| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this is quite self indulgent and self-obsessed. But I thought given my posting history during the playtest previews it was worth making a post.
I've taken some time to have a bit more of a look and it might not be as bad as it looks. The previews certainly made half the stuff previewed look very 4th ed-ish in nature. I've been very vocal about that and I've been very vocal about why I don't like it. My first initial look at the fighter also appeared very 4th ed-ish as well. I've been vocal about that as well.
However having posted my thoughts here and getting corrected on things, it seems better then I initially thought. Having also built a fighter, fighter feats seem as specific as all hell, but they do appear to be much more intricate and defined then 4th ed. You won't just be doing "worst daily power, best encounter power, 2nd best encounter power, at-will powers for the rest of the fight" combat after combat.
So you're going to see some positive comments from me. There's some things I still have extremely strong reservations about (+level to AC, +level to untrained skills, multiclassing via feats ONLY), but I am taking a more reserved view of these things until I can see how they function in actual play.
So for anyone whose having strong negative reactions to the playtest, post up some areas you have strong concerns about, be open to being corrected and try to keep an open mind.
Cool.
I must admit I was a bit surprised when you were posting some positive comments.
There are some prominent people that are still very negative. Maybe they will come around in time.
I must admit I was a bit surprised when you were posting some positive comments.
There are some prominent people that are still very negative. Maybe they will come around in time.
I may not stay positive. I had a very strong initial reaction to what I saw in the rules, and I've posted my thoughts on them and had others point certain things out to me (specifically how complicated fighters can be with the press and open traits). I've also built a fighter PC to try to start get a handle of how character creation works in comparison to 4e.
I'm not looking at any specific details right now and instead getting an overall handle on the rules. Once I start delving in depth into specific rules you'll likely see some very critical posts from me (hopefully constructive criticism though). Once I get to play a few games I may completely turn and say exactly how bad the game is when played at the table and how it feels like I'm back to playing 4th ed yet again.
Those people who are negative, very well could have very valid reasons to be so. And I may come to agree with them once more once I get more exposure to PF2e.
But for now I'm liking what I'm seeing on a conceptual level. Even resonance is worth a try IMO (and I've been very dismissive of this mechanic up until now). I'm not promising I'm going to be Mr. Positive. Nor am I saying I'll switch over to PF2e from PF1e. What I am saying is "this might not be as bad I first thought" ;)
I'm also an early adopter. My first tabletop RPG was D&D 4th edition. I've since played 3.5e (for the first book of Second Darkness only), Pathfinder 1e (only because a friend of mine had played 4th ed and it seemed fair if he was going to play a game he disliked that I should do the same and give PF1e a chance), AD&D 2e, D&D 5e and Starfinder. I read and play new game systems. The only I've stuck with thus far though is PF1e.
+ Level to everything is also my biggest reservation. I'm not saying it's impossible to make it work... but it's hard. And it'll be controversial.