Dead Before Start


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My fear is that new players will not playtest this game. Lack of new players trying out the game will result in the obvious lack of new player input- vital imput that is needed for a new game.

My other fear is that regular, long-time players like my group and I will no longer participate in the playtest due to reasons of frustration with layout; learning all new rules; and game design.

It's my fear because we will no longer be participating in the playtest. I've been playing Pathfinder since it came into existence, switching from ADnD 2e. I've got a lot of experience; I've played Pathfinder at least 3 times a month for the past 10 years.

Running a playtest is somewhat fun for me. My groups hates it. So we won't be playing the playtest without some changes to the rules. I fully understand the playtest isn't for fun- but losing valuable input from regular players (not playtesters) is a big deal to me.

I'd like to see PF2 succeed whether or not I decide to buy in. I'd like to buy-in frankly, because PF1 will go the way of the dodo, as do all older editions, especially at conventions where I mostly get to play as a character rather than be a GM for my group.

The combats are still just too long, even accounting for newby players reading new rules. My group just doesn't take well to long slog combats, and frankly I'm getting to that point, too. High level play with PF1 is already quite a drag. I wasn't expecting this with PF2 at low levels.

tl:dr

My group's input on the playtest will be lost, as it has not been a pleasurable experience thus far. Maybe that's for the best- leave it up to hardcore playtesters to do actual playtests, but I think Paizo will be losing valuable input from players who aren't hardcore.

Addition:

I want to clarify that there are many aspects of the game we like and we will certainly try the final version should we stop playtesting. I want to reiterate that we are stopping the playtest due to not having fun, not because the new game itself sucks. It's important to note why we aren't having fun: first, my players can be bumps on a log; second, my players just started PF1 in 2016, and never played an RPG before that, so they are still not in tip-top-shape with the PF1 rules, let alone reading through the dry PF2 playtest rulebook; my players like fast, quality combat encounters not long, boring encounters in quantity; the initial playtest format makes it frustrating to playtest.

Now, there are several things about the new game we don't like, and if the game were to be released as it currently exists before the part 3 update, we would not choose to play it. We don't like Resonance, at all. As the GM, I know I can houserule anything I want, but if I have to houserule a core design-a design which is important to the balance and operation of the rest of the game- then the game isn't something I'll be playing.

I believe Paizo is taking all of the feedback put out there- it makes business sense to do so. My group my end up being in the minority of what we want; if so, that's fine, we'll stick with PF! and more money for miniatures and the adventure paths (which I will convert to PF1).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wow your group wants shorter combats? That's a surprise coming from my group in 1e where combats will rarely last more than 2 rounds. I'm happy that combats are longer. makes them feel more epic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I think the community has killed this game for me. I like aspects of this game, and dislike others. Nothing is perfect. However in trying to keep up with the forums and get answers to questions, the sea of toxicity against this game has permeated into my every interaction with it.

One of my Shadowrun players, who is only peripherally interested in Pathfinder as one game among many, and not one he's currently playing, told me that he warned off some guys going to UK Games Expo, told me that they'd be disappointed because he heard they'd done a "4th edition" on it. He told me before I said a word on the subject to him.

So the news that PF2 is bad must have spread a fair bit. I got no idea where he heard it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure about the negativity people are seeing. I do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt on forums due to the lack of context for everything, but for the most part folks have been pretty normal, almost polite by internet standards.

I'll throw another vote for wishing we had a specific set of design goals to look at. I don't need a low magic coin toss game either. Pathfinder is my choice for meeting my play group halfway between 5e and GURPS. One of the big draws for Pathfinder is the wealth of spells and feats describing a wide range of powers, it's easier than writing new powers in GURPS for every new thing and getting the GM to sign off on it being world appropriate.

We have a home made game that's similar to PF2 balance and spell effects but it's a game for cartrips with little need for written rules.

Cartrip game:
Roll 1d6, succeed on 5+ for things you shouldn't be good at 4+ for things you're good at, attempt two rolls if you've succeeded at doing this exact thing before. Magic is doing something with one less required thing to do, iterating on previously successful spells ie start fire without tools>start no-tool fire without hands>start no hands no tools fire without fuel and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Wow your group wants shorter combats? That's a surprise coming from my group in 1e where combats will rarely last more than 2 rounds. I'm happy that combats are longer. makes them feel more epic.

How much longer are your fights in PF2? I'm finding my battles are either the same or with the swingy of crits, ending a round or two sooner.

I suppose the other way to read this is not turns but actual time. I dunno, my time in both games is maybe the same? PF2 might end the fight sooner, but we're having to look up rules and terms mid fight so that still takes some time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There aren't all that many people posting anymore. When I hop on it largely looks like a small group of 12 or so people reconfirming how bad they think the game is to each other and then extrapolating that to mean everyone must think the game is bad, after-all everyone on the forums says it is!

Can't say its true for everybody but I've not been posting much since release because most of my Pathfinder time is now spent either prepping for the next session or actually playing the damn thing and giving feedback through the surveys. I've kept things I don't like from my players (there are a few things) and they've been enjoying it as I don't poison the well for them. Only reason I'm reading and posting more this week is because we had a shorter than usual session and thus I don't need to prep much.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to think of us as the elite 12.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
When I hop on it largely looks like a small group of 12 or so people reconfirming how bad they think the game is to each other and then extrapolating that to mean everyone must think the game is bad, after-all everyone on the forums says it is!

Get off my lawn.


21 people marked this as a favorite.
Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I think the community has killed this game for me. I like aspects of this game, and dislike others. Nothing is perfect. However in trying to keep up with the forums and get answers to questions, the sea of toxicity against this game has permeated into my every interaction with it.

I was hyped to run this game, the same as I was back in the days of the 5e playtest. In the month it took for my normal hangout to open up again and let me run it, the reputation of Doomsday Dawn had spread to the point most people in my city have written it off. And the Playtest itself, despite being free, is so dry that I cannot convince anyone to actually read it. Hell our store is still fully stocked on copies of the Rulebook, both regular edition and the special edition with the leather-looking cover. And they've had them out on the shelf since the day before the digital release.

So we're sitting on a game no one wants to play, and nobody can say anything positive about. The only points of discussion are the game's flaws, of which it does have many, but none of what it presents new to the table is being explored.

I don't know why you're blaming the community for not liking the PF2ePlaytest and "killing" your fun. Isn't it Paizo's job to put forth an engaging and interesting game and not our job as "the community" to fake enthusiasm and pretend their new game is totes awesome? I'm being very literal here - they are paid to create games and presumably paid to do it with competency and skill.

If their new 2e materials aren't selling and people find their awesome new game off-putting and bland... that sounds a whole lot like Paizo's problem.

We don't owe Paizo our support and money. They aren't doing us a favor. We aren't actually required to act grateful when we individually or as a group feel they are doing shoddy work. They're trying to make money off of us (like most businesses). And we're evaluating whether we want to pay them for their product.

I was extremely loyal to the D&D brand from 2nd edition, through 3rd and 3.5. And WotC dropped the ball on 4e. Hard. All the brand loyalty in the world didn't make me willing to spend my hard-earned cash on that dumpster-fire they called 4eD&D.

I feel the same way here - I really love PF1e, and I want to love PF2e. But I'm not a braindead cash cow - I'm not going to pay for something I think is objectively bad just because it has Paizo's name plastered on it. I'm not going to hype it up to my friends if I think it's bad. Paizo doesn't pay me as a member of their marketing team, sorry.

But I love(d) PF1e enough to slog through the (often infuriating) PF2ePlaytest. I love(d) PF1e enough to give feedback and try and help address what I see as glaring flaws in their new edition in and on forums I know Paizo is monitoring and reading. Because, current criticism notwithstanding, I want PF2e to succeed.

What you seem to see as pointless forum toxicity, I see as (mostly) loyal Pathfinder players desperately trying to help save something they love. Because we want to give Paizo our money. They simply have to make it actually attractive for consumers to do so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am still pretty optimistic about 2e, but the discourse here has beaten me down a bit. There is definitely a lot of hyperbole and a fair amount of people speaking for everyone or flippantly. It isn't just the negative people, but the state of debate here is pretty disheartening.

You should expect discussion to be more focussed on flaws than successes, sure. And of course, forums are for diehard partisans, not the average consumer. I just think the tone people take has been very tiring, and could be a lot more productive.

There are some people making some fantastic posts about why certain aspects of the rules should change though. I am enthused by that, and I have trust in the devs to look towards those posts for direction.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
There aren't all that many people posting anymore. When I hop on it largely looks like a small group of 12 or so people reconfirming how bad they think the game is to each other and then extrapolating that to mean everyone must think the game is bad, after-all everyone on the forums says it is!

If there are only 12 people left, it's because of that group of 6 people that jump on anything even slightly negative by explaining that 'if you just played the playtest right' you'd love it as much as they seem to and anything that isn't perfect in it must be the fault of the people having the issue and not with the game mechanics themselves.

So of you don't want to just see 'those 12' people, don't be one of 'those 6' people that drives away those with less than slavish praise for the playtest. Note, this isn't directed at any one person. If the negative bothers you, don't add MORE negativity by focusing posts on other posters instead of the core issues with the game. If the moderate people get driven off because people are telling them they aren't playing right, it's not because of those of of that have problems with the game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's another super-obvious reason why threads and discussions about problems with the playtest get so many more pixels than ones about what works... people are trying to both explain why a thing isn't appealing to them and their playstyle and offer input on what might help. That leads to a lot of back and forth.

There isn't a lot to debate when something is popular. "I think the new mechanic that lets bards use actual wax when waxing poetic is great!" "Yeah, me too!" "Totes! Bards are my new fave class!" And then there will be passing positive references in other threads to wax and poetry, but it's not going to get everyone jumping in to post about how Paizo leave that exactly as it is, thanks!

A basic rule of thumb in customer service is that it takes 10 happy customers to balance out 1 unhappy customer. Happy customers don't tend to be aggressive in their enthusiasm to recommend a business, whereas unhappy customers tell everyone. they. know. By the same token, a couple of irritating mechanics can spoil an otherwise decent game. Having customers that care enough to explain what the sticking points are before the final print version is finalized is incredibly valuable. I assume that Paizo knows this, despite the very human frustration of having negative feedback to their bright, sparkly new system.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

There aren't all that many people posting anymore. When I hop on it largely looks like a small group of 12 or so people reconfirming how bad they think the game is to each other and then extrapolating that to mean everyone must think the game is bad, after-all everyone on the forums says it is!

Can't say its true for everybody but I've not been posting much since release because most of my Pathfinder time is now spent either prepping for the next session or actually playing the damn thing and giving feedback through the surveys. I've kept things I don't like from my players (there are a few things) and they've been enjoying it as I don't poison the well for them. Only reason I'm reading and posting more this week is because we had a shorter than usual session and thus I don't need to prep much.

What is your point?

Do you have any evidence that 2E is drawing more fans than it is alienating?

Do you realize you sound *exactly* like 4E fans who wanted to simply ignore complaints?

I've stated over and over that I'm more than open to moving on from 1E. But that doesn't make *any change whatsoever* the same as *good change*. And a lot of people have made very legitimate complaints. That should draw attention. I know every time I've tried to discuss issues, I simply get "but 1E sucked and this is an effort to fix it" responses. Nobody seems to be even slightly willing to discuss 2E itself.

And, yes, I've become very frustrated with that. And I'm sure it has shown. But if you want to politely discuss options, then please, come discuss. But it has to be a open two way street.

And, further, I do know that some real number of people are giving up altogether. The lack of traffic should *concern* you. And, if anything, the complaints are underrepresented.

We can talk about actually improving the game, but it requires someone willing to engage on that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So I got my first actual session under my belt. It was good.

There is still bad, but actually playing was nice. Combat felt smooth, and it felt like there was more to do with the three action system. The party rogue got what I could only describe as a "double kill", after a first round that had her, Pathfinder 1 style, missing a sneak attack and fleeing (without an opportunity attack, also very nice). Mobility is up due to the AoO cut, and that is really good.

My team is excited for the next session, and when those that were also in our Starfinder game got to talk about it, they had good experience.

This is what I mean. I'm not saying as consumers we have to bend over and present, but there is good change in this Playtest, and healthy change. Not everything is perfect, gotta work some of the kinks out, but at the core it is fun to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a difficult road. I share the opinion that this pLaytest is as it is now, way worse than the game they are improving. But I honestly think that we should not quit the boat.

The biggest problem would be that the developers would just think that there is nothing wrong with their playtest. We have put so much effort and feelings in our reviews that I think that we have avoided that pitfall.

Now that they are not going to underestimate the problems, I believe that they will keep working to find good solutions.

There are many very good things in the playtest worth saving!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adanadan wrote:
There are many very good things in the playtest worth saving!

Absolutely


Arrow17 wrote:


3) Very weak ancestory choices making you feel incomplete as a member of your race. Perhaps by level 10 my PF2 elf will feel like a PF1 elf.

4) Absurdly extreme penalties to weak starting skills makes even heroic characters feel meh untill around level 6.

The idea that characters don't really feel complete or playable till 6+ reminds me of d20 Modern. The idea of each class having selected talents instead of class features seemed good (and it was good in Saga Edition where they limited it to 5 classes with 20 talents each in core), but they spread them across 6 classes, loaded them with prerequisites, only had one option at level 1, and didn't print that many (even fewer ones that stand out as great) in the first place. The result was that classes had very blatant power gap: Smart Hero has loads of skill points and can use his int to attack in combat from level 3 (but his level 1 ability can only be "more languages" or "minor boost to some skills"), Dedicated Hero has less skills, same HD and a bonus to some different skills (and one extra point of BAB at level 3). This evened out once you got to level 6 and had 3 levels in an advanced class (prestige class) like Mage or Acolyte.

This (and d20 modern's many other problems at low level. You could literally botch wealth rolls so badly a character is impoverished and possession less, even basic clothes can be off limits if you roll bad, before he even leaves character generation) got so bad only three of the many published adventures actually started at level 1 (The first, and only, module of the canceled Project Javelin AP which takes you to level 2 by the first combat encounter, a short "you all meet in a fast food restaurant when it's attacked by non-human criminals" in Urban Arcana and the weird ''Far Voices'' which amounts to "you're magically compelled to buy a toy, someone else wants it, dealing with him is the entire module") and most took place in double digit levels because that's the only way the system didn't totally fall apart.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
There aren't all that many people posting anymore. When I hop on it largely looks like a small group of 12 or so people reconfirming how bad they think the game is to each other and then extrapolating that to mean everyone must think the game is bad, after-all everyone on the forums says it is!

On this thread I make the 12th 13th person to have posted today. Counting all the playtest threads I'd guess you're out by a factor of 4-6. There was a survey on SurveyMonkey linked from a thread here, and not elsewhere that I know of, which hit the maximum for a free survey there of 100 respondents.

Personally I try not to be negative. There are however things to be negative about in this playtest, and while they may change they're not really doing so now - there are vague promises for the future. At the mo it looks and plays worse than about 6 or 7 published RPGs I'm familiar with.


avr wrote:
Personally I try not to be negative. There are however things to be negative about in this playtest, and while they may change they're not really doing so now - there are vague promises for the future. At the mo it looks and plays worse than about 6 or 7 published RPGs I'm familiar with.

Hmhm. X3 Sorry, I love the statement. I try to look at RPGs in a vaccum to judge them fairly, though I could name 3 worse than PFP and 3 better minimally from the dozens I've played over the years. I'll try to keep within the Fantasy RPG realm for most of them so it's fair.

3 Better:
- Starfinder
- D&D 4e/5e (I'm making them one entry)
- Scion

3 Worse
- Ironclaw
- Palladium/Rifts
- Star Wars

Now opinion is subjective, people may not like the games I like, they may like the games I don't like. Those three worse had flaws generally from people trying to keep too close to a legacy or source material. The three I like, may have flaws, but they are games I have an interest in playing currently, or would like to revisit at some point. And there are many out there I still want to try.

This isn't a full ranking of even my top 3, just 3 that I would say are subjectively better or worse than the current state of PF2. The difference is, PF2 is still open to growth, they already nixed Signature Skills, so with each chapter of Doomsday Dawn one step at a time we may see things altered and changed, since each chapter playtests an entirely different segment of a sizeable game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for negativity: Why not? What works doesn't need to be changed. It's a playtest intended to identify problems with the system, not a search for a cheer squad. Of course people are going to be negative when their entire purpose is to find problems.

@Isaac Zephyr
There's at least 4 official Star Wars RPGS with multiple revisions each (WEG's D6, its 2nd edition plus 2nd Edition, Revised & Expanded. WotC's d20, d20 revised and Saga Edition which is effectively a separate game. FFG's system). You need to be more specific.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:


We can talk about actually improving the game, but it requires someone willing to engage on that.

I think you're being hideously unfair with that.

Paizo IS listening. They're watching the forums, they're analyzing the surveys, they're going to cons. They are constantly making changes to the game.

They know better than you (or I) what complaints are coming from the noisy few and what are coming from large numbers.

Its easy to feel ignored in that process especially when you make a WONDERFUL argument to no obvious feedback.

And most threads at least try to discuss the game and what people like and don't like about it. There is definitely some noise in the signal but there is also a LOT of signal


deuxhero wrote:

@Isaac Zephyr

There's at least 4 official Star Wars RPGS with multiple revisions each (WEG's D6, its 2nd edition plus 2nd Edition, Revised & Expanded. WotC's d20, d20 revised and Saga Edition which is effectively a separate game. FFG's system). You need to be more specific.

It was one of the first released after the Disney acquisition. It was published under the Disney Interactive label, and I found overall it had a very bad problem of outright one shotting players just due to the power of weapons. I was running it and I had to fudge an enemy Bounty Hunter's damage after my table was nearly done in by like... 3 troopers, just due to their blaster damage.

EDIT: And it used weird dice! I has to get the Star Wars Roleplaying dice app because my local store didn't sell them and constantly referring to the chart would have sucked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
BryonD wrote:


We can talk about actually improving the game, but it requires someone willing to engage on that.

I think you're being hideously unfair with that.

Paizo IS listening. They're watching the forums, they're analyzing the surveys, they're going to cons. They are constantly making changes to the game.

They know better than you (or I) what complaints are coming from the noisy few and what are coming from large numbers.

Its easy to feel ignored in that process especially when you make a WONDERFUL argument to no obvious feedback.

And most threads at least try to discuss the game and what people like and don't like about it. There is definitely some noise in the signal but there is also a LOT of signal

And I think your reply is unfair to me because it ignores the context of the post I replied to.

The topic at hand is the argumentative and negative tone on the forums. The *fans* on both sides are players in that.

EDIT: and to be clear, as I explained, I'm not being ignored. I'm getting responses that refuse to engage the topic but instead just complain about 1E as a red herring. (you deleted parts of my posts that addressed your concern)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's fair to assign responsibility for people not liking the playtest in the forum. My group (with only positive input from me) concluded the game was unplayable (as I feared) with only reading the playtest and not looking at the forums.

Paizo deliberately made the playtest as controversial as possible to get the most feedback. Now it remains to be seen how people refusing to participate bevause thr playtest has so little that they like helps Paizo in making the best game possible. I'm concerned their strategy will result on a game a bunch of existing PF1e fans dislike.


Isaac Zephyr wrote:
deuxhero wrote:

@Isaac Zephyr

There's at least 4 official Star Wars RPGS with multiple revisions each (WEG's D6, its 2nd edition plus 2nd Edition, Revised & Expanded. WotC's d20, d20 revised and Saga Edition which is effectively a separate game. FFG's system). You need to be more specific.

It was one of the first released after the Disney acquisition. It was published under the Disney Interactive label, and I found overall it had a very bad problem of outright one shotting players just due to the power of weapons. I was running it and I had to fudge an enemy Bounty Hunter's damage after my table was nearly done in by like... 3 troopers, just due to their blaster damage.

EDIT: And it used weird dice! I has to get the Star Wars Roleplaying dice app because my local store didn't sell them and constantly referring to the chart would have sucked.

It's the FFG one then. They have three lines, but they're all the same mechanically.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
pauljathome wrote:


I think you're being hideously unfair with that.

And I think your reply is unfair to me because it ignores the context of the post I replied to.

I was skimming and very likely missed context. My apologies for misinterpreting you


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
BryonD wrote:
pauljathome wrote:


I think you're being hideously unfair with that.

And I think your reply is unfair to me because it ignores the context of the post I replied to.

I was skimming and very likely missed context. My apologies for misinterpreting you

Hey, thats cool. I can understand the flood of posts effect. Thanks


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I think it's fair to say the "community" killed the game for you. Paizo has moved in a completely different direction with the game.....and that's going to kill it for those that liked that it was still grounded in 3.5. If you liked the idea of 5th addition D&D you might like this as well, as it sounds like it emulating that.

That said, those who don't want to move in that direction....are under no obligation or compulsion to do so.

It's that simple.


nighttree wrote:
I'm not sure I think it's fair to say the "community" killed the game for you. Paizo has moved in a completely different direction with the game.....and that's going to kill it for those that liked that it was still grounded in 3.5. If you liked the idea of 5th addition D&D you might like this as well, as it sounds like it emulating that.

PF2 is definitely not emulating 5th Ed, in fact, it seems like it is going out of its way to not be like 5th Ed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want people to give freaking detailed reasons why they don't like something instead of it sucks everything sucks and everyone should be fired.

I have complaints I can give detailed information on what I don't like why I don't like it and how it can be changed to where I like it.

500 posts saying the same thing across 15 threads is pointless and annoying.

Heck I've already seen 4 threads like this one that all basically say the same thing.

Also If you have an opinion of lets stop the play test and go back to PF1 you should really expect to get some hassle from people. Its not helpful. If you just post this game is like 4th edition or this game is like 5th edition so I won't be playing it and then make a point of posting that every chance you get. Then yes your gonna get some people hassling you about it.

Don't wine. be constructive say what the specific problem is and explain yourself. Why is it not working what is not working etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you need to start looking a little closer.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I just want people to give freaking detailed reasons why they don't like something instead of it sucks everything sucks and everyone should be fired.

I have complaints I can give detailed information on what I don't like why I don't like it and how it can be changed to where I like it.

500 posts saying the same thing across 15 threads is pointless and annoying.

Heck I've already seen 4 threads like this one that all basically say the same thing.

Also If you have an opinion of lets stop the play test and go back to PF1 you should really expect to get some hassle from people. Its not helpful. If you just post this game is like 4th edition or this game is like 5th edition so I won't be playing it and then make a point of posting that every chance you get. Then yes your gonna get some people hassling you about it.

Don't wine. be constructive say what the specific problem is and explain yourself. Why is it not working what is not working etc.

And yet, there are so many threads with detailed analysis (some even include lots of math!) about what is wrong with various mechanics. People have been giving detailed reasons. Stop whacking the strawman and go read them. You are in a self-induced state of ignorance about why people don't like the current iteration of the playtest rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Don't wine. be constructive say what the specific problem is and explain yourself. Why is it not working what is not working etc.

Many do this. You are focusing on one side too but say nothing about the other side that doesn't add to the debate. Those that tell people that their issues are 'because they played it wrong' or 'you played the wrong class, or race or, ect' Or if you use these 5 specific tactics it's a cakewalk or....

People that come into any debate with 'it's all perfect, change nothing' are as constructive as those that say "burn it all down". People just don't complain about them because they're 'positive'.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

I don't think it's fair to assign responsibility for people not liking the playtest in the forum. My group (with only positive input from me) concluded the game was unplayable (as I feared) with only reading the playtest and not looking at the forums.

Paizo deliberately made the playtest as controversial as possible to get the most feedback. Now it remains to be seen how people refusing to participate bevause thr playtest has so little that they like helps Paizo in making the best game possible. I'm concerned their strategy will result on a game a bunch of existing PF1e fans dislike.

Hey, at least they played it before declaring it unplayable. (At least I thought I remember you saying they got to play it, I might be misremembering). Some people don’t even do that much. :-)


ENHenry wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

I don't think it's fair to assign responsibility for people not liking the playtest in the forum. My group (with only positive input from me) concluded the game was unplayable (as I feared) with only reading the playtest and not looking at the forums.

Paizo deliberately made the playtest as controversial as possible to get the most feedback. Now it remains to be seen how people refusing to participate bevause thr playtest has so little that they like helps Paizo in making the best game possible. I'm concerned their strategy will result on a game a bunch of existing PF1e fans dislike.

Hey, at least they played it before declaring it unplayable. (At least I thought I remember you saying they got to play it, I might be misremembering). Some people don’t even do that much. :-)

Yeah, I mean, after years of experience with many editions, one can make a judgment on whether a new edition appeals, without actually playing (just reading, running mental scenarios, comparisons, deconstructing and what-have-you), but it's definitely worth it to give it a fair shake in play. As another side to that, I thought 4th Ed appealed to me at first, but after about 50-hours of play, I realised it did not appeal to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
at least they played it before declaring it unplayable. (At least I thought I remember you saying they got to play it, I might be misremembering). Some people don’t even do that much. :-)

Unfortunately we didn't. I did a bunch of prep work. I made a bunch of characters. But I couldn't get them to play it due in large part (although not entirely because of) class feats and how they've been implemented. I can't really say in good faith "playtest the game and see if it sucks" when their issue is "making characters looks boring and restrictive compared to PF1e". And no, 5 books worth of content wouldn't fix their issue with class feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
Hey, at least they played it before declaring it unplayable. (At least I thought I remember you saying they got to play it, I might be misremembering). Some people don’t even do that much. :-)

I totally willing to be shown where my evaluations are off.

I'll even readily concede that my issues are negligible before level 3 or 4. So I suspect I'd enjoy that.

And, I've pointed this out a few times now, I know that the issues that shoot it down for me will grow significant over extended gameplay much moreso than one-shots. Hell, take a L7 game of PF1 and add +7 to everything (all attacks, ACs, saves, DCs, skills) obviously it would ALL cancel out. So it wouldn't make any difference. :) But the diverse range of characters wouldn't all get the same +7.

I want characters to shine very bright. The opposite of that is being praised as a feature of 2E. No character lags too far behind. And, obviously no character gets far ahead.

What of my complaints don't stand up to scrutiny?

I want the character mechanics to feel like they are breathing life into an idea. I get that from 1E. Just writing up a midlevel 2E character the huge chuck of fudge factor beats down that excitement. And I know that other games offer that excitement. And thats *literally* just writing up the character.

If I may, do you mind if I cross post a question? You made a comment about +1/level being good for you because dumping a lot of skill points broke immersion (my words, don't recall your exact quote).

In 2E, what happens when a level 12 character becomes trained or expert? All kinds of things they were not even permitted to TRY yesterday suddenly become stupid easy as they leap to +12 (probably better). I don't think I've ever seen a 1E character dump 12 or more SP in one slot out of the blue. In 2E that will be routine. Am I wrong?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
at least they played it before declaring it unplayable. (At least I thought I remember you saying they got to play it, I might be misremembering). Some people don’t even do that much. :-)
Unfortunately we didn't. I did a bunch of prep work. I made a bunch of characters. But I couldn't get them to play it due in large part (although not entirely because of) class feats and how they've been implemented. I can't really say in good faith "playtest the game and see if it sucks" when their issue is "making characters looks boring and restrictive compared to PF1e". And no, 5 books worth of content wouldn't fix their issue with class feats.

We bought the 4E core rulebook set when it came out, and after everyone in our gaming group read them, we stayed with 3.5E (and eventually moved to PF1E). It looked limiting and videogamey was the general consensus.

Off-the-shelf appeal is a vital part of a successful TTRPG. People have to read that source material and want to explore it more. It has to look fun. And with experienced gamers who have other options filling up their shelves, it has to be attractive in comparison to the stuff they already have and don't need to buy.

Liberty's Edge

BryonD wrote:
In 2E, what happens when a level 12 character becomes trained or expert? All kinds of things they were not even permitted to TRY yesterday suddenly become stupid easy as they leap to +12 (probably better). I don't think I've ever seen a 1E character dump 12 or more SP in one slot out of the blue. In 2E that will be routine. Am I wrong?

...I wouldn't normally describe the difference between +10 and +12 to be a "leap up."


Requielle wrote:
And with experienced gamers who have other options filling up their shelves, it has to be attractive in comparison to the stuff they already have and don't need to buy.

Heh. True

I suspect some new fantasy RPG will come out 6 months after 2E is officially released. I don't assume that all 2E games will screech to a halt as the players dutifully go give the new option a three month fair shake.

If it looks better, they will play it.
If it doesn't, they won't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
at least they played it before declaring it unplayable. (At least I thought I remember you saying they got to play it, I might be misremembering). Some people don’t even do that much. :-)
Unfortunately we didn't. I did a bunch of prep work. I made a bunch of characters. But I couldn't get them to play it due in large part (although not entirely because of) class feats and how they've been implemented. I can't really say in good faith "playtest the game and see if it sucks" when their issue is "making characters looks boring and restrictive compared to PF1e". And no, 5 books worth of content wouldn't fix their issue with class feats.

We bought the 4E core rulebook set when it came out, and after everyone in our gaming group read them, we stayed with 3.5E (and eventually moved to PF1E). It looked limiting and videogamey was the general consensus.

Off-the-shelf appeal is a vital part of a successful TTRPG. People have to read that source material and want to explore it more. It has to look fun. And with experienced gamers who have other options filling up their shelves, it has to be attractive in comparison to the stuff they already have and don't need to buy.

Yes, and that has been one of the biggest barriers for me, I am trying to get that Wow-factor, but I just can't, and too much micro, not enough macro.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
In 2E, what happens when a level 12 character becomes trained or expert? All kinds of things they were not even permitted to TRY yesterday suddenly become stupid easy as they leap to +12 (probably better). I don't think I've ever seen a 1E character dump 12 or more SP in one slot out of the blue. In 2E that will be routine. Am I wrong?
...I wouldn't normally describe the difference between +10 and +12 to be a "leap up."

But that isn't correct.

It is a change from "not permitted to roll" to +12.
Gating is a thing.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dumping 12 skill ranks in Linguistics and waking up knowing fluently 12 new languages was always a very powerful indication of how logical and sound 3.5/PF skill system was.

Liberty's Edge

BryonD wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
In 2E, what happens when a level 12 character becomes trained or expert? All kinds of things they were not even permitted to TRY yesterday suddenly become stupid easy as they leap to +12 (probably better). I don't think I've ever seen a 1E character dump 12 or more SP in one slot out of the blue. In 2E that will be routine. Am I wrong?
...I wouldn't normally describe the difference between +10 and +12 to be a "leap up."

But that isn't correct.

It is a change from "not permitted to roll" to +12.
Gating is a thing.

Well, yes, but since there are no skills in PF2 that lack an untrained use, you're going from "I can do this and this" to "I can do this and this and also this and this," and considering it only happens with one skill at a time, that still doesn't seem all that much like a "leap up." It's like learning a new feat, which is also a thing you couldn't do yesterday but now you can.


Gorbacz wrote:
Dumping 12 skill ranks in Linguistics and waking up knowing fluently 12 new languages was always a very powerful indication of how logical and sound 3.5/PF skill system was.

Did this happen in your games?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
In 2E, what happens when a level 12 character becomes trained or expert? All kinds of things they were not even permitted to TRY yesterday suddenly become stupid easy as they leap to +12 (probably better). I don't think I've ever seen a 1E character dump 12 or more SP in one slot out of the blue. In 2E that will be routine. Am I wrong?
...I wouldn't normally describe the difference between +10 and +12 to be a "leap up."

But that isn't correct.

It is a change from "not permitted to roll" to +12.
Gating is a thing.
Well, yes, but since there are no skills in PF2 that lack an untrained use, you're going from "I can do this and this" to "I can do this and this and also this and this," and considering it only happens with one skill at a time, that still doesn't seem all that much like a "leap up." It's like learning a new feat, which is also a thing you couldn't do yesterday but now you can.

Please go back and read the context.

Edit: IMO, going from not allowed to pick basic locks to being able to pick difficult locks over night *is* still a leap up. PF1E has so many feats I can't begin to claim to speak for them all, but I know nothing that doesn't feel like a reasonable evolution of ability occurs with any notable frequency in my games.

Which, again, is not relevant to the context. If it was a bug in 1E it should be seen *at least* as much so in 2E. Or, you can accept it in both. It just seems one should be consistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
We bought the 4E core rulebook set when it came out, and after everyone in our gaming group read them, we stayed with 3.5E (and eventually moved to PF1E). It looked limiting and videogamey was the general consensus.

Ditto. I bought the 4th ed PHB, MM, DMG, and Keep on the Shadowfell. I found them interesting to peruse, but never actually played 4th because my buddies & I devolved into nerd-rage over the whole thing. I've playtested Pathfinder #2 and like a lot that it has to offer, but I'd like to see a lot of fixes (avoid +x/level to everything, unwind the overnerfing of spells, simplify or nix resonance, make healing easier).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BryonD wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Dumping 12 skill ranks in Linguistics and waking up knowing fluently 12 new languages was always a very powerful indication of how logical and sound 3.5/PF skill system was.
Did this happen in your games?

Four times across three campaigns.

Once with 12 skill ranks, once with 16, twice with 9.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Dumping 12 skill ranks in Linguistics and waking up knowing fluently 12 new languages was always a very powerful indication of how logical and sound 3.5/PF skill system was.
Did this happen in your games?
Four times across three campaigns.

This seems like another one of those "I've never seen a blue, 5-legged tiger." and someone instantly pipes up with "I see blue, 5-legged tigers all the time, and so does my wife."

It's always fascinating that when a new edition comes out, some of the fans seem to spend a lot of time bashing the previous edition, which makes me wonder why they played a game for so long that they seem to hold in utter contempt.

101 to 150 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Dead Before Start All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.