proficiency and adjusting DCs accordingly). Fewer niggling situational modifiers to keep track of. Maybe a little less technical jargon - I like the clarity of the technical language, but it’s a little too much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1) I don't have an active game right now because I can't find a group that won't constantly flake on me, but I used to play a ton of PF1. However, when I have been working towards getting a game off the ground, PF1 has dropped down to like my 3rd or 4th choice behind SF, Shadowrun, and possibly a new RPG that has recently caught my interest.

2) This is me in a nutshell. When the PF1 hit, it was my favorite thing ever. It had a lot of elegant fix to balance issues from 3.5. As it drug on though, the power creep and the enormous glut of option started to kill it for me. None of my characters felt particularly special anymore when everyone was running around with an obscure class, and I felt like the extreme number of class options actually made the decisions I made within my own class less special. It was less a question of "how do I want to build this witch?" and more a question of "would I rather make a mesmerist?" I'm not against new classes - I loved the APG, but they started hitting too fast. I'd prefer a book after a year or two that has maybe four new classes, and then I'd like to see it slow down from there. It had a few gems, but conceptually, I feel the Advanced Classes Guide was too far. I want more options for the classes that already exist before I want entirely new classes.

3) I played 4th for a little bit. I actually really liked how combat flowed, and how tactical it became. I went back and forth over whether I preferred skills having ranks or being simply trained or untrained, so I love the proficiency system in PF2. Everything else in 4th ed was worse, tho. I have never played 5th ed.

4) I think more anything, I want the choices I get to make within my class be significant, and that's one thing I like about PF2, at least conceptually. Class feels more important, and so does race. Many of the most significant options you will chose about how your character performs seems to be found within class, but there also seem to be a few distinct ways to go about it. I need to look through it a little more, but I think it's cool that Fighters gain legendary weapon proficiency, while Paladins get legendary armor proficiency. I like that some of the class options that used to be automatic are now class feats that you have to pick, because, for example, it lets me make a druid that is more of a nature mage than a shapeshifter, and if I don't want to wild shape, I can pick something that will compliment my abilities as a spellcaster instead. I like low level play to include, shall we say, more options that starfinder has. Not necessarily super powerful ones, but interesting ones. I think the paladin's retributive strike is a good example here. It's unique, it affects how you will want to position yourself, and I think that's interesting. The increased durability of 1st level characters is a huge plus, IMO, as are scaling at-will cantrips.

5) I WANT to say that I prefer depth to accessibility, but lately when I've tried to start new games with new players, no matter what system I bring to the table it feels like they are almost TRYING to not get it, so I'm not sure.

6) Mostly, but not entirely. I'm still willing to tough out new players learning a complicated system if it lends itself to more depth, better options, and a smoother flow once they've been thoroughly understood, but I don't want to see them taking it to Hackmaster levels.

7 & 8) If they were to put forth a different rules system, I'd give it a go, but I'm also willing to give this one a go. I think they are, overall, on the right track. They DEFINITELY need to clean up their formatting - I think that's the biggest problem with this right now. Currently, I'm not super bothered by it because I understand it's just a playtest, but if 2019 comes along and the final book is laid out like this, I'm gonna be pretty miffed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game 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.

I'm going to go ahead and answer these blindly, before looking at other responses in this thread.

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

I love first edition. I'm still playing and GMing it. I think it's a great game, and have from the moment I first tried it.

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

I do. There were always some things about first edition that were a little wonky, but it was a solid system. Some of the things that I now find problematic, but didn't before, I chalk up to not having much experience with other systems to compare it to.

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

I have never played 4th edition. I've tried 5th edition, and found that it didn't scratch the same itch as Pathfinder does.

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 really looking for any of those things, necessarily. I want them to be there, of course, but I'm more interested in the depth of the pool than the size of it. Similarly, I understand the basis for why high-level play in first edition is problematic, but the only way that has translated to any of my tables is through longer decision times. If the gameplay of second edition turns out to be more balanced, then that's great. I suspect it will mostly go unnoticed at my tables, at least on more than a subconscious level.

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

This can only be a good thing. The more people that can understand and therefore play the game, the stronger it is. A few months ago I was introducing some new players through running a module, and I wished that the rules were as intuitive as the blogs were making second edition look.

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 don't understand this question. ::headscratch::

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).

Probably? I understand some elements will most likely be changing before getting to the actual CRB next year, for starters. I fell in love with the marriage of depth and intuitive-ness that the new rules have presented so far, rather than the content of those rules themselves, if that makes sense. So they can change everything around in terms of what it does, but I very much hope they keep the nervous system of how it works, because I feel like the elegance of second edition is its greatest strength.

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 don't really have much more to add to this part above what I said to the previous question, for obvious reasons. I basically want a game that's easy to pick up and hard to master. I feel like 5th edition is easy to pick up and easy to master, which leaves me wanting. Even though I love it, I feel like first edition was hard to pick up and hard to master, which makes introducing it to new players difficult. So far I think second edition is doing a good job of presenting itself as what I want it to be from a mechanical standpoint, and there's room for all sorts of tweaks to either improve that nature of it, or at least not ruin it.


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.)

--Yes.

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

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
--I liked some of 4th. Never tried 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.)
-- Smoother higher play is a plus. But less disparity is a good thing.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
-- Easy to play means more players.

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

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, depending on how it goes.

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)
Something like ToB/PoW for every class.
Few Dailies, mostly encounter powers, few at wills.

I like the idea of proficiency/skill feats/etc.
They need much tweaking. Half of the legendary feats don't feel they should be above Master or Expert level.
I mean, speed as land speed is nothing above master level imo, but the thievery to steal pants or armor is.


Thanks too everyone so far.

Another minor clarification, when I say accessibility I'm not equating it to play-ability. When I say accessibility is more geared towards making it easier to pick up and play, little preperation, the opposite is something that needs time to prepare more thought and judgement. Think Fate (accessible and playable) vs hero system (not accessible but still playable).

Hope this helps.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

I'm in a love/hate relationship with 1e.

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

Maybe.

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

Never played 4th ed. Played 5e and it was a blast. Great game, superior to PF1 in many regards and inferior in others.

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

More accessibility for new / not invested players.

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

See above.

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

No.

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).

No.

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)

N/A


K, I want to change my answer to the accessibility thing, because I absolutely despise the Fate system. I would not be in favor of pushing something like this at the cost of depth.


1 person 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.)

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. I don't find 1e troublesome at all

3. I hate 4th edition. I hate 5e's skills and how weakened high level characters feel compared to pathfinder 1 but like other aspects like not needing magic items to be effective.

4. Smoother high level play, and I was pretty excited about legendary skills when they talking about surviving in space and such. Now two of them just give you a climb or swim speed, So a little disappointed there.

5. Accessibility is never a bad thing.

6. Maybe.

7. I'm always open to trying new systems.

8. Easier multiclassing than pf1, more possible concepts for multiclassing. I'd rather characters be stronger not weaker, and less dependent on magic gear. The badass warrior that relies on his own strength is a classic archetype that is sadly impossible in 3.x as is the monk who similarly believes true strength comes from within. There's other stuff I guess, but I can't think of it right now.

Dark Archive

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 Nope still good.

3 I see them as a necessary evil so to speak it's easyier to convince a new player to play them then move on to PF than teach PF straight out(havn't tried the beginner box mind so that could be better).

4 More options is my main want, class balance is a close 2nd and I don't have as much of of a problem with high lvl ability bloat as most people.

5 More Accessibility is good but should never be implemented at the expense of enjoyment of existing players.

6 Yes. I have found this is the case for PF1 and even video games that if a game is good enough and example of it being that good can be given people are willing to effort in to learning.

7 I'm not only willing but expecting to. I am assuming that almost all of the playtest is up for change based on player feadback.

8 In short a system similar to PF1 but with improvements such as new action economy, better clarified rules for things like grappling and mounted combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. I do.
2. I mean, I've always found it kind of troublesome, but manageably so. We just agree collectively not to touch the parts of the rules that don't work well (no mounted characters, for example.)
3. I liked 4th, but I want no part of 5th edition.
4. Smoother play at all levels is the goal, but resolving the Caster/Martial Disparity is also important. More option are desirable, but there's no way a 380 page book is going to produce as many options as the hundreds of splatbooks for PF1, so that's a tertiary goal- it will come in time.
5. Strongly in favor of it, Pathfinder 1st edition is a hard game to teach to people and the GM ends up carrying a huge part of the burden. Accessibility is the most important goal in modern tabletop design I think.
6. No, I have to convince people to play the game. If a game is decidedly not accessible, we'll find something else.
7. I mean, I'll play with literally any rule system if it's fun. Want to try replacing dice with drawing harrow cards from a deck? I'll try it. Pathfinder diceless? What time is good for y'al?
8. I just want it to be fun, and thereby avoid things which are unfun.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
-Absolutely.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
-Personally adore it, but it's hard to bring new players in.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? I actually liked 4e.
-5e is too bland for my tastes, and I never played 4e.

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

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
-Oh god, please.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
-Mmm... getting more players in is what counts more to me, but I don't want 5.5e.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?
-Nah, I'm pretty pleased with this!

Dark Archive

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. Yes but my group and I have been growing somewhat bored with it as of late

2. Not particularly, since all the broken game destroying things I've seen at my table where things I allowed from 3.5 to be ported over
3. Ambivalent on 4e, 5e I find severely lacking, after 5 years it still doesn't have anywhere near the support it need for me to run what I want
4. I want more out of the non-magical end of things, to be able to do more with non-casters
5. It is a good move
6. Not really
7. Sure, but then again I've played a lot of systems and I prefer to pick the system for the story I will run than the other way around
8. I don't really understand the question here, because I am willing to play a lot of different kinds of games and each game requires a different set of rules to run. So what I want from a system will change drastically story arc to story arc, and campaign to campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? Yes-ish.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? I have had fun making characters and playing campaigns through to about level 10. Then I get invested in the story and want to see what happens, but I have found high level play very difficult to make fun for very long. Worse, as our high level characters discovered certain tricks, it became impossible not to transport them over to lower level campaigns. Now every campaign has a wizard and there are too many spell options that make any other attempt to solve a problem unnecessary. Especially with access to hats of disguise, scrolls and wands at the ready. Either you have to set campaigns in remote locations or else manufacture reasons why the party can't buy magic items that should be readily available in the larger settings.

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

4e was interesting in theory but a drag to play through.. It was easy to design campaigns for, but it was also easy to get sloppy in designing campaigns and end up with tread-mills and "level-appropriate" becoming the be-all-end all of design.

Never played 5e.

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. Diversity without bloat. Higher level play that doesn't require a doctorate to play, but allows for creative tactics and use of resources.

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

I want a game more like chess, easy to learn, difficult to master/get bored with.

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

probably not, but Accessibility doesn't have to be more important that customization options.

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

Yes, but...Paizo have the most fun adventures to play and great storytellers working on their team. Their recent Adventure paths have been top notch and the diversity of characters and plots have me pretty addicted to the game that lets me play them.

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

Great storytelling. Mechanics that feel natural to the world that surrounds them. Consistent design character building options. (IE if there are going to be classes, their should either be as few as possible, designed around flexible modular choices, or else as many as possible, with unique and justified reasons for existence.)


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

I'm going to start by saying that I don't know if I like the playtest rules or not, as I haven't played them yet. But they look interesting enough for me to give them an honest try.

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 find it difficult to introduce to a new player, but that is mostly the result of the last decade of resources; Core only would be easier to pick up (but less fun). I find high-level play a chore, but that's not new from 3.x. I haven't liked any of the new base classes except for two from the APG.

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

No, they seemed too much like AD&D, which I got bored with because characters were so samey. Once I'd played an <insert class here>, there didn't seem much reason to play another one because I'd be making the same mechanical choices.

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 would be nice, as would fewer subsystems. But I'm really mostly happy with P1e.

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

I think that's a great goal.

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

No. If I want a difficult game to learn, I have P1e. I see no point in making another game that's difficult to introduce to new players.

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).

Difficult to answer without knowing what that alternative would be. I haven't been all on board with everything previewed, but I'm willing to give the playtest rules an honest shot, given my past experience with Paizo products. I don't have that level of trust with random people from the forums designing rules.

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)

Meh, not really interested in another game.


Nohwear wrote:

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? Yes

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

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? I actually liked 4e. 5e is not bad, but I prefer the extra options of Pathfinder.

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

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? I would prefer Pathfinder to be more of a generally popular game, then more of a niche one.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? To a certain degree. I feel that a balance needs to be reached there.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? I guess. I would need to see the system.

To answer the over all question, I feel that Pathfinder 2e as is, is a blend of Starfinder and 13th Age. To me, this is a good thing. I see the need more for fine tuning then a complete overhall. Although to be fair, my opion i based on a first impression right now. I want to run a homebrew campaign to test it out.

1) Yes but its not perfect

2)Yes I was turned away due to how spell slots and prepared spells sre intrinsically linked. They need to be divorced from each other like in 5e.

3) 4th ed - Hate with the burning fury of 10,000 suns; 5th ed - been brought on board due to actual plays I've listened to, and the fact that they got spellcasting RIGHT and skills better than PF but not perfect.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bear with me.)
* yes, sort of. P1e + Tax Exempt / Elephant in the Room.

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

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
* never played, don't care.
Played AD&D 1e.

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 exclusive-- I just want the gist of what you're looking for, so feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)
* cognitive load of fiddling with P1e's vast array of source material along with the Tax Exempt schtuff.

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

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
* since I don't own or work for a game company, I'm not terribly interested in accessibility. I just want something that's easier for me to play.

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'm not a game designer, so I accept what's given. I may or may not be interested in something completely different, like a possible Angry GM RPG.

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)
* less cognitive load. I create reports for a living, so I can handle a high cognitive load but I also strongly prefer "a single source of truth", if you will.


1. like pathfinder 1e?

Yes and no. I hate all the inherent issues, but love the game.

2. find it troublesome?

I liked it more as time has gone on. More character options, more story options like occult classes, etc.

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

They both had great parts, but fell short.

4. Which are you looking for

I'm looking for what a trusted company has to supply. It turns out they are supplying things that I really like.
I would have liked smoother level 13+ play. But the play test isn't over. And I feel like 2nd is still a better edition. And hopefully at very least I can house rule +1/2 level for proficiency.

5. game more accessible in general?

It's meh to me personally, but it will probably increase survivability. And it will mean lower chances of the person who designs for $8 an hour who comes in and really just wanted a chance to make the half-vampire, half-werewolf, half-dragon, all broken new race. As kindly as I can say it, I don't care for Amber Scott's design ideas. Though I respect her as a designer of a game I love.

6. give up on accessibility?

yes. but I don't think this is in question. I have played dungeon world, iron kingdoms, savage worlds, world of darkness (vampire, mage, hunter, innocence), call of cthulhu, cthulhu tech, gurps, AD&D, 3ed, 4ed, 5ed, star frontiers, and a dozen others.

Sorry about the list of pseudo credentials. What I'm getting at is... Of the best systems I've played 2nd edition is NOT new user friendly. This crap doesn't hold your hand.

I think the intent is to fix inherent issues in the system, not make it new player friendly. Though maybe, to some very small degree, it does that as a side effect.

7. alternative rules system?

If it was created by Paizo (a company that has earned a level of trust), then yes.

8. what would you like to see in that theoretical game?

the ability to reach about level 17 before things get crazy, but most of the 2ed changes are stuff is great. I'm actually already pretty sold on this


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

Well I don't really like PF2 as currently written, but I think once a lot of the kinks are ironed out, it could be a really solid system, so I guess I'm in the cautiously optimistic camp. I'm at least willing to play it and give it a shot.

1. Do you currently like Pathfinder 1E? Yeah, I like it, but it has a lot of issues.

2. Did you once like Pathfinder 1E but now find it troublesome? I probably like it more than originally. The APG added a lot of options, Unchained fixed a few issues I had, but the underlying system that's responsible for a lot of the problems I have can't really be gutted without a new edition.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? 4th was decent at lower levels. Once you hit the paragon levels, it got really slow and annoying. Classes like wizard were homogenized and not as fun as previous editions. 5th edition is reasonably fun, but its customization leaves so much to be desired.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? Class balance and smoother high level play are big issues for me. More options would be nice, but I don't see how that's possible since 1E had 10 years of regularly released products for it.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? I have no issues with more people getting in to Pathfinder.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? I think smoother high level play and class balance would actually help with accessibility, not hinder it. I'm willing to give up some accessibility to enable sufficient customization, though. 5e is very accessible, but lacks character creation depth.

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


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, although it started to become too clunky. I made the leap to Starfinder a year ago, and never went back.

2- Yes. See above. It's still a good system, tho. It's not unplayable, just a little bit too clunky.
3- I played 4e for a while and was a defender of the edition. I came back when I realized that I liked the premises of what 4e was trying to achieve (like, for example, balance and parity) but not the execution. I haven't played 5e enough, but it's a system that works, has a clear goal, and achieve that goal. Plus it's massively succesful, which is great for the industry.
4-yes to all.
5- I don't think my opinion on this should matter near as much as Paizo's. And it's pretty clear that they are aware they need to make the game more accesible.
6- See 5.
7- I think the playtest is for that, to change things. Hard to answer without a glimpse of what that other system would look like. As is, I'd rather play PF2 than PF1, if that helps you.
8- Would rather play PF2, I think. No need for a PF3 edition yet :P


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)

I can't necessarily say I like or dislike PF2E yet, because I haven't had a chance to play it -- but from readthrough of the book and the blogs, and the Know Direction / Glass Cannon coverage, I'm really excited to give it a whirl, so I'll count myself a "like" for this purpose!

1. Yes, mostly

2. The "mostly" above -- much of my group doesn't do homework. We want to put the kids to bed, sit down at the table, and pick up where we left off last time. Nobody but me owns anythign but a CRB, and only about half the group even thinks about the game between sessions. We'd be looking for a new system soon one way or another.

3. I liked parts of 4, but haven't played it in years. I remember it having good tools for encounter building, and really liked that monsters intended to last 3 rounds weren't artificially forced to the same rules as PCs intended to grow and gain depth over 3 years of play. I like parts of 5 - it's what I recommend (over PF) to the fantasy RPG curious, but could do with a few more fiddly bits than it has. (I also like Dungeon World, FWIW.)

4. All those things are fine; perhaps "smoother high-level play" is most key, since as mentioned my group doesn't really do homework; past level 7 or 8 people start forgetting half their abilities.

5. 100% most important.

6. Not really, no. But nor do I think accessibility is at odds with rich and engaging systems.

7. As mentioned, I play a number of different fantasy RPG rulesets from time to time.

8. I want that theoretical game to be easy for newcomers and casual gamers to understand and enjoy, and I want Paizo-quality APs that tie into it. (To that last, I'd be fairly okay with Paizo producing content for non-PF systems!)


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. Only at high levels.
3. No, for separate reasons, but both felt flat too.
4. High levels need taming, mainly due to rocket tag.
5. Fine, if it keeps its essence, not just skinning a bland system.
6. I think these overlap.
7. Yes, but that's premature. The chassis is sound as are the upgrades I've seen. I empathize w/ the controversial decisions, though I do want a bit more oomph in the feats & skills caps. And I think Bulk fails on several levels, succeeding at only one thing that wasn't an issue.
8. Genre/tone flexibility & tactically significant choices both in PC generation & gameplay. Feats (& the cinematic fights they support) are what drew me back to DnD in 3.x. Patching 3.x, Golarion's wonder & depth, & the rich story arcs/gameplay of the APs are what endear me to Paizo.
The Hero System & GURPS would be the main competition mechanically, but both have their own flaws and no stories or settings on par with Paizo's. I wouldn't want to have to convert all that content.


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.

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

I bought "Rise of the Runelords" when it first came out, and recently bought "The Inner Sea" book, but never played the system.

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

I like 4ed, and I don't like 5ed. No judgment required.

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.)

Smoother high level play, definitely. If the level exists in the game, it should be playable. I don't need too many options, perhaps enough so that (2) level 20 Dwarf Fighters could have no overlap in feats. I don't expect as high a standard of class balance as 4ed, just enough that any average PC matters to the party.

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

*reads clarification*

Well, that depends on what makes it easier to pick up. The playtest document looks like a good start to making it easier to access, based on layout. However, it's different from 3.X, so people can't just skim through the rules and assume they already know how to do things.

For accessibility purposes, I'd rather the editors do their best to make CharGen as simple as possible, and assume that people can learn a new game system.

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

If it's an issue of editing, I don't see how the core mechanics would need to be sacrificed. If people don't look this formatting, a different kind can be used. But if we're talking about sacrificing class balance, smoothness of play, and options for the sake of feeling more like PF1...

Backwards compatibility can be an all-consuming beast. I'd rather the game's flavour call back to 1st edition, as opposed to its mechanics.

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).

Sure. This playtest hasn't been custom made for me, but that's not a bad thing. Sometimes you don't know what you'll like until it's presented to you.

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)

Pretty much what I answered in #4.


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, I don't find it troublesome.
3.) In theory I like 5e, I've listened to a 5e podcast and seen some content I like but I haven't played. Never seen 4e so I don't know.
4.) All of these are things I want to see, but a big part of me is just looking for something different.
5.) Strongly favor making the game easier to teach or pick up and play.
6.) Its a balancing act, though I'd probably put accessibility right behind class balance and tied with more options for my list of priorities.
7.) Probably, as long as my gaming group was down. But not in doomsday dawn or anything else geared to give playtest feedback.
8.) I'd like to see less strict class niches in general.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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.)

Yes

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

I like 1e but am glad that a new edition is coming out to codify and implement many things that have come out in other books.

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

Did not like 4e at all, one of major reasons went to pathfinder. I liked some of the things in it. I did not like how it felt like a board game.

I love 5e, however do not like the lack of customization. I immediately was thinking of ways to implement bounded accuracy into pathfinder.

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 these things. Though having smoother high level play would be awesome. Especially after level 20.

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

I would not mind it at all if it is more accessible

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).

Ok this question is interesting. I love 5e, my group hates it. They love pathfinder for its customization. When I saw starfinder I thought this would be awesome if i could use it as a straight fantasy rpg.

In my opinion you have done the work for me. What i am reading as far as rules go, is a combination of some things i liked from 5e implemented in a different way, and Starfinder.

If this is the way pathfinder 2e is heading, I will be playing pathfinder til 3e comes out

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)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)
No. The 3.5 Mechanic has been part of my gaming on and off for ~18 years? I'm bored with it and actually think it interferes in some instances with the stories my gaming group like to share.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)
Yes. Quite. I'm one of the old guard in a sense. I switched with Paizo as the magazines were yanked. I loved the game...and still do enjoy the way they tell a story...but eventually PF1 didn't move the needle for me. Maybe, bloated?

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

Truly enjoy 5e...but wish it had more character input and decisions when leveling (and this is from someone who DMs 95% of the time). Some ideas I liked in 4e, but the game got too gamist, too clunky...I prefer 5e's story over mechanics approach...harkens back to 2e for me. But, I'm always drawn to that 4e style...*something* is there WotC didn't quite get at. I'm hoping PF2 does.

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.)
Out of the 3 - I prefer the last 2. I love options.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Not sure what this means. But, if you mean pick up and play...it will never be that I don't think. D&D is probably still the gateway drug, if you will. I think PF2 should almost be advanced D&D if you will.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I think I answered this in 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).
Obviously. I'm here for the innovation.Why stop now?

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)

A style of game that supports the pillars of play and, most importantly, supports DMs running thrilling games that increasingly busy/distracted/time-shortened players can enjoy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook 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. Uh...my major issue with PF 1E is less the rules, and more that it's increasingly hard it feels like to find anyone interested. Granted I can fully admit this might be a location issue, but I feel like based on other accounts it's not just me. A new edition is probably the shot in the arm Paizo needs.

3. I wasn't paying attention to RPGs when 4E came out, although I know my friends who kept gaming complained about it. I have the 5E rulebook but haven't played yet...someday perhaps.

4. Reducing caster-martial discrepancy without homogenization. Building the game from the ground up to allow further expansion of popular existing rules from non-corebooks and requested options. A robust release schedule that provides a streamlined yet complex gaming experience. Basically keep the customization of PF 1E while eliminating un-needed complexity.

5. I am not sure what this means exactly. An inaccessible game, especially to folks who are new or only played 5E (which I see as a feeder system for PF 2E) seems like something no one wants.

6. False dichotomy

7. Sure...It's a playtest...I don't expect the current rules to be what we get

8. See 4?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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

Yes, extremely so. I love the options and the versatility of the system - it's everything I loved about 3.5 but better.

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

The amount of crunch during combat is troublesome for me, as I tend to GM for young players and those who aggressively don't care about rules, putting a lot of the burden on me.

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

4th - No. Hated it when I tried it. 5th - I've only begun playing in a small PbP game, but it seems promising.

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 good - every class should be able to contribute. There should be no "you have to do this" choices. Options are always fantastic, assuming that later options don't completely overshadow older ones (1E: Why play a barbarian when you can play a bloodrager with a particular archetype and do the same thing, but more?)

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

Accessibility is how you get people to play.

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

Huh? I don't understand this question. Those things would improve accessibility.

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 was better.

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)

It needs to be able to suit any sort of in-genre character construction at an assumed base power level. It needs to scale well. It needs to maintain verisimilitude and the world should feel epic. Pathfinder 1E did this very well, with some few exceptions. The playtest rules seem like they can do this, although I'm a bit wary of the proficiency scaling.


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

Yes. I love the diversity of options, and the cost of the pdfs being so much lower means that I can build a character using 4 different books without blowing $100.

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

Yes. I personally love 1e, but its complexity makes it very difficult to get into for new players.

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

Never played 4th, but I like 5e a lot. You don't get the crazy wierd complicated characters like pathfinder, but the streamlined nature makes it easy to pick up and play, without it being "dumbed down", or completely pulling out all character diversity.

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 and smoother higher level play would probably be my focuses. For more options: do you mean more options than have been released in the playtest? Absolutely. Pathfinder with just the CRB looks fairly boring to me after the decade of post-initial release books. More options than PF1 as it stands today? I don't know that you CAN add many more options without those options getting lost in the noise. There are already more class/archetype options than I can count.

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

I feel that accessibility is important: if no one new can pick up the game, the game will eventually die. We get older, get more responsibilities and don't have as much time to play, etc... and lose players, so it's important to have a constant stream of new players. That said, I also think it's important to not sacrifice the fun for veterans just in order to draw in new players.

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

Sigh... the the short-sighted "I WANNA PLAY A HALF-GOBLIN ORACLE-MESMERIST" in me says yes... but no. As I stated in #5, the game will eventually go away entirely if new players are not drawn in on a regular basis. It's already hard enough to find a game, we don't need the number of players to slowly fade away.

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. I'm not married to PF2. I mostly like what I'm looking at, but I haven't even playtested it. Besides, I've played D&D 5e, Shadowrun, WFRP... I'm not afraid to try new systems.

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)

Firstly, keep pathfinder pathfinder. We don't need a carbon copy of another system set in golarion. If I want to run a D&D 5e game set in Golarion I can do that. Shoot, I can run one set in Tamriel. That said, there are some things that could be added/addressed: short rests like in D&D 5e, some kind of versatility powers for martials to address the disparity between them and casters at higher levels... etc.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
Love it. It was my introduction to TTRPGs.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
No. It has quirks, but nothing troublesome. The problems I have with PF are the lack of a continuity between "Sword & Board" through Early Modern (Pathfinder) and futuristic (Starfinder) rulesets and settings because of my homebrew setting, which needs technologies that span the Modern Era gap. In addition to interdimensional travel, time travel is a thing in my homebrew world. This is why I'm converting over to Palladium until I can get that Modern Era gap filled with PF style rules and mechanics. No, D20 Modern does NOT satisfy me.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
Never even looked in a 4e PHB, and I dislike 5e. Personal taste.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
More options are always nice, but I have plenty with PF1. However, the Alpha Playtest has given me some tasty morsels to drop into my homebrew PF1 "soup."

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
I don't think I understand what you mean by "accessibility," so I won't comment.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
Please see my answer to #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).
I see no actual NEED for a PF2. I feel that almost ALL of the adjustments to the original (edit: that the Alpha Playtest brought to the gaming table) could have been presented in a Pathfinder Unchained 2, or the like.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
I haven't played it too often, but I like pathfinder, and it does a lot of thing better than 5e, such as animal companion/pet mechanics, the amount of options and concepts you can make, and the really out there feats that let you "bend the rules" so to say, like Elven Battle Focus and Way of the Shooting star letting you use mental stats like Intelligence and Charisma of all things in place of strength for damage and attack rolls.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
There are somethings I don't like about it, such as the martial/caster disparity that it has which can end with martials, and occasionally even skill monkeys twiddling their thumbs out of combat as they lack the utility and narrative agency mages have. I also dislike the rocket tag that can come from casters on both sides opening with incredibly powerful control spells that can instantly decide between won fight or a tpk, since most spells and spell-like effects don't allow for more tries to end it early. And lastly, there's not really much areas that allow "mundane" abilities or methods to really shine over magical methods, at least in high level play.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
I never really played 4e, but I started with 5e, and it's generally the system I am most used to. I like 5e, but like my views on pathfinder, there are things 5e does better that pathfinder, and those things pathfinder does better than 5e. 5e is probably a lot easier to run and homebrew, I like being able to make multiple attacks without having to worry about things like iterative penalties or being locked out of multiple attacks because you had to move to reach the person.

What I didn't like was how some of the base classes like the ranger and the sorcerer to some extent were lacking, how animal companions weren't as well done as they were in pf(and were actually more confusing due to how their statblocks were worded). Proficiency was also a double edged sword. On one hand it made attack scaling and skill checks more simple, but it made saving throws a lot worse, as basically, if you lack proficiency in a save, it doesn't scale at all (Unless you got something to boost wisdom saves, or put abis in wisdom, a lvl 20 sorcerer is just as bad at wisdom saves as a lvl 1 sorcerer, making it really easy to fail). In a sense, this can potentially make rocket tag a lot worse when two opposing casters try to land hypnotic pattern on each other's parties first to win the fight (5e's hypnotic pattern is extremely powerful compared to it's pathfinder counterpart, with the caveat that an ally can use an action to shake a guy out of it). In pathfinder, at least your bad saves still scaled, even if they were at a reduced rate.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
All three of those ideally, but mainly allowing martials stand on even ground with casters without sacrificing too much customization or making the high level play fall apart like it usually does

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
I'm all for it. Makes it easier to get into dming and it makes it easier to get games rolling

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I mean I was able to get into pathfinder from 5e, so I'm fine with not having as much accessibility, but I would rather not have to use an app to figure out everything when building characters like I do now.

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!

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
PF2e has a lot of things I like, but there are still some things that need improvements, such as non-magical healing (oh why did they remove treat deadly wounds), the ranger's hunt target ability, and more ways to get signature skills (such as through traits or backgrounds like in Pf1 and Starfinder respectively)


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
- Yes I love it.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
- No, I still love it.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
- I quite like some elements of 5e but find it too simplistic. I really like the Adventures in Middle Earth 5e ogl version, mostly for the flavour, and an excellent 'journey mode' mechanic.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
- Retaining the power of pathfinder whilst creating better system consistency and fluidity. ie: more elegance. I'm happy since it seems that's what the design team at Paizo are aiming for too.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
- Always a good thing, but not at the expense of making the game overly simple. The playtest book is hard to read and could be better structured, but it's just a playtest book and the eventual CRB I hope is more user friendly.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
- There's other ways to create accessibility other than the core rule book. A Pathfinder 2 Beginner Box comes to mind. It's possible to have both.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?
- Probably unless it was really weird.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
- More elements for what gets called 'narrative play'. Basically a bit more role play encouragement from the system in places.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Phantasmist wrote:

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

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?

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. Still liking it very much.

2. A little bit. There's so much stuff out there and I just haven't the time I used to have so it basically has become impossible for me to keep up with all things PF1

3. I used to hate 4E with a vengeance. Still not a game I want to play, but in the meantime I've seen too much good stuff to not admit that it is a good game, it just isn't for me. With 5E I guess I would like it, only that WotC failed in making me interested enough to give it a try when it came out. It's on my list of games I might play some time in the future, though.

4.Mostly options. High Level game will only be interesting to me if they tone down the game a lot and I think that options and class balance are at least to a degree exclusive, so I'd rather accept less class balance instead of removing potentially unbalanced options.

5. Making the game more accessible is absolutely important.

6. Well to be honest, it isn't important enough to me to accept removal of things (like more options) that I really like. (again see 4e: way more accessible than Pathfinder, still preferred PF).

7. Probably yes. In general, rules aren't important enough for me to deny participation in a game.

8. I'd love to play a low-magic, low-powered version of Pathfinder


1. Yes, I currently thoroughly enjoy Pathfinder.

2. I have found PFS decisions and Errata changes troublesome, but otherwise, no.

3. No experience with 4th edition, so no comment besides memes. 5th edition is perfectly fine for what it is, but I don't derive as much enjoyment from it as I do with Pathfinder.

4. I'd like more options, though I'd probably rank smoother high level play higher. Class balance ranks lowest.

5. Making the game more accessible is always good.

6. A skillful game design team can provide more options without compromising on accessibility, though accessibility isn't a high priority for me. 5th Edition exists for that.

7. Alternatives are fine, though the skeleton we already have is shaping up to be pretty good.

8. As far as what an alternative would be...going the Action Points route is pretty effective as far as I'm concerned. I'd have to be shown something else I guess.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

Yes but not as much as 5~10 years ago.

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

Troublesome is not the word I'd use, nowadays it feels unpolished. I was in the train among other folks thinking the 1st ed was in need of an overhaul.

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

5th Edition, but bear in mind that I've only played a few runs using those rules. And never played 4th Ed.

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

All of those. Practically asking for the impossible. I want every aspect of the game, from rules to flavor text, to have its own little place.

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

Overall, it's a good decision. But as I learned while testing 5th Ed, with accesibility comes easiness that may lead to boredom to more 'experienced' players.

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 than what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

If by alternative you mean variant rules, then yes.

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

a) AC divided into Blunt AC - Slashing AC - Piercing AC - Touch AC

b) More consequences for being wounded in combat. Both aesthetically and mechanically.

c) Saving throws more organical, using the 6 attributes.

d) Combat rules for fighting gigantic enemies, Shadow of the Colossus style.

e) 'Cheating' actions for big bosses like the legendary actions in 5th Ed.

f) I am pretty sure I can come up with more but my lazy mind stopped working.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadPhoenix9275931 wrote:
I'm converting over to Palladium...

May God have mercy on your soul. ;-)


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.) NO

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

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, MORE CHARACTER CHOICES

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? NOO FEELINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER

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). SURE, I'LL TRY ANYTHING - BUT I'M ALSO FINE WITH WHAT WE HAVE

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) NO IDEA, I'LL KNOW WHEN I TRY IT IF I LIKE IT


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

- Yes, but it was honestly getting a bit bulky with too many options. (in all honesty, I expect a similar issue to occur with whatever PF2 ends up as)

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

- I still like 1e, but as above it is a bloated whale of a system at this point. As a GM the more options available the harder it is to prep for, especially when it comes to higher-powered spells.

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

- There are aspects that I like but others that I don't. In DnD4th I really liked the balance around the classes, but the limited options made for very cookie-cutter builds and the versatility of spell casters was severely diminished decreasing options in play. In DnD5th, the overall simplicity of the game was a bit of a turn off for me, again a lack of options, but in this case as characters grew in their classes. I also dislike the severely curtailed bonuses in DnD5th it makes the roll of the d20 much more significant, so characters that are supposed to good at something can frequently be surpassed by those who weren't supposed to be.

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 feel like class balance is a big one for me, along with smoother high level play. I'm okay with less options overall, but with enough viable options to make characters unique from one game to the next.

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

- Absolutely on board with this. I can't see a game system surviving when it caters purely to those who want more and more complications. Getting it to the point where the next generation of gamers can enter into the game without too much fuss, while at the same time not losing its identity, is a GOOD THING.

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

- From what I am asking for from question 4 would actually increase accessibility anyways. Decreasing accessibility will always hurt the game in the long run, the question ought to be what is the right balance.

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 honestly feel like this is a foolish question. PF2e Playtest has only been available for a couple days, nobody should be so happy with the current ruleset that they can't see changes. In fact, other than those who say something along the lines of "PF2e is broken change it nao!" the counter arguments have mostly been "give it a bit of a chance, play it, then see what needs to change." The knee jerk response is just that, a purely emotional response which has little basis in actual play.

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 want to see a balanced, streamlined game, that still promotes the Pathfinder feel. Unlike some, I like some of what was put out in Starfinder and find that to be part of the Pathfinder identity now, thus some of the Starfinder-ish aspects I find perfectly reasonable in PF2e.

- Expanding on balance a bit more, I would love an edition where spellcasters retain their versatility but don't become virtual gods in comparison to other classes later in the game. I would like to see the balanced play period expanded from roughly levels 7-11. This means less game-breaking spells and more things for non-full casters to do at higher levels.

- Streamlining, there are a bunch of rules that aren't strictly necessary in normal play in PF1e which just serve to complicate gameplay whenever the rules are brought up. Decreasing the number of special circumstances would serve to help that. In addition, as mentioned in the balanced section, fewer game-breaking spells would go a long way.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.) - No the game soured on me after having ran a Wrath of the Righteous campaign

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

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments) - Never played either

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 think smoother play at all levels are what I'd like more than anything

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? - Accessibility is always a good thing

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? - I believe the game should be accessible first

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) - It's called Savage Worlds or nWoD

1 to 50 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.