A statement from Paizo would go a long way...


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

22 people marked this as a favorite.

I realize the staff is just getting back from GenCon, and I could be reading the situation incorrectly here, but I'm of the opinion that for a *lot* of people, PF2e is not presenting what we were sold on. The underlying chassis is solid, but the choices feel shallow, hidden behind class walls, and the system itself doesn't feel like something that's been tested for a couple years now, as there are lots of obvious errors in the playtest material, and some of the rules themselves seem unnecessarily obtuse. These feel like things that could have been easily spotted prior to printing with a thorough read-through.

It's possible some of this is omissions from the playtest that are planned to be in the final release (for example, Double Slice being locked from Rogues). It's also possible that the errors were due to the rush in getting this thing out the door. If so, a statement to this effect would probably go a long way in keeping goodwill, in my opinion.

From a personal perspective, I love Paizo and what they've done with PF1e. From the beginning, I've felt that the launch and playtest timeframe seemed extremely narrow/insufficient. I haven't made a big deal about this, as I assumed that this had been thought through thoroughly. After looking at the Playtest material as a whole, I find my confidence in this waning. This is extremely concerning to me, as I think PF2 has some absolutely amazing ideas being built in, and I'd hate for the end result to be bad just because it was rushed.

Once again, this is my personal perspective, so feel free to disagree, but please understand that I am actually saying this because I do care about the end product here and its success.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

FWIW, I agree with this. I think there are brilliant things in this new version of the game, but I also think the playtest is a long way from being what it should be. Some of that is just things that could benefit from another editing pass (Piercing only for Bastard Swords?). Some of it is stuff that I assume is intended for the final versions of the classes but got skipped due to time pressure (I can't imagine that a DEX fighter is intended to get all those proficiencies in Heavy Armor for example). If we're testing just a subset of the final game that's fine, but I'd like that to be made clear, because if this is indeed the intended limitations of the final core system that's a very different game than I was hoping for.


People would not post if they did not care.

Another consideration is space. Only 434 pages means that there were likely cuts to just make the document fit.

Possibilities are Feats, class or other, for space.

Rewording of text to shrink it while adding unintended ambiguity.

The system looks good to me as it is very extensible. The class feat system perhaps forgetting certain old general combat/metamagic is something I foresaw.

Grand Lodge

18 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they did a really good job but this community is just one ofthe most closed minded ones out there. It was formed on not wanting to move on so this was to be expected. People will adapt.

I've read through 80% of the book now and have not really noticed any glaring issues and they have to leave room for splat books later. Dont worry choices will be huge after a year or so. Enjoy having only a few books right now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the errors and inconsistencies are inevitable for an internal document being revised by people who are in on the early versions. They don't read carefully the new stuff and how it all interacts, or mistakenly assume old habits and assumptions are either still operative or spelled out explicitly when they are not.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
A lot of the errors and inconsistencies are inevitable for an internal document being revised by people who are in on the early versions. They don't read carefully the new stuff and how it all interacts, or mistakenly assume old habits and assumptions are either still operative or spelled out explicitly when they are not.

A good author knows better than to edit their own work. The playtest had 11 editors (not counting Erik who was also a developer). There's no excuse for the number of obvious omisions, typos, and contradictions which have been found in less than a week by amateurs and professionals... in their free time.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of the playtest stuff, but with Gen Con and the fact that they have to go through hundreds if not thousands of critiques (both positive and negative), I think we should cut Paizo some slack as far as responding goes. :)

Also, I would think the playtest was organized to examine certain aspects of the game and therefore what you see in the playtest documents (layout, structure, etc.) will not be presented the same way in the final version.

This is a "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks version."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DaveMage wrote:

I'm not a fan of the playtest stuff, but with Gen Con and the fact that they have to go through hundreds if not thousands of critiques (both positive and negative), I think we should cut Paizo some slack as far as responding goes. :)

Also, I would think the playtest was organized to examine certain aspects of the game and therefore what you see in the playtest documents (layout, structure, etc.) will not be presented the same way in the final version.

This is a "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks version."

RE GenCon: Yeah, I totally agree there. I understand if a response/statement is delayed because of this. Yet, at the same time, it was their choice to release *at* GenCon, so some of this is on them. They could have released a few weeks earlier and had the first playtests at GenCon and had reasonable time to respond to "first impressions".

Re "throw stuff at the wall": This... isn't really true, in a couple of ways. First, they're throwing exactly one thing at the wall. There's no "here are two variant systems of multiclassing, test them both" or "here are two ways signature skills could work". Given statements, I don't think that this will happen, which is a big problem. More importantly, however, is the Playtest *should* give a feel for what the final game will be like, whether or not the rules are exactly what they will be. Right now, that game feels extremely constrained and unnecessarily complex, and not one I'm likely to play long-term.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
A lot of the errors and inconsistencies are inevitable for an internal document being revised by people who are in on the early versions. They don't read carefully the new stuff and how it all interacts, or mistakenly assume old habits and assumptions are either still operative or spelled out explicitly when they are not.
A good author knows better than to edit their own work. The playtest had 11 editors (not counting Erik who was also a developer). There's no excuse for the number of obvious omisions, typos, and contradictions which have been found in less than a week by amateurs and professionals... in their free time.

There’s actually not that many from what I’ve seen from these boards. And even outside of Paizo I’ve yet to find any books that didn’t have a fleet of typos and other errors.

As for the (uncountable number of) amatuers and professionals that have found them in a week, that’s kinda our porpose. It’s safe to say that a lot of have been devouring these books. And of course more errors are going to be found, the more eyes you have looking over something.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually love the base system. I just feel that a ton of the /specifics/ and /options/ need work and expansion. There's a great chassis here, but it needs a lot of love to whip it into shape. Hopefully they are willing to give it that time, and give us an extra playtest iteration, rather than hold fast to that August final publish date as set in stone.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

It genuinely feels like a lot of the furor isn't motivated by a whole lot beyond "I don't like change" which is a feeling that eventually passes, and there's no reason for Paizo to legitimize it in the meantime.

For the most part PF2 seems very solid but in serious need of tweaking, which is kind of what a playtest is for.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I follow a lot of posts from Paizo staff, and the number of times I've seen either James Jacobs or Vic Wertz reply something to the effect of "That's really great feedback. Here's why we did it this way, but we'll have to keep thinking about it." is very encouraging. Hopefully everyone else is taking some much needed vacation this week, but I'm sure their responses will come soon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The devs have said there's not as many options in the playtest as there will be in the core book. They are intentionally testing the chassis and the ideas they feel need testing the most. Having said that, no doubt our feedback will influence the existing material and also what is added. But anyone expecting them to redo the underlying new framework they've created is being unrealistic.

FYI i agree the characters feel less flexible than from PF1. But I suspect that has as something to do with the missing 20+ books of extra options we no longer have in the new edition.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It genuinely feels like a lot of the furor isn't motivated by a whole lot beyond "I don't like change" which is a feeling that eventually passes, and there's no reason for Paizo to legitimize it in the meantime.

For the most part PF2 seems very solid but in serious need of tweaking, which is kind of what a playtest is for.

Just to be clear, I like change in this case. I think many many aspects of the playtest are dramatically better than PF1. It has great potential to turn into my new default game (as opposed to 5e). But I also think it falls short of the sort of flexibility that we were sold on by the developers, and could have stood to have some outside playtesters go over the pdf before it got sent to the printers to point out some of the more striking issues. It feels rushed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like PF2 was always going to be a significant step down from PF1 simply because Pathfinder had about 30 hardbacked sourcebooks and over 100 splats of various kinds, whereas PF2 has one book.

So when concerns about "there is insufficient flexibility" come up, I find the useful question to ask is "can we resolve this inflexibility by printing more options (feats, archetypes, etc.)?" If the answer is "yes" I feel like it's going to be taken care of in time.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like PF2 was always going to be a significant step down from PF1 simply because Pathfinder had about 30 hardbacked sourcebooks and over 100 splats of various kinds, whereas PF2 has one book.

So when concerns about "there is insufficient flexibility" come up, I find the useful question to ask is "can we resolve this inflexibility by printing more options (feats, archetypes, etc.)?" If the answer is "yes" I feel like it's going to be taken care of in time.

I feel like there is a significant difference between "I wish there were more feats" and "The hard coded choices in the class simply fail to support builds that are implied by the class's actual feat selection". Why would my Archer Fighter (which has a huge number of options when it comes to useful fighter class feats, in fact Fighter is basically the only class with those archery focused options) want to walk around in Heavy Armor, basically ignoring his heavy investment in DEX? As it currently stands higher level Fighter class abilities assume he wants to do that with no option to change them. That's weird, and there are other examples beyond the Fighter. In a game that intends to sell itself on the flexibility of it's character builds that's a concerning place to start.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I 100% agree on the opinion that there is a great chassis here, but specific node options need to be cleaned up.

I'm hopeful, as in the ACG playtest we actually did get a second set of classes updated with feedback to test after our initial reaction had more systemic issues that prevented strong play testing.

That said, Paizo is also known to be stubborn and not to budge on specific options. I hope when they say they're willing to change anything if that's what people want rings true.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like PF2 was always going to be a significant step down from PF1 simply because Pathfinder had about 30 hardbacked sourcebooks and over 100 splats of various kinds, whereas PF2 has one book.

So when concerns about "there is insufficient flexibility" come up, I find the useful question to ask is "can we resolve this inflexibility by printing more options (feats, archetypes, etc.)?" If the answer is "yes" I feel like it's going to be taken care of in time.

I'm suggesting inflexibility when compared to either Pathfinder 1e Core, or even D&D 5e PHB. So I don't think this is valid. Even ignoring additional content, 1e was a lot more flexible, and offered much more diversity with regards to viable builds (if we ignore the 2-3 completely overpowered builds, in fairness).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:


I feel like there is a significant difference between "I wish there were more feats" and "The hard coded choices in the class simply fail to support builds that are implied by the class's actual feat selection". Why would my Archer Fighter (which has a huge number of options when it comes to useful fighter class feats, in fact Fighter is basically the only class with those archery focused options) want to walk around in Heavy Armor, basically ignoring his heavy investment in DEX?

That's a very fair point, i've seen it made a few times by others and I agree. There's a bunch of tweaks that are needed along those lines - but at least they are tweaks not heart surgery.

The constraint that gets to me the most currently is the inability to add one signature skill freely to a character (often done with traits in PF 1). That's got a lot of other people concerned too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, we're going to get traditional archetypes back after core right? Presumably we can print one of those to get light or medium armored fighters up to snuff.

It's a question of balancing "accessibility" and "depth"- having classes make relatively few structural choices and still have a working character is a big boon for less experienced potential players, and then we can make them pretty intricate in later books.

Like the fighter class is one of two classes someone might pick because their idea is "I want to make a really tough character who wears heavy armor" so we should probably make sure it works as that. An archetype which trades/alters "Heavy Armor Expertise" and "Armor Mastery" will not be hard to do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like PF2 was always going to be a significant step down from PF1 simply because Pathfinder had about 30 hardbacked sourcebooks and over 100 splats of various kinds, whereas PF2 has one book.

So when concerns about "there is insufficient flexibility" come up, I find the useful question to ask is "can we resolve this inflexibility by printing more options (feats, archetypes, etc.)?" If the answer is "yes" I feel like it's going to be taken care of in time.

I absolutely agree with this; I worry a little about innappropriately class specific feats (like Additional Heigjtwning).The biggest problems to me are the outright ommisions, contradictions, and errors.

To me the errors we've found indicate the staff was playtesting using their own Internal PRD, and that they never actually performed a complete dry-run using the same playtest materials they've put together for us. I just don't see how you can make it through even a single play-session, let alone character generation, without realizing you've ommited Unarmored Defense training, that Bastard Swords aren't Estocs, and that rules text for the Shield Block action contradicts the only example it references.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, we're going to get traditional archetypes back after core right?

Are we? All we've been told is that that kind of archetype is technically possible: full stop. We have NO promise that we'll see ANY of those kind, let alone one that fixes any individual issue. We can't test things that aren't here, just what's been printed up and given to us to test.


graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, we're going to get traditional archetypes back after core right?
Are we? All we've been told is that that kind of archetype is technically possible: full stop. We have NO promise that we'll see ANY of those kind, let alone one that fixes any individual issue. We can't test things that are here, just what's been printed up and given to us to test.

Also, I'm not sure I *want* two systems for archetypes. I want exactly one system that works the way it should.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

32 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
I follow a lot of posts from Paizo staff, and the number of times I've seen either James Jacobs or Vic Wertz reply something to the effect of "That's really great feedback. Here's why we did it this way, but we'll have to keep thinking about it." is very encouraging. Hopefully everyone else is taking some much needed vacation this week, but I'm sure their responses will come soon.

And it's no coincidence that myself and Vic are both part of the skeleton crew who did NOT go to Gen Con. Maintaining a presence on the boards during Gen Con, with the combination of lack of access to reliable internet and, even more, the lack of TIME to get on the internet, make it pretty much impossible for folks working at Gen Con to have much of a presence at all on the boards here.

As the week goes on, and as folks recover from the show, I suspect you'll see more of us online on these boards. For now though, please be patient and remember that folks only just yesterday got back from the show and many are spending at least today recovering and, in some cases, dealing with con crud type stuff.

Thanks for understanding and for your patience, all. Playtests on a scale like this are always tough, frightening, and frustrating, but we can get through it if we all work together toward the common goal of making the next edition of the game as perfect as we can!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, we're going to get traditional archetypes back after core right? Presumably we can print one of those to get light or medium armored fighters up to snuff.

It's a question of balancing "accessibility" and "depth"- having classes make relatively few structural choices and still have a working character is a big boon for less experienced potential players, and then we can make them pretty intricate in later books.

Like the fighter class is one of two classes someone might pick because their idea is "I want to make a really tough character who wears heavy armor" so we should probably make sure it works as that. An archetype which trades/alters "Heavy Armor Expertise" and "Armor Mastery" will not be hard to do.

I have no objection to supporting that (just like I have no objection to supporting a Rogue that uses DEX based weapons), I just wish it was clear that the core of the game will support reasonable other builds of each of these classes. I want to be able to build a Fighter who's DEX based, or a Rogue who's STR based. Neither of these are particularly out there ideas, they each have SOME support in the classes already, but there are hardcoded elements in the class that point you away from those directions. It's actually less reasonable to try to make those in the PF playtest than it is in 5e, which is concerning if the plan is for PF2 to be sold as giving you more options.

Now maybe the answer is "we will give you that support in the core of PF2", either via additional class feats or archetypes or whatever, then fine, but I'd like that to be explicitly stated, because what there is now is weirdly both more flexible than PF1 and more constrained. If the plan is "come back in two years after we've dropped a bunch more books" then I will be sad, because these feel like things that should happen in the core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, we're going to get traditional archetypes back after core right?
Are we? All we've been told is that that kind of archetype is technically possible: full stop. We have NO promise that we'll see ANY of those kind, let alone one that fixes any individual issue. We can't test things that are here, just what's been printed up and given to us to test.
Also, I'm not sure I *want* two systems for archetypes. I want exactly one system that works the way it should.

I feel like if we can keep straight the difference between "class feats" and "general feats" we can keep straight the difference between "class archetypes" and "dedication archetypes" (or "general archetypes" or something.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
I follow a lot of posts from Paizo staff, and the number of times I've seen either James Jacobs or Vic Wertz reply something to the effect of "That's really great feedback. Here's why we did it this way, but we'll have to keep thinking about it." is very encouraging. Hopefully everyone else is taking some much needed vacation this week, but I'm sure their responses will come soon.

And it's no coincidence that myself and Vic are both part of the skeleton crew who did NOT go to Gen Con. Maintaining a presence on the boards during Gen Con, with the combination of lack of access to reliable internet and, even more, the lack of TIME to get on the internet, make it pretty much impossible for folks working at Gen Con to have much of a presence at all on the boards here.

As the week goes on, and as folks recover from the show, I suspect you'll see more of us online on these boards. For now though, please be patient and remember that folks only just yesterday got back from the show and many are spending at least today recovering and, in some cases, dealing with con crud type stuff.

Thanks for understanding and for your patience, all. Playtests on a scale like this are always tough, frightening, and frustrating, but we can get through it if we all work together toward the common goal of making the next edition of the game as perfect as we can!

Thank you, this goes a long way, at least for me.


Cantriped wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
A lot of the errors and inconsistencies are inevitable for an internal document being revised by people who are in on the early versions. They don't read carefully the new stuff and how it all interacts, or mistakenly assume old habits and assumptions are either still operative or spelled out explicitly when they are not.
A good author knows better than to edit their own work. The playtest had 11 editors (not counting Erik who was also a developer). There's no excuse for the number of obvious omisions, typos, and contradictions which have been found in less than a week by amateurs and professionals... in their free time.

I suspect both that those editors were working on it for a long time, and thus learning bad habits and assumptions from earlier versions, and that there were some quick changes right before it went to print.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
I suspect both that those editors were working on it for a long time, and thus learning bad habits and assumptions from earlier versions, and that there were some quick changes right before it went to print.

Not entirely true.

It's pretty much 100% the truism that tens of thousands of eyes will catch things that a few dozen did not.

Having been a part of the process from the start and seeing the work the editors put in... I can absolutely vouch for the incredible job they did on the playtest.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
A lot of the errors and inconsistencies are inevitable for an internal document being revised by people who are in on the early versions. They don't read carefully the new stuff and how it all interacts, or mistakenly assume old habits and assumptions are either still operative or spelled out explicitly when they are not.
A good author knows better than to edit their own work. The playtest had 11 editors (not counting Erik who was also a developer). There's no excuse for the number of obvious omisions, typos, and contradictions which have been found in less than a week by amateurs and professionals... in their free time.
I suspect both that those editors were working on it for a long time, and thus learning bad habits and assumptions from earlier versions, and that there were some quick changes right before it went to print.

Speaking as someone who both edits and writes professionally, there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to staring at something you've worked on, and I doubt Paizo is going to hire new editors for each pass through the document. Go over something enough times and it's easy to miss typos. And if you're working with something you're familiar with (as the Paizo team are, since they've been internally playtesting for awhile), you might not notice an omission of important information since the information is already in your head.

Personally, I think the base system seems solid and there are parts of it I really like. There are also parts of it I'm not keen on that I hope get some heavy revisions, as well as some minor nitpicks that I'll either get over or houserule out if they make it into the final version. (I also agree that some parts seem a little unnecessarily constrained in a way that the PF1 CRB wasn't, so I'll definitely be mentioning that in the playtest.) So far, trying to read through the book has been a touch frustrating due to the organization, but I also played a short playtest delve at PaizoCon and enjoyed it, so I'm hopeful.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Meraki wrote:


Speaking as someone who both edits and writes professionally, there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to staring at something you've worked on, and I doubt Paizo is going to hire new editors for each pass through the document. Go over something enough times and it's easy to miss typos. And if you're working with something you're familiar with (as the Paizo team are, since they've been internally playtesting for awhile), you might not notice an omission of important information since the information is already in your head.

Quoted for truth; what cured me of complaining about excessive typos in others' work was creating and supporting technical documentation for a living. No matter how large and diligent your team is, carp happens. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meraki wrote:
Speaking as someone who both edits and writes professionally, there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to staring at something you've worked on, and I doubt Paizo is going to hire new editors for each pass through the document.

The latter is a exactly what I would have suggested, bring in one last freelance (or otherwise previously uninvolved) editor to look the whole thing over with 'clean-eyes' and catch the obvious things.

The things I noted above were just the things I've personally verified in the course of preparing to run my first playtest session. The errata thread contains dozens of things I haven't yet verified for myself.


Meraki wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
A lot of the errors and inconsistencies are inevitable for an internal document being revised by people who are in on the early versions. They don't read carefully the new stuff and how it all interacts, or mistakenly assume old habits and assumptions are either still operative or spelled out explicitly when they are not.
A good author knows better than to edit their own work. The playtest had 11 editors (not counting Erik who was also a developer). There's no excuse for the number of obvious omisions, typos, and contradictions which have been found in less than a week by amateurs and professionals... in their free time.
I suspect both that those editors were working on it for a long time, and thus learning bad habits and assumptions from earlier versions, and that there were some quick changes right before it went to print.

Speaking as someone who both edits and writes professionally, there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to staring at something you've worked on, and I doubt Paizo is going to hire new editors for each pass through the document. Go over something enough times and it's easy to miss typos. And if you're working with something you're familiar with (as the Paizo team are, since they've been internally playtesting for awhile), you might not notice an omission of important information since the information is already in your head.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, and offering it as an explanation and justification, not a criticism, of the inconsistencies and contradictory rules bits. Especially contradictory reports for how the rules are being run at cons vs. what's in the book.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What would really have helped me and my group was a section explaining the changes (philosophically if not mechanically) from PF1 to PF2.

The basic, generic preamble to this book was fine (same kinda thing you find at the front of most RPGs), but it didn’t really help transition players from PF1 to PF2. Paizo has to know they’ve got players who’ve been running some version of the 3X system (D&D 3, 3.5 and PF1) for nearly 20 years. Including a section that briefs those players on what’s changing from would be very, very welcome.

As for a lot of the complaints in previous posts about a lack of options, from what I’ve seen that doesn’t quite ring true. I think that the fact that your proficiency reflects your level makes that much less of an issue. Figure, even if you’re untrained and have no ability score bonus, if you’re a 5th level character you have AT LEAST a +3 bonus to every skill, save, and ability. It seems to me that will give all characters more viable tactics to employ. Yeah, it seems to be tougher to create unbalanced/OP/exploitative characters, but that’s kinda the point, right?

How many hours have we all spent with gamers trying to create those kind of characters? “I wanna be a fighter, but I want all the rogue skills.” “I want to be a rogue but I also want to be able to stand my ground in a melee fight.” If the fighter you’re trying to build/play doesn’t wear heavy armor or use shields, and has a great dex and favors bows, maybe he’s a ranger?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Yes, that's what I'm saying, and offering it as an explanation and justification, not a criticism, of the inconsistencies and contradictory rules bits. Especially contradictory reports for how the rules are being run at cons vs. what's in the book.

You do realize that most of the playtest gms only had the book a few of weeks before GEncon themselves, and had to try and memorize a 400+ page document while also having a job and life outside of prepping for Gencon.

This happened last year with Starfinder, and I am not surprised some GMs defaulted to old habits with the playtest.


avi burk wrote:

What would really have helped me and my group was a section explaining the changes (philosophically if not mechanically) from PF1 to PF2.

The basic, generic preamble to this book was fine (same kinda thing you find at the front of most RPGs), but it didn’t really help transition players from PF1 to PF2. Paizo has to know they’ve got players who’ve been running some version of the 3X system (D&D 3, 3.5 and PF1) for nearly 20 years. Including a section that briefs those players on what’s changing from would be very, very welcome.

this is true. a little truthful information why something was changed would help understand the changes


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Klart McCather wrote:

I think they did a really good job but this community is just one ofthe most closed minded ones out there. It was formed on not wanting to move on so this was to be expected. People will adapt.

I've read through 80% of the book now and have not really noticed any glaring issues and they have to leave room for splat books later. Dont worry choices will be huge after a year or so. Enjoy having only a few books right now.

Speaking of closed-mindedness...

It would be extremely dishonest to imply that the majority of complaints here stem from fear of change. I also see posts around that discount people's opinions because they think people are upset they won't have access to a decade of content. I see that claim more often than the actual complaint.

And, even if some people are upset because of change...so what? "You can't judge this system on the merits of the old system" is basically saying "using an external reference point for what works and what doesn't is invalid."


DFAnton wrote:
Klart McCather wrote:

I think they did a really good job but this community is just one ofthe most closed minded ones out there. It was formed on not wanting to move on so this was to be expected. People will adapt.

I've read through 80% of the book now and have not really noticed any glaring issues and they have to leave room for splat books later. Dont worry choices will be huge after a year or so. Enjoy having only a few books right now.

Speaking of closed-mindedness...

It would be extremely dishonest to imply that the majority of complaints here stem from fear of change. I also see posts around that discount people's opinions because they think people are upset they won't have access to a decade of content. I see that claim more often than the actual complaint.

And, even if some people are upset because of change...so what? "You can't judge this system on the merits of the old system" is basically saying "using an external reference point for what works and what doesn't is invalid."

true, but I have seen a large number of people that when pushed for an answer do admit that they have not read the book/pdf before launching what sounds an awful lot like the same complaint(s). Still, you do have a point.


Tim Statler wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Yes, that's what I'm saying, and offering it as an explanation and justification, not a criticism, of the inconsistencies and contradictory rules bits. Especially contradictory reports for how the rules are being run at cons vs. what's in the book.

You do realize that most of the playtest gms only had the book a few of weeks before GEncon themselves, and had to try and memorize a 400+ page document while also having a job and life outside of prepping for Gencon.

This happened last year with Starfinder, and I am not surprised some GMs defaulted to old habits with the playtest.

I do, but I also think some of the Paizo employees might have been running it "wrong." Logan gave a report on how shield damage is supposed to work that I think is contrary to the (confusing to understand but not that ambiguous after consideration) published rules.


rooneg wrote:
FWIW, I agree with this. I think there are brilliant things in this new version of the game, but I also think the playtest is a long way from being what it should be. Some of that is just things that could benefit from another editing pass (Piercing only for Bastard Swords?). Some of it is stuff that I assume is intended for the final versions of the classes but got skipped due to time pressure (I can't imagine that a DEX fighter is intended to get all those proficiencies in Heavy Armor for example). If we're testing just a subset of the final game that's fine, but I'd like that to be made clear, because if this is indeed the intended limitations of the final core system that's a very different game than I was hoping for.

I disagree with you. The Play test is for that testing, we are testing the game, testing the math, the new mechanics, new action economy, how fast we get killed, crit system and so on.

The rules have been out for less than a week and I bet more people have played with them that any internal testing could have been done in a year.

Sure there is plenty of stuff there to polish, I’m with you with the bastard sword, I can’t imagine not being able to do slashing damage. But maybe it only does piercing damage for testing purpose. Like if it’s slashing piercing and 1d12, you may not use it because it’s just a more expensive strait better great sword
Also Enlarge person and the huge barbarian weapon sizes and so on.

All I see in the rules I see there to be tested, nothing more nothing less. If you want to know why and what are we testing in each mechanic, then cool but don’t expect a response in less than a week.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest question I've heard from the gamers in my circles who have enough interest in PF2e to download the PDF (but aren't hardcore enough to participate on forums):

"When's the next beta release of the rules?"

A lot of them discarded the rules from the PDF last week for various reasons (most around not wanting to learn certain systems, but many because their wasn't a clear path to certain character concepts). They are willing to invest the effort once it's a little more polished and it's another step iterated (with some of the baggage they don't want to learn - Resonance, Dying rules, etc jettisoned or improved upon).

I'm been suggesting that we'd probably see something in November since that'd be enough time for some 'alpha testing' to have run its course and seems about on par with other TTRPG rulesets I've seen tested via an online audience.

There's nothing official yet though, right?

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

19 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there all,

As noted in a post I made at the top of this forum, the team and I are just getting back from Gen Con and recovering from what has been an amazing week of gaming, playtesting, and talking to fans.

I want to thank James and Vic for keeping the torches lit here at home while we were out and you can rest assured that once we are back to 100%, you will be seeing a lot of us on these boards.

As for the errors that folks are spotting, that is the nature of this business. Typos and omissions are a fact of life in a book of this size. Comparatively speaking though, compared to early drafts, the number we are finding now are downright minuscule. Our editorial and development staff are rockstars, but nobody is perfect. Fortunately, this is a playtest and we have plenty of time to get it right.

(and for the record, we thought we had changed the unarmored defense bit in the book... but apparently the change slipped through the cracks and is our first bit of errata)

Thanks for your patience everyone, We are looking forward to engaging with all of you on this game!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ReyVagabond wrote:
rooneg wrote:
FWIW, I agree with this. I think there are brilliant things in this new version of the game, but I also think the playtest is a long way from being what it should be. Some of that is just things that could benefit from another editing pass (Piercing only for Bastard Swords?). Some of it is stuff that I assume is intended for the final versions of the classes but got skipped due to time pressure (I can't imagine that a DEX fighter is intended to get all those proficiencies in Heavy Armor for example). If we're testing just a subset of the final game that's fine, but I'd like that to be made clear, because if this is indeed the intended limitations of the final core system that's a very different game than I was hoping for.

I disagree with you. The Play test is for that testing, we are testing the game, testing the math, the new mechanics, new action economy, how fast we get killed, crit system and so on.

...

Here's my issue with this. Yes, I agree, these rules are for testing. But if you've noticed, there's been a lot of issues discovered. The problem is we're kinda operating on the assumption that this isn't the entire set of rules. If it is, then there's a problem, because it's extremely limiting. If it isn't, well, then there's another problem, because all of *those* rules haven't been tested, and I have no reason to believe they won't have a similar amount of issues...

PF1e, if I remember, had a playtest, but that playtest wasn't limited in visibility/content. Yes, it was made a lot easier because it was among a much smaller (generally speaking) group of people, but they had access to the entire system. There's a big difference between "unit testing" and "integration testing", and that second one really matters.


NOTE: When I say I'd like a statement, what I mean is I'd like some indication of the following:
1) Is this intended to be the entire play system, as it will be presented upon release, minus revisions, or is stuff being held back.
2) Will there be, as someone phrased above "another beta" release based on feedback that people can actually test.
3) If it's not the entire system, will the remainder be available to test prior to launch.


Cantriped wrote:
The latter is a exactly what I would have suggested, bring in one last freelance (or otherwise previously uninvolved) editor to look the whole thing over with 'clean-eyes' and catch the obvious things.

By the time said fresh eyes got even halfway through the entire play-test, they would no longer be fresh eyes at all. These things happen.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

19 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there folks,

The playtest last time felt a lot more complete because you could backfill whatever you were missing from 3.5. All told, the beta book was only 400 pages long as was missing large sections of the rules and a lot of versatility.

There is some of that going on here too. We fully intent to expand out some parts of the game as we make our way toward the final. The playtest will tell us what parts need more options to be a viable part of the game.

We will be releasing some revisions and hopefully one or two content expansions as the playtest continues, but there will not be an entire additional pdf revision. There is simply not the time for that sort of undertaking. That does not mean there will not be changes, it just means that those changes will be part of the final design.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

The playtest last time felt a lot more complete because you could backfill whatever you were missing from 3.5. All told, the beta book was only 400 pages long as was missing large sections of the rules and a lot of versatility.

There is some of that going on here too. We fully intent to expand out some parts of the game as we make our way toward the final. The playtest will tell us what parts need more options to be a viable part of the game.

We will be releasing some revisions and hopefully one or two content expansions as the playtest continues, but there will not be an entire additional pdf revision. There is simply not the time for that sort of undertaking. That does not mean there will not be changes, it just means that those changes will be part of the final design.

Thank you, this helps a fair bit. I won't say my worries are completely alleviated, as "there's not enough time" seems like it's going to be a common theme, and that's based on a timeline that Paizo set upfront for this beta test, so it's entirely adjustable.

From a personal viewpoint, and having spoke with a few people who are of a similar mind, the fact is that, yeah, I realize this was a playtest, but it was also Paizo's first chance to make an impression with the new system. It wasn't stated upfront if we'd get updates/additional material, but I expect, i think reasonably, that the Playtest should have shown off what PF2 had to offer. It does well in this from a gameplay aspect, but falls completely flat when it comes to character diversity and simplicity of rules. I'm willing to chalk the typos/errors up to common editor stuff and assume rules simplification can happen naturally, but if I'm to maintain any excitement for the upcoming edition, the character diversity issue really needs to be fixed with rules updates to the Playtest, preferably sooner rather than later (like, say, a month or so).

I'm not in marketing, so I don't claim to speak with any expertise here, but it seems not overly difficult to read the tea leaves that there are a lot of unhappy people, and that doesn't translate well to an actual product release. Given all the wonderful things about the new system, I'd hate to see it fall on its face because it was improperly represented initially.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
The latter is a exactly what I would have suggested, bring in one last freelance (or otherwise previously uninvolved) editor to look the whole thing over with 'clean-eyes' and catch the obvious things.
By the time said fresh eyes got even halfway through the entire play-test, they would no longer be fresh eyes at all. These things happen.

This doesn't seem hard to me. We, as players, have obviously done this over the course of a little over a weekend. Yes, it was a collected effort, but that can also be done with editors. Have individual editors assigned to the various sections and have them do reads just of those sections, maybe skipping to relevant details where appropriate.

Dark Archive

tivadar27 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

The playtest last time felt a lot more complete because you could backfill whatever you were missing from 3.5. All told, the beta book was only 400 pages long as was missing large sections of the rules and a lot of versatility.

There is some of that going on here too. We fully intent to expand out some parts of the game as we make our way toward the final. The playtest will tell us what parts need more options to be a viable part of the game.

We will be releasing some revisions and hopefully one or two content expansions as the playtest continues, but there will not be an entire additional pdf revision. There is simply not the time for that sort of undertaking. That does not mean there will not be changes, it just means that those changes will be part of the final design.

Thank you, this helps a fair bit. I won't say my worries are completely alleviated, as "there's not enough time" seems like it's going to be a common theme, and that's based on a timeline that Paizo set upfront for this beta test, so it's entirely adjustable.

From a personal viewpoint, and having spoke with a few people who are of a similar mind, the fact is that, yeah, I realize this was a playtest, but it was also Paizo's first chance to make an impression with the new system. It wasn't stated upfront if we'd get updates/additional material, but I expect, i think reasonably, that the Playtest should have shown off what PF2 had to offer. It does well in this from a gameplay aspect, but falls completely flat when it comes to character diversity and simplicity of rules. I'm willing to chalk the typos/errors up to common editor stuff and assume rules simplification can happen naturally, but if I'm to maintain any excitement for the upcoming edition, the character diversity issue really needs to be fixed with rules updates to the Playtest, preferably sooner rather than later (like, say, a month or so).

I'm not in marketing, so I don't claim to speak with any expertise...

Here’s where clarity and specificity would go a long way. What type of character diversity cannot be realized. Which rules need simplifying? For core options, there appears to be a fair amount of available options leading to considerable diversity - no two dwarves, fighters, or sorcerers need be the same. As far as rules simplicity go, dying is overly complex and it is wonky that half orcs suddenly get dark vision at 5th level. Bits and pieces like this need a tune up in ancestry and class, but they are hardly game-breakers in need a fix next week, or else.

Overall, the trend that I’ve seen is that those most opposed are most vocal here with a solid majority eager to play, but without time to haunt the boards and largely unconcerned with our forum shenanigans. Their experiences at the table will be a driver for this edition’s reception far more than our armchair critiques. I’m no seer, but, despite the rough edges that need working, the edition appears to be on solid footing thus far and will sell just fine when finished next year, despite arguments to the contrary.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:

I have no objection to supporting that (just like I have no objection to supporting a Rogue that uses DEX based weapons), I just wish it was clear that the core of the game will support reasonable other builds of each of these classes. I want to be able to build a Fighter who's DEX based, or a Rogue who's STR based. Neither of these are particularly out there ideas, they each have SOME support in the classes already, but there are hardcoded elements in the class that point you away from those directions. It's actually less reasonable to try to make those in the PF playtest than it is in 5e, which is concerning if the plan is for PF2 to be sold as giving you more options.

Now maybe the answer is "we will give you that support in the core of PF2", either via additional class feats or archetypes or whatever, then fine, but I'd like that to be explicitly stated, because what there is now is weirdly both more flexible than PF1 and more constrained. If the plan is "come back in two years after we've dropped a bunch more books" then I will be sad, because these feel like things that should happen in the core.

Exactly, it'd be good to know what's an omission for the sake of testing, and what's a deliberate design goal. Are the restrictive classes because they wanted to focus on making classes great at some particular playstyle, or did they always intend to add the missing flexibility back in the final core book? And if this was an intended thing, are they willing to change it? It does seem that the restrictiveness of classes goes against what I thought was the point of making everything a feat. Core feats locked to certain classes, or classes based around one style doesn't allow us to have the options we had in PF1, even in core.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / A statement from Paizo would go a long way... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.