| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of fantasy RPGs out there. D&D 5e is relatively popular if not as dominant as some of the editions of yesteryear, Savage Worlds or GURPS have systems which expand out into other genres relatively well, Shadow of the Demon Lord is quick to set up and play, PF1 has all the options and fan/third party support you could ask for. I could keep on going with other games.
What does PF2 offer that none of the others do as well - or even at all?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does PF2 offer that none of the others do as well - or even at all?
Magic 8 ball says...
Answer hazy...try again in September 2019.
(Too soon to tell since PF2 is still being developed.)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, apparently the selling point for a portion of the fanbase seems to be "Hahaha, they FINALLY nerfed casters! Suck it, casters!".
I'm in the opposite camp. The vast caster nerfs make these playtest rules really unappealing to me. And this me being hoisted on my own petard, since I was calling for a new edition of Pathfinder six years ago. Serves me right, I guess.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, Pathfinder has always been about the incredible character customization. You can build basically any concept you can imagine, and likely play it in an appropriate setting.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition isn't even coming close to fulfilling that super flexible character gen niche. It's actually alarming how much it feels like class choice is all-important and narrows down your options so much.
Without the customization, PF2e really doesn't have much of a draw.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of fantasy RPGs out there. D&D 5e is relatively popular if not as dominant as some of the editions of yesteryear, Savage Worlds or GURPS have systems which expand out into other genres relatively well, Shadow of the Demon Lord is quick to set up and play, PF1 has all the options and fan/third party support you could ask for. I could keep on going with other games.
What does PF2 offer that none of the others do as well - or even at all?
The Adventure Paths, I think.
As lots of people have noted, PF2's rules seem to be geared primarily for adventure writers. A party's overall abilities are highly standardized relative to its level, and the rules are intentionally designed to minimize unpredictable and potentially imbalanced system interactions. I suspect this is why so many feats only offer small situational benefits.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My sense is that they are trying to fill the niche of a complex, option rich game that is also fairly easy to play/learn, in order to cater to 5E folks who maybe have grown bored with the system/release schedule, as well as maintain a certain segment of the current PF player base.
also to make a game that will be easy to use with adventure paths as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My sense is that they are trying to fill the niche of a complex, option rich game that is also fairly easy to play/learn, in order to cater to 5E folks who maybe have grown bored with the system/release schedule, as well as maintain a certain segment of the current PF player base.
also to make a game that will be easy to use with adventure paths as well.
Yeah, this seems the aim to me too. It may have less character customisation than PF1 (I'm wary of judging that yet based on the fact a playtest will necessarily only contain a subset of options we'll see in the full rules) but it seems it will have considerably more than 5E and I suspect considerably more than Starfinder too.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Customization: Pathfinder Second Edition will quickly leave Pathfinder First Edition in the dust. For class - just using the Core Rulebook a player can already field the equivalent of an Inquisitor, a Slayer, a Mystic Theurge, an Arcane Trickster, a Magus etc. Once a few splatbooks are thrown in the advantage of the modular redesign will be evident. Same with ancestry - mixing and matching Tiefling Goblins, Aasimar Halflings, Half Dwarfs/Humans, etc. However, note that customization and optimization are not the same.
Published Materials (Splatbooks): The modular redesign gives Paizo and third party publishers a clear framework to design in. There's less need for concern over whether or not a new ability/class/feat will end up completely unbalanced. This limits optimization...but, at least in my opinion, customization doesn't suffer much for it.
Published Materials (Adventures): Rebalancing the system gives adventure publishers very clear expectations of what a typical party member can and cannot do. Yes. PCs are more limited (both in strength and weakness) than in Pathfinder First Edition. But this allows for cleaner published adventures that effectively engage all players while still providing each niche opportunity to shine. This is helpful for Game Masters in general.
New Players: I've introduced five new to TTRPG players to Pathfinder First Edition over the last three years. All of them loved it. (Sidenote: One of them just told me that she started GMing Rise of the Runelords! Proud GM moment.) I've also introduced two new to TTRPG players to the Pathfinder Playtest. No doubt in my mind which is more intuitive to new players. I learned how to compensate for the obtuseness of 3.5/3.P, most GMs have, but it's really nice to not have to.
Tactical Enthusiasts: The new action economy, with it's emphasis on movement, is gold for those of us who love Dungeons & Dragons' wargame roots. I can't wait to throw some more dynamic homebrewed scenarios at my players...and don't get me started on movement heavy puzzles!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easy to write adventure paths for Sword and Sorcery style games? Yeah, I'm pretty lost with where they're going here as the Pathfinder name is already heavily connected to High Fantasy. Remember, the two big selling points Pathfinder right now has over 5e is that there are more fantastical elements and it's sheer flexibility in character customization.
2e has neither of these.
I went into more detail on the S&S theme of 2e here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs42974?Sword-and-Sorcery-is-2e-not-a-sucessor-to #1
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does PF2 offer that none of the others do as well - or even at all?
They're trying to make a game that's simple to play and make characters, but has lots of options as well. A game good for casual players yet can appeal to non-casuals as well.
PF2 would be good for my old gaming group, who didn't know how to design or build characters, didn't want to take the time to decide even what magic items to get. In PF1 at level 5 they were lost and their PCs were having problems on the power curve. With more streamlined (a fancy word for limited) options, it would have been hard for them to make bad characters.
PF2 class design reminds me of how the Inquisitor and kineticist are designed, it very hard to make a bad one. In contrast, it's very easy to make a bad PF1 cleric or wizard, and I've seen lots of new players do it time and time again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this seems the aim to me too. It may have less character customisation than PF1 (I'm wary of judging that yet based on the fact a playtest will necessarily only contain a subset of options we'll see in the full rules) but it seems it will have considerably more than 5E and I suspect considerably more than Starfinder too.My sense is that they are trying to fill the niche of a complex, option rich game that is also fairly easy to play/learn, in order to cater to 5E folks who maybe have grown bored with the system/release schedule, as well as maintain a certain segment of the current PF player base.
also to make a game that will be easy to use with adventure paths as well.
That's my thought as well. Paizo wants to position itself as being more customizable than 5ed, but wants to shed the fact/perception that "Pathfinder is too complicated". Obviously, some of that complicatedness comes from offering more customization points, so bringing down the former will affect the latter. However, all Paizo has to do is make it more customizable than 5ed to market it as such. It just has to find the "Goldilocks" point where the game is/feels not too complicated to use, but feels like it offers a lot of customization.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo also needs to tell people it's out to compete with D&D 5e I suspect - awareness of PF2 off these boards seems to be highest with the grumpiest of the 3.X grognards, but almost nonexistent with 5e players.
|
If what they keep saying is true ("We put the most off the wall ideas in the playtest because that's what we really need data about") then a lot of the things that don't land well right now might go.
On the other hand, just about everyone seems to love the new action economy, which is both simple and liberating. If the bulk of the new game is going to be more like that, then this is going to be great.
Reading the Monk section those actually felt a lot more customizable, and that you could really do a skit on "my school's style vs. your school's style" now.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get how people keep saying that PF2 is good for casuals. Have you even read the exploration mode tactics, and what a mess that is? Did you try and parse the dying rules? It took me 2 hours and a degree in engineering to understand what the hell that was supposed to mean. I'd like to ask how many of this "PF2 is easy" folks do actually now what it means "Press", and why you can't use it after attacking with an agile weapon if you are a ranger and used Hunt Target.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get how people keep saying that PF2 is good for casuals. Have you even read the exploration mode tactics, and what a mess that is? Did you try and parse the dying rules? It took me 2 hours and a degree in engineering to understand what the hell that was supposed to mean. I'd like to ask how many of this "PF2 is easy" folks do actually now what it means "Press", and why you can't use it after attacking with an agile weapon if you are a ranger and used Hunt Target.
Though this really only confirms your point about the impenetrability of this rule, afaict characters with multiple attack penalties of -3 or lower (including, importantly, fighters with the Agile Grace feat) CAN use Press abilities, just not their failure effects.
I honestly don't know whether referring to an actual number was sloppiness, or an unfun plan to minimize synergy. I'd expect either from Paizo at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get how people keep saying that PF2 is good for casuals. Have you even read the exploration mode tactics, and what a mess that is? Did you try and parse the dying rules? It took me 2 hours and a degree in engineering to understand what the hell that was supposed to mean. I'd like to ask how many of this "PF2 is easy" folks do actually now what it means "Press", and why you can't use it after attacking with an agile weapon if you are a ranger and used Hunt Target.
remember it's a playtest. Hunt target is currently the only way to get a MAP lower than -4 so they just made an oversight and forgot about it. Seeing as I think hunt target is going to get significant changes before the playtest is over it's not that big of a deal anyways.
Onto your main point. I spent around 5 or 6 hours reading the most important stuff and noting where the important rules are that are going to be brought up often before I started my first playtest. My players didn't read the book at all before coming and it has ran smooth as butter. Much smoother than when we first tried 3.5. That was a hard game to understand at first. But who knows, maybe our experience with 3.5 and pathfinder 1e helped us parse through 2e easily.
EDIT: Also just read through the press trait and it says you can use press traits, you just dont gain the failure effect unless your MAP is -4 or worse... so it's actually a buff? Maybe it's intended?
Last EDIT: Nevermind I see. Failure effects are good. So yeah probably an oversight.
I don't get how people keep saying that PF2 is good for casuals.
Based on my personal experience of running sessions with two new to TTRPG players (one had played some Fate Core/one had played a single session of Pathfinder 1e) in the playtest.
The top level rules - in particular the action economy & character generation - are much more intuitive to new players. Also, the four degrees of success/failure really seemed to click with them.
Many of the secondary rules are problematic/confusing - resonance, exploration, traits like press, shields - but most new players don't try to figure those out for themselves...they just ask the GM.
So I wouldn't say that Pathfinder Second Edition is "easy" as much as it's "easier to start". The learning curve steps up sharply after the first set of introductory rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The selling point is that it is Pathfinder but new and different so people that didn't like Pathfinder will try it but still somehow Pathfinder enough to not have most the player base not pick it up in favor of the Pathfinder they have already.
Pathfinder that isn't Pathfinder but is just enough of Pathfinder to still be Pathfinder without scaring people away due to it being Pathfinder.
Schrodinger's Pathfinder
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The selling point is that it is Pathfinder but new and different so people that didn't like Pathfinder will try it but still somehow Pathfinder enough to not have most the player base not pick it up in favor of the Pathfinder they have already.
Pathfinder that isn't Pathfinder but is just enough of Pathfinder to still be Pathfinder without scaring people away due to it being Pathfinder.
Schrodinger's Pathfinder
They need to do quite a bit of work on the "without scaring people away" part, then.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no use case that I can work out. If people want an easy to pick up or easy to run RPG they'll play 5e. If they want character customisation, they'll run PF1e. PF2 does ease-of-use worse than 5e and character customisation worse than 1e, so why run it over either of those games at this point? Its not like it strikes a good balance, with clunky "mode" rules for out-of-combat and in-combat seperation and class siloing (which has been partially addressed by the removal of signature skills)
Hell, for ease of pickup and character customization, I'd recommend 13th Age as doing what PF2 thinks it's doing.
And that's assuming you specifically want a class-and-level based fantasy RPG. If you want anything else you're probably going to be looking elsewhere in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based upon the contents of the pdfs and certain comments by Bulhman and company, I believe the primary goal seems to be making a system that's easy to publish canned adventured for.
This isn't a bad target to be sure and may prove a lucrative model for Paizo, but isn't really what I'm looking for as a player or GM...
This is a worry I have. It looks great to publish stuff for or at least okay. It also seems pretty easy to maybe run PFS games in.
At home? ....eeeeeeeeehhhhhhh....*Waves hand a bit*.
Based upon the contents of the pdfs and certain comments by Bulhman and company, I believe the primary goal seems to be making a system that's easy to publish canned adventured for.
This isn't a bad target to be sure and may prove a lucrative model for Paizo, but isn't really what I'm looking for as a player or GM...
This is a worry I have. It looks great to publish stuff for or at least okay. It also seems pretty easy to maybe run PFS games in.
At home? ....eeeeeeeeehhhhhhh....*Waves hand a bit*.
I actually think this is a good selling point.
"Pathfinder 2 is kinda meh, isn't it?"
"Ya, but its good enough and there is tons of content for it!"
That seems like a reasonable outcome. I mean, every game system has snarls.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based upon the contents of the pdfs and certain comments by Bulhman and company, I believe the primary goal seems to be making a system that's easy to publish canned adventured for.
This isn't a bad target to be sure and may prove a lucrative model for Paizo, but isn't really what I'm looking for as a player or GM...
This is a worry I have. It looks great to publish stuff for or at least okay. It also seems pretty easy to maybe run PFS games in.
At home? ....eeeeeeeeehhhhhhh....*Waves hand a bit*.
I actually think this is a good selling point.
"Pathfinder 2 is kinda meh, isn't it?"
"Ya, but its good enough and there is tons of content for it!"That seems like a reasonable outcome. I mean, every game system has snarls.
If it got to the point where it was "good enough", maybe. But it's nowhere near that for me and many others, especially given 1e will still exist and have a decade+ worth of content anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no use case that I can work out. If people want an easy to pick up or easy to run RPG they'll play 5e. If they want character customisation, they'll run PF1e. PF2 does ease-of-use worse than 5e and character customisation worse than 1e, so why run it over either of those games at this point?
Whether there's an easily identifiable market for it yet or not, Paizo need to move forward not backwards because sales of PF1 are declining and they see the writing on the wall. At the moment, the company is doing fine thanks to Starfinder sales (currently outselling Pathfinder by the best measure we have) but just hanging around waiting until they have a serious financial problem isn't viable.
No matter how much we like PF1 (I'm firmly in the camp that would have preferred they stick with it) there's no denying the fact that the market has changed from the days when 4E and PF1 were launching. I suspect Game Design Theory has also moved on and that the paizo design team are keen to try elements/subsystems which are incompatible with a base structure designed twenty years ago.
Paizo have to respond to that shift in the market and producing something as complicated and scary to non-Pathfinder players as PF1 is is probably not going to generate them enough revenue.
Its not like it strikes a good balance, with clunky "mode" rules for out-of-combat and in-combat seperation and class siloing (which has been partially addressed by the removal of signature skills)
Hell, for ease of pickup and character customization, I'd recommend 13th Age as doing what PF2 thinks it's doing.
And that's assuming you specifically want a class-and-level based fantasy RPG. If you want anything else you're probably going to be looking elsewhere in the first place.
The playtest isn't PF2. They specifically said they were going to through in the most contentious, most radically different, most likely to be changed systems into PF2.
Nobody is putting forth a half-completed game as competitor in the marketplace and a work-in-progress shouldn't be judged against a finished product (similar claims were made during the "D&D Next" playtest period and that worked out very well for WotC).
We don't really know a huge amount about PF2 yet. I think we can pretty much bank on the Three Action Economy system being included - that seems to have been very well received. I could make some guesses at some other things too - goblins and alchemists being core was a contentious point that seems to have faded in vehemence (albeit I suspect the alchemist class is going to end up a little different from the PF2 playtest version).
I can think of few things I like in the PF2 playtest more than the equivalent in PF1, but it's worth bearing in mind that it isn't finished and it isn't finalised. All we know is that it's definitely not going to be the book we're currently reading.
Based upon the contents of the pdfs and certain comments by Bulhman and company, I believe the primary goal seems to be making a system that's easy to publish canned adventured for.
This isn't a bad target to be sure and may prove a lucrative model for Paizo, but isn't really what I'm looking for as a player or GM...
This is a worry I have. It looks great to publish stuff for or at least okay. It also seems pretty easy to maybe run PFS games in.
At home? ....eeeeeeeeehhhhhhh....*Waves hand a bit*.
I actually think this is a good selling point.
"Pathfinder 2 is kinda meh, isn't it?"
"Ya, but its good enough and there is tons of content for it!"That seems like a reasonable outcome. I mean, every game system has snarls.
The problem is that they truly need to drastically out-content D&D 5th edition, which has a huge headstart, both for fanbase and content. I don't see a way for the PF1 content to be compatible with PF2 (at least not more than PF1 is with, say, 5th edition), so they'd start on the backfoot for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based upon the contents of the pdfs and certain comments by Bulhman and company, I believe the primary goal seems to be making a system that's easy to publish canned adventured for.
This isn't a bad target to be sure and may prove a lucrative model for Paizo, but isn't really what I'm looking for as a player or GM...
This is a worry I have. It looks great to publish stuff for or at least okay. It also seems pretty easy to maybe run PFS games in.
At home? ....eeeeeeeeehhhhhhh....*Waves hand a bit*.
I actually think this is a good selling point.
"Pathfinder 2 is kinda meh, isn't it?"
"Ya, but its good enough and there is tons of content for it!"That seems like a reasonable outcome. I mean, every game system has snarls.
I don't know, average isn't what I would call a selling point. Sure there's tons of content for it but if it all ends up playing average due to the system, ...yay?
I mean I find a turkey sandwich+chips to be an average lunch. It's good but if someone expects me to each that every single day for a year, someone's going to need to buy me some really good dinners to go with it or that person is mad mad MAD.
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
If what they keep saying is true ("We put the most off the wall ideas in the playtest because that's what we really need data about") then a lot of the things that don't land well right now might go.
That was certainly true of the original PF playtest, when there was a lot of wild stuff in the Alpha, that they walked back some of for the Beta, before releasing Pathfinder.
However, this time they did a couple years of super secret development and alpha testing in house, before dropping the Beta for public. I thought it had been said early on (shortly after the PF2 announcement) that the rules were largely finished and the playtest was going to be mostly about tweaking and making minor adjustments. I hope (dear gods, I hope) that I'm wrong about that.
I mean, we're a month in without in real Dev discussion on big-ish things they plan to change. Hell, this week we got a blog asking for feedback on changing the wording to say "standard saving throw" instead of something more wordy. That doesn't convey to me a willingness to change much of substance.
This time around, the Dev 's aren't nearly as active in discussions on the boards as they were for the original playtest. Another thing I've noticed after playing and taking some surveys is that the survey questions don't reflect interest in changing much either. "Did your party kill the ooze," "how many hero points did you give out," and "did any of your players run out of resonance points" are not questions you ask when you're considering major changes because those are, again, tweak questions.
I'm rapidly losing hope that this is a game I'm going to want to play and support. I have a lifetime of PF1 material, so I need solid reasons to make a switch to PF2.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to guess, I'd suppose that the idea is to create a simpler and easier to use system that gets a steady amount of regular published material. Basically, something like 5th but with real product line support.
The rules are designed to create a structured shell into which new material can be easily added, so they can do one maybe two big books a year reintroducing options from PF1, an Adventure Path each year, and a few softcover sourcebooks for setting, ancestries, backgrounds, or other stuff. Pretty much like they did for PF1, but easier because the expectations are standarized, the math is tight, and the framework dictates how any new powers are allowed to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though this really only confirms your point about the impenetrability of this rule, afaict characters with multiple attack penalties of -3 or lower (including, importantly, fighters with the Agile Grace feat) CAN use Press abilities, just not their failure effects.
I honestly don't know whether referring to an actual number was sloppiness, or an unfun plan to minimize synergy. I'd expect either from Paizo at this point.
I had to recheck, and indeed you are right.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If what they keep saying is true ("We put the most off the wall ideas in the playtest because that's what we really need data about") then a lot of the things that don't land well right now might go.That was certainly true of the original PF playtest, when there was a lot of wild stuff in the Alpha, that they walked back some of for the Beta, before releasing Pathfinder.
However, this time they did a couple years of super secret development and alpha testing in house, before dropping the Beta for public. I thought it had been said early on (shortly after the PF2 announcement) that the rules were largely finished and the playtest was going to be mostly about tweaking and making minor adjustments. I hope (dear gods, I hope) that I'm wrong about that.
I mean, we're a month in without in real Dev discussion on big-ish things they plan to change. Hell, this week we got a blog asking for feedback on changing the wording to say "standard saving throw" instead of something more wordy. That doesn't convey to me a willingness to change much of substance.
This time around, the Dev 's aren't nearly as active in discussions on the boards as they were for the original playtest. Another thing I've noticed after playing and taking some surveys is that the survey questions don't reflect interest in changing much either. "Did your party kill the ooze," "how many hero points did you give out," and "did any of your players run out of resonance points" are not questions you ask when you're considering major changes because those are, again, tweak questions.
I'm rapidly losing hope that this is a game I'm going to want to play and support. I have a lifetime of PF1 material, so I need solid reasons to make a switch to PF2.
-Skeld
You can read a lot of rumbling from former devs on Twitter over the last couple years that suggests real dissatisfaction with Paizo's corporate culture. I'd love to read an exposé one day.
I can't help but think Buhlman's response on the "basic save" thread--"I don't remember suggesting this"--was telling. It was as though he thought feedback was only valid if it was about what he wanted us to be talking about. If that's what he's like to work with, I can see why lots of people quit, and I wonder how many of the unpopular and seemingly inexplicable design decisions in 2e reflect people's unwillingness to tell him "no."
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If what they keep saying is true ("We put the most off the wall ideas in the playtest because that's what we really need data about") then a lot of the things that don't land well right now might go.That was certainly true of the original PF playtest, when there was a lot of wild stuff in the Alpha, that they walked back some of for the Beta, before releasing Pathfinder.
However, this time they did a couple years of super secret development and alpha testing in house, before dropping the Beta for public. I thought it had been said early on (shortly after the PF2 announcement) that the rules were largely finished and the playtest was going to be mostly about tweaking and making minor adjustments. I hope (dear gods, I hope) that I'm wrong about that.
I mean, we're a month in without in real Dev discussion on big-ish things they plan to change. Hell, this week we got a blog asking for feedback on changing the wording to say "standard saving throw" instead of something more wordy. That doesn't convey to me a willingness to change much of substance.
This time around, the Dev 's aren't nearly as active in discussions on the boards as they were for the original playtest. Another thing I've noticed after playing and taking some surveys is that the survey questions don't reflect interest in changing much either. "Did your party kill the ooze," "how many hero points did you give out," and "did any of your players run out of resonance points" are not questions you ask when you're considering major changes because those are, again, tweak questions.
I'm rapidly losing hope that this is a game I'm going to want to play and support. I have a lifetime of PF1 material, so I need solid reasons to make a switch to PF2.
-Skeld
You can read a lot of rumbling from former devs on Twitter over the last couple years that suggests real dissatisfaction with Paizo's corporate culture. I'd love to read an exposé one day.
I can't help but think...
I have no interest in following peoples' twitter accounts or any of the office drama, especially if it's from a former dev that has a bad habit lately of sticking their foot in their mouth and getting fired.
What I care about, selfishly, is that Paizo turns out a good product that I'm willing to pay them money for. I like (most of) the products they've turned out, especially the APs, which are excellent. The rules, for the past couple years, have taken something of a quality hit, but are passable, especially if you're like me and you don't give half a s*&% if the rules are mathematically tight or about the "system mastery" some claim you need to enjoy the game.
That said, I'll throw in here and say that there are a number of rule systems in the PF2 playtest that worry me and I don't see them exorcising enough of it to convince me to switch from PF1 to PF2. Moreso, there are enough changes that i consider to be just plain bad that make me actively not want to switch.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If what they keep saying is true ("We put the most off the wall ideas in the playtest because that's what we really need data about") then a lot of the things that don't land well right now might go.That was certainly true of the original PF playtest, when there was a lot of wild stuff in the Alpha, that they walked back some of for the Beta, before releasing Pathfinder.
However, this time they did a couple years of super secret development and alpha testing in house, before dropping the Beta for public. I thought it had been said early on (shortly after the PF2 announcement) that the rules were largely finished and the playtest was going to be mostly about tweaking and making minor adjustments. I hope (dear gods, I hope) that I'm wrong about that.
I mean, we're a month in without in real Dev discussion on big-ish things they plan to change. Hell, this week we got a blog asking for feedback on changing the wording to say "standard saving throw" instead of something more wordy. That doesn't convey to me a willingness to change much of substance.
This time around, the Dev 's aren't nearly as active in discussions on the boards as they were for the original playtest. Another thing I've noticed after playing and taking some surveys is that the survey questions don't reflect interest in changing much either. "Did your party kill the ooze," "how many hero points did you give out," and "did any of your players run out of resonance points" are not questions you ask when you're considering major changes because those are, again, tweak questions.
I'm rapidly losing hope that this is a game I'm going to want to play and support. I have a lifetime of PF1 material, so I need solid reasons to make a switch to PF2.
-Skeld
I would say even were it true, and most of the more drastic changes will be discarded or overhauled, Paizo is making the same mistake here a lot of video game devs do when releasing their games in Early Access. You only get one chance to make a good first impression; even if your product is infinitely improved later, once the initial product has been viewed an opinions formed, it's difficult to change those opinions.
When releasing a game, even in a beta state, it should be as polished as you can make it and as close to your vision as you can make it, because things get...messy going from that starting point. You divide camps into "people who hate it because it's a bad game to them". "people that like it but thinks it needs tweaks", "people who like it as-is", and "people that just hate it for whatever reason unique to them/the game".
The latter in this case is "people who hate it because it's different from 1e", who won't be pleased regardless but the other three camps are what Paizo needs to juggle now, and they're now caught in a position where either not changing enough or changing too much will alienate 1/3 groups, or 2/3 for particularly drastic changes for people who like it but thought it needed tweaks.
I'm interested to see the response going forward either way they swing; sticking to their guns or making big changes is going to piss at least one group off.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I'll throw in here and say that there are a number of rule systems in the PF2 playtest that worry me and I don't see them exorcising enough of it to convince me to switch from PF1 to PF2. Moreso, there are enough changes that i consider to be just plain bad that make me actively not want to switch.
This is pretty much where I'm at. As things stand, they're going to have to toss large sections of rules and start from scratch. We'll see what they change, but I would be surprised if go anywhere close to far enough to interest me in the final product. We'll see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get how people keep saying that PF2 is good for casuals.Based on my personal experience of running sessions with two new to TTRPG players (one had played some Fate Core/one had played a single session of Pathfinder 1e) in the playtest.
The top level rules - in particular the action economy & character generation - are much more intuitive to new players. Also, the four degrees of success/failure really seemed to click with them.
Many of the secondary rules are problematic/confusing - resonance, exploration, traits like press, shields - but most new players don't try to figure those out for themselves...they just ask the GM.
So I wouldn't say that Pathfinder Second Edition is "easy" as much as it's "easier to start". The learning curve steps up sharply after the first set of introductory rules.
It is encouraging to know that the big picture basic rules (3 actions, 4 degrees) are fairly intuitive and popular. The small stuff can be iterated or massaged into something better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I'll throw in here and say that there are a number of rule systems in the PF2 playtest that worry me and I don't see them exorcising enough of it to convince me to switch from PF1 to PF2. Moreso, there are enough changes that i consider to be just plain bad that make me actively not want to switch.This is pretty much where I'm at. As things stand, they're going to have to toss large sections of rules and start from scratch. We'll see what they change, but I would be surprised if go anywhere close to far enough to interest me in the final product. We'll see.
I haven't seen any response to my drop-dead issue... different rules for PCs vs. the entire rest of the universe. That seems to be a settled design issue (if the silence is any indication). Apparently different rules for creation, dying, initiative, etc. have lurched out of the old-school grave and PF2E is going full retro in that regard. They didn't release the monster creation rules for testing, and none of the playtest survey questions seem like they would shed light on this issue at all - so I don't think it's on the radar as an option to change before release.
If that's how it goes, well... that's Paizo's perogative. I'll be sad, but I won't be moving to 2E. And I'll wish them the best of luck in capturing the attention of whatever they envision their new market to be.
I have no interest in following peoples' twitter accounts or any of the office drama, especially if it's from a former dev that has a bad habit lately of sticking their foot in their mouth and getting fired.
Hah! That's some quality shade.
I haven't seen any response to my drop-dead issue... different rules for PCs vs. the entire rest of the universe. That seems to be a settled design issue (if the silence is any indication). Apparently different rules for creation, dying, initiative, etc. have lurched out of the old-school grave and PF2E is going full retro in that regard. They didn't release the monster creation rules for testing, and none of the playtest survey questions seem like they would shed light on this issue at all - so I don't think it's on the radar as an option to change before release.
If that's how it goes, well... that's Paizo's perogative. I'll be sad, but I won't be moving to 2E. And I'll wish them the best of luck in capturing the attention of whatever they envision their new market to be.
Yes, I couldn't agree more on this. It's heart wrenchingly depressing to see the laws of the in-game universe thrown unto horrible discord as such. But it seems at least some people prefer it that way...
Guess I really have to try making a free, Martial-Caster-balanced, zero-to-demigod game rule that work universally for all in-game entities all by myself...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no use case that I can work out. If people want an easy to pick up or easy to run RPG they'll play 5e. If they want character customisation, they'll run PF1e. PF2 does ease-of-use worse than 5e and character customisation worse than 1e, so why run it over either of those games at this point?Whether there's an easily identifiable market for it yet or not, Paizo need to move forward not backwards because sales of PF1 are declining and they see the writing on the wall. At the moment, the company is doing fine thanks to Starfinder sales (currently outselling Pathfinder by the best measure we have) but just hanging around waiting until they have a serious financial problem isn't viable.
No matter how much we like PF1 (I'm firmly in the camp that would have preferred they stick with it) there's no denying the fact that the market has changed from the days when 4E and PF1 were launching. I suspect Game Design Theory has also moved on and that the paizo design team are keen to try elements/subsystems which are incompatible with a base structure designed twenty years ago.
Paizo have to respond to that shift in the market and producing something as complicated and scary to non-Pathfinder players as PF1 is is probably not going to generate them enough revenue.
Its not like it strikes a good balance, with clunky "mode" rules for out-of-combat and in-combat seperation and class siloing (which has been partially addressed by the removal of signature skills)
Hell, for ease of pickup and character customization, I'd recommend 13th Age as doing what PF2 thinks it's doing.
And that's assuming you specifically want a class-and-level based fantasy RPG. If you want anything else you're probably going to be looking elsewhere in the first place.
The playtest isn't PF2. They specifically said they were going to through in the most contentious, most radically different, most likely to be changed systems into PF2.
Nobody is putting forth a half-completed game as...
What Steve said :)