Is it too late to go back to the drawing board?


General Discussion

351 to 375 of 375 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Angiolillo wrote:

WHY KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE?

...

So what is the flaw in Pathfinder Playtest? In order to implement the idea of critical failures, the play test invented hero points. So dig a hole in the system and create an artificial plug.

...

So Pathfinder Playtest moves more power to the GM and away from the players

I thought one of the designers said hero points would be an optional rule in the end not sure where I got that from atm though.

However most of the wording sounds as it would be optional. So I have a hard time following you in your connection of the new critical rule and hero points.

My real question though is how are hero points moving power to the GM?


If hero points are given out on GM whim, then they are outside of the control of the players.

In the 5e game I'm running I used to give out reroll tokens frequently. Then I gradually forgot about them. (Fortunately by this time the party had got strong enough that they didn't seem to need them any more.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

But what I meant by "balancing the fun right out of the game" is that about every formerly really good ability or spells seems to have been nerfed. You could call that an "imbalance" in PF1E, but I'd say that those abilities/spells were which created fun for players. I've commented in another thread that the vaunted martial/caster imbalance never played out the way many people describe at my table, but then I've been playing with mostly the same...

I agree more or less. However, the lack of martial/caster imbalance is likely explained by the enjoyment in PF1 of leveraging system mastery as a martial over a caster. As a martial you could do some fun and interesting things, create action combos and what not, but a caster would simply turn the game off by creating infinite resources of some variety.

The PF2 caster changes seem to be pointed at removing the infinite resources bugs in PF1, but have gone out of their way to also make casting pretty poor due to its limited resources, poor success rate, low duration, and reducing potency of utility spells enough so that they can neither fulfill their intended role nor any other possible function.

With the exception of the bard of course.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

the GM defines what makes you earn Hero Points. You brought the wrong beer to table? No Hero Point for you. Killing the Black Magga is a heroic deed? Not with me. You were 5 minutes late to the session? Sorry, no points earned today...also, your nose looks funny, forget to ever get points in my games.


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

Seems worries about Hero Points are a bit overblown. A GM has absolutely no need for hero points if he wants to screw over players.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've got 99 problems with 2e, but hero points aren't one of them...


MMCJawa wrote:
Seems worries about Hero Points are a bit overblown. A GM has absolutely no need for hero points if he wants to screw over players.

I completely agree. The last thing a GM needs is just another mechanic to validate them being an awful person if they are an awful person


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Arklore wrote:
I ask this because in 2015 and 2016 D&D had almost no presence at GENCON and was not even in the main convention hall in 2016 where as Pathfinder was in the Sagamore Ballroom, totally packed from 8AM till roughly 11PM.

And at GenCon 2018, the Sagamore Ballroom was packed with players 24 hours a day for four days.

From what I heard from those GMs running demos and the PFS GMs running the PF2 scenarios, there was an overwhelming wave of love for the new rules once people actually sat down and played. That doesn't mean that there aren't some rough spots that might need to be filed down, but the mood coming out of GenCon was extremely positive.

-Lisa

I was one of those folks and, yes, it was extremely positive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Angiolillo wrote:

WHY KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE?

As a retired professional game designer and game historian of some note, I find the Pathfinder Playtest has a fatal game design flaw. My background is: starting designing games in 1959, designing games at Coleco for Colecovision and the Adam and Atari and other computers, designing WarGames which was awarded the #1 game cartridge in 1984, developing the first edition of Axis and Allies, since 1968 being mentored by Gary Gygax, owning and designing games for Nova Games and Game Theory and Design, Simulations Publications (SPI), scenarios for Avalon Hill, etc.

There are many new ideas in the Pathfinder Playtest that are good ideas and have great potential so I will not comment on these ideas. Playtesting will make those good ideas great and streamline the system, removing others.

The fatal flaw is explained as digging a hole in the design to fill it with a plug. This same problem occurred with updates to GPS systems. When GPS for cars first came out you were asked to input address number, street name, city or town name, and state. That system worked great. Then some idiot designer decided you should only input address number and street name. The system would take up to 5 minutes to search every town and city in America and list a number of places based on distance to choose as your destination. The search result was tedious and time consuming, sometimes never listing the destination searched for. That GPS system was worse than a map! The next generation design was even more ridiculous. The idiot designer decided to do the same thing but show a map with circles of locations. You had to guess which circle was your destination. Then you had to press that circle and the GPS system would update your driving directions, almost always giving the wrong destination. You would have to do the same thing all over again until you found the correct driving directions. Terrible! Terrible! Terrible! Siri and the I phone have replaced GPS systems and eliminated an entire industry.

So what...

Number of players are up- they are playing 5E though and that gives even more power to the DM. Giving more power to the players has the inmates running the asylum. And the complexity. If the game is to complex to run for a GM they do something else which atm seems to be 5E.

Seems a fairly common complaint about PF, I like playing it do not like GMing it and if you can't find a GM no game. Magic items are a great example of that. In 5E its back to AD&D get what you are given, PF its get what you can buy or easily make. Its personal preference at that point but some poor sod has to arbitrate the get anything you want and doesn't bother and quits or goes and plays something else.

I'll play most versions of D&D from OD&D to 5E, I won't DM 3.X though and would I am not that motivated to play them or 4E although if it was a choice of that or no D&D I would be more inclined to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Angiolillo wrote:
WHY KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE?...

For me is the rarity system, and more so after seeing the number of staple spells that are uncommon.


Ghilteras wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
What is gone forever is the option to keep the status quo. Revolution is coming, be it one way or another, I feel.

That revolution may be a repeat of the one that took place with 4e.

A substantial percentage of the player base leaving for another company.

In case you have not noticed this is what's been going on in the past 2 years with people leaving Pathfinder for 5e. PF2e needed to come out a year ago, but they needed to finish Starfinder first, which is opinionated, but still a success, mainly for the fact that there are no competitors in the sci-fi niche. It's not too late to fight back before 5e gets the whole pie and the only way to do it is to provide feedback so PF2e can become better. It won't change dramatically of course and why should it? It has some excellent ideas. It need work and tuning, sure. We need to help.

I honestly don't know that this is proven. Remember when someone tried to use roll20 games available as proof of this but when the actual numbers were shown PF games on roll 20 had actually increased, its just that they were a smaller share of games because 5E had exploded. Basically meaning that People playing rpgs as a whole had increased and PF hadn't experienced any kind of drop, but instead a slower rate of growth than the brand new game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
At least half the classes look incredibly lackluster compared to their PF1E versions. And I am talking just about the CRB versions, added options from other books aren't even included in that. I have a serious case of "Why would I want to play this class?" when looking at Alchemists, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards.

You keep looking at the most overpowered options these classes have to provide* and complain that the PF2e power level is lower. While you refuse to accept that PF2e's most powerful classes are going to be reduced in power you're going to keep repeating the same talking points (and I worry that you'll be dismissed by the devs). Not every class was equally balanced in PF1e and they're aiming to make them equally balanced in PF2e. If you refuse to accept that very basic premise of the playtest rules your feedback is going to be meaningless.

*Well except for ranger of course. They were by no stretch of the imagination overpowered

Joe Angiolillo wrote:
the play test invented hero points. So dig a hole in the system and create an artificial plug.

As a gaming historian I'm sure you're aware that hero points existed in 3.5e (Unearthed Arcana and Eberron's action points) and Pathfinder 1e (Advanced Player's Guide). So I'm surprised that you're saying hero points were invented for PF2e when they clearly weren't.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess you could call me an old-school player.
I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.


LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.

4e borrowed quite a bit of design philosophy from AD&D 2e. Both revolve around the party and their adventures, while 3e tries to be more grand.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.

Ha, it's kind like the original Star Trek movies, for me, the 2nd (Wrath of Khan) and 4th (Voyage Home) are the best.


Noodlemancer wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.
4e borrowed quite a bit of design philosophy from AD&D 2e. Both revolve around the party and their adventures, while 3e tries to be more grand.

I don't see that at all, 2nd and 4th Ed are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum, in mechanics and approach. 4th Ed borrowed from DDM, ToB, and SWSE.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Noodlemancer wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.
4e borrowed quite a bit of design philosophy from AD&D 2e. Both revolve around the party and their adventures, while 3e tries to be more grand.
I don't see that at all, 2nd and 4th Ed are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum, in mechanics and approach. 4th Ed borrowed from DDM, ToB, and SWSE.

The mechanics are different, but the spirit is similar. Both metaphorically put the party on a throne above everything else, and focus on the party's adventures to the exclusion of everything else.

There's a reason there's a lot of overlap between 2e and 4e players. I know lots of people who started with 2e, hated 3e, and then switched from 2e to 4e when it came out.


Noodlemancer wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Noodlemancer wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.
4e borrowed quite a bit of design philosophy from AD&D 2e. Both revolve around the party and their adventures, while 3e tries to be more grand.
I don't see that at all, 2nd and 4th Ed are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum, in mechanics and approach. 4th Ed borrowed from DDM, ToB, and SWSE.
The mechanics are different, but the spirit is similar.

I don't see any similarity in spirit, either; I have played both, extensively.

2nn Ed is heavily narrative (epic campaign settings, meta-stories), can be played sitting in armchairs around a coffee shop (David Zeb Cook wanted it that way), a lot of TotM play; 4th Ed is all about the Encounter, heavily leans into cool stuff you can do with pieces of plastic on dungeon tiles.


Vic Ferrari wrote:

I don't see any similarity in spirit, either; I have played both, extensively.

2nn Ed is heavily narrative (epic campaign settings, meta-stories), can be played sitting in armchairs around a coffee shop (David Zeb Cook wanted it that way), a lot of TotM play; 4th Ed is all about the Encounter, heavily leans into cool stuff you can do with pieces of plastic on dungeon tiles.

Ah, this is where our disagreement lies. 4e is also very narrative-centered, with tons of narrativist mechanics and even a FATE-style freeform skill system where stuff is supposed to be adjudicated by the DM on the fly. Doing only encounters is not playing to the system's strength. I both played and ran sessions of 4e without a single combat in them, and I loved them still.


Noodlemancer wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

I don't see any similarity in spirit, either; I have played both, extensively.

2nn Ed is heavily narrative (epic campaign settings, meta-stories), can be played sitting in armchairs around a coffee shop (David Zeb Cook wanted it that way), a lot of TotM play; 4th Ed is all about the Encounter, heavily leans into cool stuff you can do with pieces of plastic on dungeon tiles.

Ah, this is where our disagreement lies. 4e is also very narrative-centered, with tons of narrativist mechanics and even a FATE-style freeform skill system where stuff is supposed to be adjudicated by the DM on the fly. Doing only encounters is not playing to the system's strength. I both played and ran sessions of 4e without a single combat in them, and I loved them still.

Yes, that was almost totally freeform, which I like, does not really need rules, can do that with any game (we still role-played and such in my Planescape campaign that I converted to 4th Ed rules), but the game was definitely a child of DDM (a great, popular and successful game).


I do hope they go back to the drawing board for spells and spell casters. If spells are left in this weakened condition I will NOT support 2E.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
At least half the classes look incredibly lackluster compared to their PF1E versions. And I am talking just about the CRB versions, added options from other books aren't even included in that. I have a serious case of "Why would I want to play this class?" when looking at Alchemists, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards.

You keep looking at the most overpowered options these classes have to provide* and complain that the PF2e power level is lower. While you refuse to accept that PF2e's most powerful classes are going to be reduced in power you're going to keep repeating the same talking points (and I worry that you'll be dismissed by the devs). Not every class was equally balanced in PF1e and they're aiming to make them equally balanced in PF2e. If you refuse to accept that very basic premise of the playtest rules your feedback is going to be meaningless.

*Well except for ranger of course. They were by no stretch of the imagination overpowered

Well, that's a bunch of assumption rolled into one post. Did you overlook the sentence "And I am talking just about the CRB versions"?

Yeah, I "refuse to accept" that hard class nerfs were necessary for the classes I mentioned, because I honestly hate this "make it safe for the messageboards!" approach Paizo seems to have taken for their design of this playtest. My approach to designing a new edition would have been to make the weaker classes more awesome, not bring down the good classes to the level of the weaker classes.

And thanks for trying to preemptively declare my feedback meaningless. Really grand of you.

From my perspective, I am trying to help save the edition from a terrible mistake. I probably am not going to be successful, but I hope to influence the developers in a way which makes the new edition at least playable to myself.

Lastly, I've gotten quite a bit complaints in my group how the bow rangers are running away with the game, so my opinion is of course a bit different. They still are a way more awesome class in the current edition than the playtest.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.

I would bet it's almost entirely a symptom of how much you have played a system. If you started out in 1E and played through 2E (which is really only a modest change from 1E), you were probably getting tired of the mechanics or had run into the shortcomings of the system by the time 3E came out.

Someone who had just started with 2E (especially if they started later in the production cycle) probably hadn't gotten tired of the system, and were still in the phase where the idea of adopting a brand new different system would just induce groans.

I mean I think you are seeing a little bit of that here in the forums, either consciously and subconsciously from some folks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

What are your group's specific concerns, if you don't mind me asking.

351 to 375 of 375 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Is it too late to go back to the drawing board? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion