| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, but I see, what, 12 posts on this thread since the playtest came out? I don't think thats particularly telling in any aspect.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some dude in there said 5E had a great licence and I had to be hospitalized because I broke several ribs while laughing frantically.
Looks like a lot of debate about 5e, a random screenshot they for some reason don't like, and never bother to explain why it's bad.
So pretty much exactly like here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
reddit.com/r/pathfinder_rpg has a slightly different feel from here. I'll see posts that get a lot of enthusiasm over there, but when someone posts here people ignore the idea or poo-poo it. By contrast, here the "cleric/god alignment change" thread had a ton of responses, but over there people were all, "Oh, that's weird. I hope they change that."
The vibe I get is that folks here are super invested in 'Playing Pathfinder Right' i.e., 'As Intended by the Devs.' And so if something is changed, a lot of people here are really eager to be heard because, I dunno, they're worried they'll have to change how they play their games. Maybe there are more PFS players here?
Over at reddit, it seems like the crowd is less hardcore-PF, and more general-RPGers, so if PF2 isn't quite to their liking, they'll house rule or just play something else. There isn't as much acrimony when folks disagree.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want some reading, here's some of the most commented threads on the Playtest.
Pathfinder Playtest Megathread - First Reactions, Quick Questions, Discussions (1747 replies)
The Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest is Available (632 replies)
The more I reread the Pathfinder 2nd Edition rules, the more I appreciate DnD 5th's design (411 replies)
I guess I wanted Pathfinder 1.5 instead of Pathfinder 2 (213 replies)
Lots of posts with a smattering of replies.. some of the biggest discussion is on the 5e forums, where there's an obvious increase in the number of perspectives/comments from folks who made the 3.5->PF1E->5e journey and are evaluating what's next.
Yeah, and that last post with the edited character sheet and cards was really f~@~ing cool.
You know Rysky I almost never agree with you, on anything from what I can tell. But I do agree with you on this.
That mock up looks great, reminds me of WHFRP 3e sheets, and is crisp, clean, and easy to read. A lot of games could do well to imitate such a design for their sheets.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably because Organized Play is one of the biggest draws of Pathfinder (at least in my area). If the system isn't consistent and doesn't work well enough to be done "out of the box" it really impacts that amazing organized play environment that Paizo has set up. Frankly, without PFS I wouldn't even be playing and every rule I see I have to evaluate with regards to the PFS environment - and that's where designer intent matters and houserules don't mean anything.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, talking about hourse-rules, even outside the playtest, seems to anger, and threaten some folks or something, then they go on the attack, one of the weirdest things.reddit.com/r/pathfinder_rpg has a slightly different feel from here. I'll see posts that get a lot of enthusiasm over there, but when someone posts here people ignore the idea or poo-poo it. By contrast, here the "cleric/god alignment change" thread had a ton of responses, but over there people were all, "Oh, that's weird. I hope they change that."
The vibe I get is that folks here are super invested in 'Playing Pathfinder Right' i.e., 'As Intended by the Devs.' And so if something is changed, a lot of people here are really eager to be heard because, I dunno, they're worried they'll have to change how they play their games. Maybe there are more PFS players here?
Over at reddit, it seems like the crowd is less hardcore-PF, and more general-RPGers, so if PF2 isn't quite to their liking, they'll house rule or just play something else. There isn't as much acrimony when folks disagree.
I mean, one of the key things about this board and not other ones is that we know for a fact that Paizo folks are reading it, and they will take some of what they read into account when finishing up the final product. With that in mind, I'm primarily interested in giving good feedback which is helpful in developing the game, and while I have a bunch of house rules I'd be interested in exploring, I'm not going to talk about them here because they are not what we are playtesting.
Like if I just come out and say "I'm going to change x, y, and z" then all data I provide for the playtest is kind of useless to everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, talking about hourse-rules, even outside the playtest, seems to anger, and threaten some folks or something, then they go on the attack, one of the weirdest things.I mean, one of the key things about this board and not other ones is that we know for a fact that Paizo folks are reading it, and they will take some of what they read into account when finishing up the final product. With that in mind, I'm primarily interested in giving good feedback which is helpful in developing the game, and while I have a bunch of house rules I'd be interested in exploring, I'm not going to talk about them here because they are not what we are playtesting.
Like if I just come out and say "I'm going to change x, y, and z" then all data I provide for the playtest is kind of useless to everyone.
House rules kind of miss the point of a playtest. The point is to make the published material as good as possible. If you're using house rules, that's fine, have fun. But it's got very little to do with playtesting. I think the point here, is to find out how the system works as written, so the final book will be as good as possible. And that way we don't have to house rule so much with the final version. The more you houserule the core of the system, the more you're going to have to do that with everything that comes after, because it builds on the core.
Although if you go through the playtest as normal, and /then/ apply house rules after the fact and write up posts on how that changes things, that's a different thing entirely. But houseruling before you even play the system as written is rather weird, that's like dumping a bunch of seasoning on something that you've never even tasted before and then writing a review of the food. You can't write a fair one, because you didn't taste it as prepared.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know anybody who has ever played PFS...
I'm used to a far more collaborative approach than PFS sounds like. And I don't want a finely tuned board game.
At least here, PFS was a major driver of Pathfinder sales. I saw hundreds of books purchased by players to 'prove ownership' whereas home gamers could easily rely on the online SRD alone.
In looking back at the 'death of PFS' here (the region went from ~500 monthly players to ~20), rules were only part of the problem. A lot of players were lost during the sci-fi season. Rules bloat hit a dearth of traditional fantasy simultaneously (there was much consternation at the Technologist feat and how only those 'in the know' had an advantage). This was followed by the 'elemental' season which I know was met with decreased enthusiasm alongside general fatigue, particularly as hybrid classes outshined core classes in play.
I can't help but see the hyper-balanced PF2e chassis is intended specifically to address organized play.
My first play-through of PF2e had all the players cite it felt 'board-gamey' like Munchkin Quest more than D&D. Here, the notion of +1 per level to all rolls isn't objectionable but is common-place as a game mechanic. It's when we are picking a system for home game campaign worlds where we want a better approximation of 'reality with magic'.
My sense is reception of PF2E currently divides a lot depending on how much a gamers' time split between home campaigns and PFS.
The folks coming from organized play fall into 2 camps:
1) Like it! I want a better balanced game (these are folks who played alongside raging barbarian/alchemists who did +32 damage at like 3rd level). They embrace the changes that bring all classes to parity (and things like heroism lasting 1 minute).
2) Dislike it! I want to dominate games (these are the folks who 'broke the game'). They generally don't like PF2e at this stage as it's not clear how to build a character vastly superior to average.
The folks coming from home games fall into 2 camps:
1) Dislike it! They have a finely tuned game world, where they rationalize how fast a character is, or costs of goods, or how magic plays into their campaign (and consequently house ruled things like a Create Water cantrip). They're not as enthused because things like +1 per level to everything means oddities like a 5th level Carpenter who picks up a sword for the first time ever probably has a better chance as striking a target than a 2nd level Fighter (or take your pick of wizards arm-wrestling or other similar metaphors).
2) Like it! Their home groups approximated organized play a little more closer and they had game-breaking players and the system as it stands provides a better engine to reign those players in by using the printed 'rules' as the hammer vs having obvious GM fiat/discussions rein them in.
There's certainly exceptions here, undoubtedly the replies to this post will be those too!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know anybody who has ever played PFS.
I don't play PFS and don't know many that do. That doesn't mean that I don't want the game to work out of the box without needing houseruled. That's because I play online and not with one set group: as such, I don't want to HAVE to learn a new set of rules everytime I join a new table.