my future here


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It may not matter to anyone here, but I also really want a portrait character sheet, and being able to have a single sheet of paper for a functional character sheet is kinda important to me. I don't like multi page character sheets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am actually really enthusiastic about errata 1.3.

First of all, they’re actually listening. Even if we/they don’t get it right the 1st pass, they’re listening. YOUR FEEDBACK ISN’T WASTED.

Second, they fixed many things which I’ll be trying out soon.

Third, they’re going to change things like resonance, they just need time.

I’m not sure how you can say untrained at -4 is nice, let’s wait and see. It certainly has a huge effect on lower levels and makes spending skill feats in “Skill Training” crazy good. When we wanted variance among skill ranks, I think most of us wanted more than a +3 difference between being “trained” and being a “legend”. And the big problem is that skill feats don’t do a lot to distinguish the two.

I hope they remove “1” as an autofail and “20” as an auto crit from skills as soon as possible. I like the 4 degrees of success, but not with 1s and 20s.

Quote:
Well, those 4d6 you get by 20th level aren't going to make you better than a fighter using the stock mechanics and a d12 weapon, because math.

That and magic weapons are a problem anyway that I HOPE they address soon. Nothing can compete with magic D12 weapons, certainly not puny D4 daggers.

Maybe you should take some weeks off and come back. Do what makes you happy. Honestly, the play test is a bit like work. But they are listening to us and making changes, so your time isn't wasted.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the changes to things like classes such as the ranger and rogue in 1.3, it would seem the area where I'm focused in is not the area where the game is being focused. I see the changes here and from them I can derive that there is a conflict in what my input would be compared to what I infer the design goals to be.

Considering the biggest changes I've seen in 1.3 are around those specific issues as well as the skill table changes, I'm not sure I'd want to fight for another change to it if it's going to be wasted effort.

If I continue to play test, I'll want more knowledge on what the focus area really is and on what issues Paizo cares most about addressing.

Mark has a great track record, and Stephen too on Facebook (which I also frequent) of at least dropping in with 'noted.'

I'm just not sure I'm the one that does matter here. It's no one's fault, I'm not upset, but it may just be time to find my own path. I've been reading the 3.5 SRD a lot lately.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:


Now give me a good reason: why the rogue should have more than 60% chance to "improve", while the fighter shouldn't. Or should the fighter, too?

The fight lasts quite a few rounds, enough rounds that the fact that he has a 60% hit chance (as opposed to the slightly less optimized bard beside him with a 45% chance) very, very noticeable.

The rogue gets to roll stealth 4 times a session. 50%? 60%? Hard to notice the difference over 4 rolls.

Combat and skills are different in how the statistics apply in terms of how the game "feels".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
For instance, given the bounded math of the PF2 proficiency system, it functions very similarly to the 5e system, only with inflated numbers to represent 20 levels.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the above. 5th Ed and PF2 are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum; PF2 is like 4th Ed, in this regard (tight math, the treadmill). In 5th Ed, your 7th-level character or what-have-you does not need a natural 20 to hit all creatures above a certain level.

The way PF2 is bounded is completely different than 5th Ed's Bounded Accuracy deal. Of course, omitting the +Level treadmill makes it more like 5th Ed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
While I'm not willing to throw in the towel myself, I will say that in its current state PF2 has no chance of convincing me to convert from PF1.

As of today, I'm probably in this camp. I think everyone in this thread wants to see PF2 succeed. I like Paizo. I enjoy PFS and think the decision making of John Compton (and the departed Michael Brock) has been exemplary. I welcome and appreciate the presence of Mark Seifter on the forums and his willing to engage in discussion while always being respectful to others (not to be taken for granted). I definitely want to keep playing PFS in the future

I also recognize that Paizo is in a difficult situation. I think its fair to acknowledge Paizo is listening. They are making changes. But they also have a vision and Paizo has to decide how to make that vision work given all the competing constraints. I can't blame Paizo for putting a foot in the ground and saying, "No. We think this is better and we're going to keep it." At the end of the day, I see Paizo as a collection of artist and an artist has to be true to oneself.

That having been said, Paizo is also a business and that means they've got to figure out how to balance the business and the art. Basic marketing says keeping customers is cheaper than trying to win over new ones. Based on forum feedback, it feels like PF2 is going to lose more customer than it is going to attract. Right now, they seem to be getting the attention of people who don't like PF1 and don't like D&D 5e. Okay...but how much of the market does that represent? Are there enough of those people to support Paizo?

Like everyone else on these forums, I"m trying to give feedback that make me want to play this game. With Rangers, I see a huge opportunity for Paizo. Let all the Ranger's thematic abilities provide frequent and meaningful benefit. Instead, they've just turned the class into a combat mechanic. They've taken one facet of the PF1 Ranger and made it the entire focus of the class. Doesn't work for me. They've made the class play small-minded, the thematic abilities and backgrounds do little or nothing in actual game play, and they've robbed the class of spells/mysticism and given it nothing in return. Why? How is this an improvement to the class?

I've done some playtesting and given feedback. But I am not motivated to play any more PF2 until/unless the Ranger is fixed. The rest of PF2 is not enough of an improvement over PF1 that allows me to enjoy the game regardless of the Ranger, so from that perspective, I figure a Ranger is probably low on Paizo's priority list at the moment. But I can't take on the whole game, so I'm focusing on one thing that will get me to play PF2.

Here's hoping someone at Paizo agrees with me and I'm playing PFS when PF2 takes over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
For instance, given the bounded math of the PF2 proficiency system, it functions very similarly to the 5e system, only with inflated numbers to represent 20 levels.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the above. 5th Ed and PF2 are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum; PF2 is like 4th Ed, in this regard (tight math, the treadmill). In 5th Ed, your 7th-level character or what-have-you does not need a natural 20 to hit all creatures above a certain level.

The way PF2 is bounded is completely different than 5th Ed's Bounded Accuracy deal. Of course, omitting the +Level treadmill makes it more like 5th Ed.

A good example of this is 5E's Circlet of Blasting versus a Wand of Scorching Ray in P2E. The Circlet has an automatic attack mod of +5, while the Wand has a Spell Cap ceiling that you will eventually hit and never exceed. The Circlet was my Monk's first permanent magic item and while it diminshed in usefulness as she got up in levels, it never got so outpaced as to only hit on a nat 20 (except for Tiamat, which I think is a reasonable exception). The Wand's Spell Cap, on the otherhand, will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
For instance, given the bounded math of the PF2 proficiency system, it functions very similarly to the 5e system, only with inflated numbers to represent 20 levels.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the above. 5th Ed and PF2 are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum; PF2 is like 4th Ed, in this regard (tight math, the treadmill). In 5th Ed, your 7th-level character or what-have-you does not need a natural 20 to hit all creatures above a certain level.

The way PF2 is bounded is completely different than 5th Ed's Bounded Accuracy deal. Of course, omitting the +Level treadmill makes it more like 5th Ed.

A good example of this is 5E's Circlet of Blasting versus a Wand of Scorching Ray in P2E. The Circlet has an automatic attack mod of +5, while the Wand has a Spell Cap ceiling that you will eventually hit and never exceed. The Circlet was my Monk's first permanent magic item and while it diminshed in usefulness as she got up in levels, it never got so outpaced as to only hit on a nat 20 (except for Tiamat, which I think is a reasonable exception). The Wand's Spell Cap, on the otherhand, will.

Totally; another aspect of this is monsters, a Fire Giant needs a natural 20 just to hit a 20th-level Fighter in PF2, I don't think that's right, and does not support the genre, for me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Totally; another aspect of this is monsters, a Fire Giant needs a natural 20 just to hit a 20th-level Fighter in PF2, I don't think that's right, and does not support the genre, for me.

That was pretty much guaranteed in PF1 as well, just through magic items instead. Conversely, in PF1 an unequipped fighter could easily be stabbed by a CR1 goblin, because nothing in those 20 levels taught him how to defend himself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Totally; another aspect of this is monsters, a Fire Giant needs a natural 20 just to hit a 20th-level Fighter in PF2, I don't think that's right, and does not support the genre, for me.
That was pretty much guaranteed in PF1 as well, just through magic items instead. Conversely, in PF1 an unequipped fighter could easily be stabbed by a CR1 goblin, because nothing in those 20 levels taught him how to defend himself.

Hey man, maybe he picked up Dodge for that juicy juicy +1.

Grand Lodge

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
While I'm not willing to throw in the towel myself, I will say that in its current state PF2 has no chance of convincing me to convert from PF1.

Pretty similar to how I feel. Short of a complete ground up rework, PF2 has completely lost my interest. They are turning it into a game I just do not like. I'll give the final version a look once it comes out...but Paizo is unlikely to get my money for anything 2E related.


21 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Slyme wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
While I'm not willing to throw in the towel myself, I will say that in its current state PF2 has no chance of convincing me to convert from PF1.
Pretty similar to how I feel. Short of a complete ground up rework, PF2 has completely lost my interest. They are turning it into a game I just do not like. I'll give the final version a look once it comes out...but Paizo is unlikely to get my money for anything 2E related.

Same, the switch in attitude from "let us help you create the character you want to create" to "you can only create the characters we want you to create" is too much of a turn off.

Liberty's Edge

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
While I'm not willing to throw in the towel myself, I will say that in its current state PF2 has no chance of convincing me to convert from PF1.
Pretty similar to how I feel. Short of a complete ground up rework, PF2 has completely lost my interest. They are turning it into a game I just do not like. I'll give the final version a look once it comes out...but Paizo is unlikely to get my money for anything 2E related.
Same, the switch in attitude from "let us help you create the character you want to create" to "you can only create the characters we want you to create" is too much of a turn off.

Couldn't agree more. If I had to compare how I feel about character creation in first edition versus second edition, it would be like going from a grocery store where I'm given all the ingredients I could ever want to put a meal together the way I like it, to going to a restaurant and having to pick from a couple dozen meal options. Only a few of these really interest me, and the fact that I can substitute fries for a salad really doesn't cut it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
While I'm not willing to throw in the towel myself, I will say that in its current state PF2 has no chance of convincing me to convert from PF1.
Pretty similar to how I feel. Short of a complete ground up rework, PF2 has completely lost my interest. They are turning it into a game I just do not like. I'll give the final version a look once it comes out...but Paizo is unlikely to get my money for anything 2E related.
Same, the switch in attitude from "let us help you create the character you want to create" to "you can only create the characters we want you to create" is too much of a turn off.
Couldn't agree more. If I had to compare how I feel about character creation in first edition versus second edition, it would be like going from a grocery store where I'm given all the ingredients I could ever want to put a meal together the way I like it, to going to a restaurant and having to pick from a couple dozen meal options. Only a few of these really interest me, and the fact that I can substitute fries for a salad really doesn't cut it.

I'm quite sure I know the answer but just to be sure your statement isn't misinterpreted: Do you feel like you have a wider range of characters in PF1e using the CRB only vs PF2e using the playtest material?

If the answer is yes would you attribute class feats as being responsible for those?

Grand Lodge

17 people marked this as a favorite.

I could spend hours discussing all the things I don't like about PF2E...versus the couple things I think they got right.

Lets just break it down to roughly 90% negative, 10% positive.

At this point, there is no salvaging PF2 for me. Someone call me when Paizo starts work on PF3E, or when another company does what Paizo did when D&D took this huge of a misstep.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
While I'm not willing to throw in the towel myself, I will say that in its current state PF2 has no chance of convincing me to convert from PF1.
Pretty similar to how I feel. Short of a complete ground up rework, PF2 has completely lost my interest. They are turning it into a game I just do not like. I'll give the final version a look once it comes out...but Paizo is unlikely to get my money for anything 2E related.
Same, the switch in attitude from "let us help you create the character you want to create" to "you can only create the characters we want you to create" is too much of a turn off.
Couldn't agree more. If I had to compare how I feel about character creation in first edition versus second edition, it would be like going from a grocery store where I'm given all the ingredients I could ever want to put a meal together the way I like it, to going to a restaurant and having to pick from a couple dozen meal options. Only a few of these really interest me, and the fact that I can substitute fries for a salad really doesn't cut it.

I'm quite sure I know the answer but just to be sure your statement isn't misinterpreted: Do you feel like you have a wider range of characters in PF1e using the CRB only vs PF2e using the playtest material?

If the answer is yes would you attribute class feats as being responsible for those?

Yes and yes. I would very much like for feats to get another design pass. Not just class feats, but almost every kind of feat. Ancestry should be more front loaded, with a distinction between heritage trait from a biological standpoint and an upbringing, so that a character could have both the hearty resistance to poisons that dwarves are known for, but also have a mechanical effect to represent that they were raised by humans on Garund, instead of the Five Kings Mountains. I would like general feats to include basic options for things like metamagic, and fighting styles (two weapon fighting, archery). I would like class feats to enhance, supplement or have their own special take on metamagic and fighting styles instead of being necessary for them in the first place. I would also like for class feats to have less feat taxes in cases where you're not trying to pick up an additional path or specialty. For example ranger having to take additional feats to keep their animal companions math at base game expectation. Having to expend resources to stay at a baseline just isn't fun to me. Along with all that, I would like for skill feats to have a design rule where you aren't feat gating something that should reasonable be accomplished with a regular, or even trained use of the skill. Take training an animal, or bartering. Sure you should be better at these things if you take a feat, but if a player wants to try to barter, I would like to say, well we could probably use a profession:merchant check for that, or diplomacy if you don't have it, instead of having to say, no, you can't do that because you need a feat for it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

I could spend hours discussing all the things I don't like about PF2E...versus the couple things I think they got right.

Lets just break it down to roughly 90% negative, 10% positive.

At this point, there is no salvaging PF2 for me. Someone call me when Paizo starts work on PF3E, or when another company does what Paizo did when D&D took this huge of a misstep.

Every person who avoids participating just makes it more sure that their group won't get anything they want.

They've said that they're willing to rip out even the proficiency system - the core system of the game - all the way to its roots if enough people have a problem with it, so this just makes it more certain that your group isn't represented.

Effectively, your loss.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Every person who avoids participating just makes it more sure that their group won't get anything they want.

...

Effectively, your loss.

That's not how it works. I have to be motivated to participate. It takes hours to learn the rules, and hours to play a game session. That is real time out of my life, time that I can't spend on everything, so I have to make choices. The time I spend has to be worth it, and that means I have to get something out of it. It doesn't have to be immediate gratification, but the more hours I put in the more it has to look like it's going somewhere that will make the journey worth the investment.

We all have different cutoffs. When someone makes that call it's not "their loss". That kind of thinking is basically the sunk cost fallacy. What it really is, is "their gain". Because they aren't putting more time into something that they don't find rewarding.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Slyme wrote:

I could spend hours discussing all the things I don't like about PF2E...versus the couple things I think they got right.

Lets just break it down to roughly 90% negative, 10% positive.

At this point, there is no salvaging PF2 for me. Someone call me when Paizo starts work on PF3E, or when another company does what Paizo did when D&D took this huge of a misstep.

Every person who avoids participating just makes it more sure that their group won't get anything they want.

They've said that they're willing to rip out even the proficiency system - the core system of the game - all the way to its roots if enough people have a problem with it, so this just makes it more certain that your group isn't represented.

Effectively, your loss.

If their "most extreme version possible" playtest rules drives always too many of Paizo's customers and they don't factor that in when they create their final rules it will also be Paizo's loss. Ultimately GMs can't force their group to participate.


Cyouni wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Totally; another aspect of this is monsters, a Fire Giant needs a natural 20 just to hit a 20th-level Fighter in PF2, I don't think that's right, and does not support the genre, for me.
That was pretty much guaranteed in PF1 as well, just through magic items instead. Conversely, in PF1 an unequipped fighter could easily be stabbed by a CR1 goblin, because nothing in those 20 levels taught him how to defend himself.

I agree, 3rd Ed/PF1 has problems, one of the problems is AC not scaling, and BAB scaling (too much). To help with this, I implement the Defence Bonus variant from UA, so your 20th level fighter, naked, has an AC of 22+ Dex mod, and a few other adjustments to rein in the silly numbers game of 3rd Ed. 3rd Ed/PF1 is a great game, until it breaks, which is too easily accomplished.


John Mechalas wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Every person who avoids participating just makes it more sure that their group won't get anything they want.

...

Effectively, your loss.

That's not how it works. I have to be motivated to participate. It takes hours to learn the rules, and hours to play a game session. That is real time out of my life, time that I can't spend on everything, so I have to make choices. The time I spend has to be worth it, and that means I have to get something out of it. It doesn't have to be immediate gratification, but the more hours I put in the more it has to look like it's going somewhere that will make the journey worth the investment.

We all have different cutoffs. When someone makes that call it's not "their loss". That kind of thinking is basically the sunk cost fallacy. What it really is, is "their gain". Because they aren't putting more time into something that they don't find rewarding.

Also true. It also depends on what, exactly, you have an issue with. Assuming, for example, that everyone's been consistent in submitting surveys thus far, the general concept of the proficiency system is unlikely to be changed (since I haven't heard any talk about that being universally hated).

If your problem's that there's not enough customization? Might want to hold off on running off, then, because one thing they've stated is that opinion on the amount of customization is "somewhat good to high", but they want to bring that further up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Assuming, for example, that everyone's been consistent in submitting surveys thus far, the general concept of the proficiency system is unlikely to be changed (since I haven't heard any talk about that being universally hated).

I don't hate it, but I could do without it. This arbitrary, out of the blue, Expert, Master (which are synonyms for each other) and Legendary business is completely unnecessary (totally unfounded).

They should be cleaning up the game, not cluttering it up with more junk.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Slyme wrote:

I could spend hours discussing all the things I don't like about PF2E...versus the couple things I think they got right.

Lets just break it down to roughly 90% negative, 10% positive.

At this point, there is no salvaging PF2 for me. Someone call me when Paizo starts work on PF3E, or when another company does what Paizo did when D&D took this huge of a misstep.

Every person who avoids participating just makes it more sure that their group won't get anything they want.

They've said that they're willing to rip out even the proficiency system - the core system of the game - all the way to its roots if enough people have a problem with it, so this just makes it more certain that your group isn't represented.

Effectively, your loss.

An experienced and opinionated GM/player knows what they're looking for. There comes a point where the developers' alpha/beta test release is so far off the mark that it's not even a realistic idea to try to reform it in a direction that would please you. And this isn't necessarily a negative statement because it's more apples and oranges.

There are at the very least three absolute core values for me in RPGs, hills I'm willing to die on, that run contrary to the direction of 2E:

1) generally available feats, especially for combat. For me persobally a ranger, fighter and rogue must all be able to take Dodge, mobility and shot on the run. The ranger will have one more class related feat, nature related abilities and an animal, the fighter will have extra class feats, the rogue will have talents and sneak. The intersection of class abilities and general feat selection will give them all unique synergies and flavor but not totally determine their role or choicec of fighting styles and general feats. For me this is how a class system must work.

2) I'm not into the Big Dumb Heroes design philosophy espoused in an older blog post, whereby martials should be able to do absurdly superhuman things. To be fair I'm not sure if Paizo is sticking with this one, and I don't think it's an objectively bad idea, just not my type of game.

3) Life should be hard and unfair. No more small damage dice? A floating plus two to any stat in character creation so your halfling can be hella strong? Game balance as a core design value? Fixing the caster/martial disparity? This seems less simulationist and more (is gameist a word?). To be blunt I feel coddled. Now a more tabletop boardgamey player might like this because it makes things run smoother.

I'll say it one more time, these aren't the right views or the wrong views but they're mine and they're unshakable. So when you say it's my loss for trying to get involved with the playtest I think you fail to recognize massive chasm between the game as is and what myself and others on this board are looking for.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t understand this mentality of “it’s your loss” if you don’t participate in the playtest. It’s Paizo’s job to design a game that appeals to people. If they design a rule set that people hate so much they do not have motivation to continue giving feedback, that’s on Paizo not the player who has lost interest.

I think Paizo’s main motivation for 2E was not to build a better game, but to try and clawback players from 5E. In so doing I think they have severely underestimated the brand value that D&D has and have gone a long way to alienating their core playerbase. The more I read about 2E the more I want to just bring in changes from Unchained into 1e or just go play 5e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
That having been said, Paizo is also a business and that means they've got to figure out how to balance the business and the art. Basic marketing says keeping customers is cheaper than trying to win over new ones. Based on forum feedback, it feels like PF2 is going to lose more customer than it is going to attract. Right now, they seem to be getting the attention of people who don't like PF1 and don't like D&D 5e. Okay...but how much of the market does that represent? Are there enough of those people to support Paizo?

Keeping existing customers may be easier than growing new ones, but catering to existing customers alone is not a sustainable business model. Your user base is always shrinking due to attrition. So Paizo needs to do three things: 1) retain as many existing players as possible, 2) obtain as much of the "new to fantasy RPG" market as possible, and 3) grow PFS.

That first one is going to be at odds with the second, because those folks are not coming from DnD 3.5. They are coming from other RPG's or are completely new to RPG's in general. And, it seems, they are largely choosing 5E. Paizo needs or wants a game that sits between PF1 and 5E, with some of the richness of the former but the simplicity and ease-of-adoption of the latter.

PFS adds additional contention, because the nature of organized play is such that balance is actually important. When you don't know what your party makeup is going to be or who the players are, you can't rely on someone having a particular skill or capability, and you can't guarantee that everyone is going to play nice. That means mundane skills need to encroach into the domain of magic, magic needs to be toned down to not dominate so heavily, and the rules need to be simpler and clearer to allow the copy-exact table play that it more or less depends on.

This is a tough order to fill. From my viewpoint, it seems that Paizo's direction with PF2 is emphasizing #2 and #3, while limiting the damage to #1 as best they can. I don't necessarily think that's wrong. In fact, it's probably pretty smart. But it may not end up being the game for me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
pogie wrote:

I don’t understand this mentality of “it’s your loss” if you don’t participate in the playtest. It’s Paizo’s job to design a game that appeals to people. If they design a rule set that people hate so much they do not have motivation to continue giving feedback, that’s on Paizo not the player who has lost interest.

I think Paizo’s main motivation for 2E was not to build a better game, but to try and clawback players from 5E. In so doing I think they have severely underestimated the brand value that D&D has and have gone a long way to alienating their core playerbase. The more I read about 2E the more I want to just bring in changes from Unchained into 1e or just go play 5e.

Absolutely this.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.

This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.


master_marshmallow wrote:

One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.

This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.

I encourage you to play OpenLegend to see what real "illusion of choice" is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Freendrix wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.

This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.

I encourage you to play OpenLegend to see what real "illusion of choice" is.

I'd rather not, and I'm not sure Paizo appreciates edition waring and telling people to go play other people's games on their forums.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pogie wrote:
I don’t understand this mentality of “it’s your loss” if you don’t participate in the playtest. It’s Paizo’s job to design a game that appeals to people. If they design a rule set that people hate so much they do not have motivation to continue giving feedback, that’s on Paizo not the player who has lost interest.

But that's the thing: Paizo is making a game that appeals to people. (At the very least, they presented us with a game that was appealing to their in-house playtesters and designers.) It's just not apparently making a game that appeals to you. If you choose not to participate in the playtest and give them the feedback that they are actually asking you to give them, the chance that they will change the game so that it does appeal to you is basically zero.

Paizo will change the game to best meet the desires of the player base that gives them feedback. If you decide not to be one of those people, then you can't blame anyone but yourself if you don't like the results.

Also, using the exact same logic, I encourage everyone to register to vote and participate in their local government however possible. Just FYI.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreeing with master_marshmallow here. I'm a long-time gamer and have been playing PF1 for about 7 years now. I was one that was excited for the new system, and hopeful for an overall better game. In all honesty, I don't think we got that.

For me, I enjoyed both AD&D5e and Pathfinder for different reasons. 5e provided me with a simpler and more balanced game, but less character diversity. Pathfinder you could easily break, if you tried, but you could build basically anything you wanted (even just considering core). PF2e has, in ny opinion, gone more restrictive than 5e, yet is still as complex as Pathfinder.

Yes, there are certainly some cool parts of the system, the 3 action economy, the way shields work... But, at the end of the day, the build system is overly restrictive and the critical system constrains the underlying math in a way that makes the system fundamentally not work.

I'm not going to argue with the "well that's just for you" crowd. I actually agree, this is just for me. But it's not only me I've heard this from....

It's amusing, we heard the complaints about 2e being similar to 4e and how that was doomed to repeat history. Before the release, most (including myself) simply said that comparison wasn't fair. *After* the release, what I now hear as an argument is how 4e wasn't that bad of a system, and how it didn't fail...

This is my perogative, but given the path 2e is headed down, I anticipate it being a flop in much the same way 4e was. The big difference is that 4e initial sales were great because people bought it sight unseen. For 2e, initial playtest involvement/purchases were great (sight unseen), but I think that when the final version comes out, there's going to be a steep drop.

I'll keep playing the Playtest, as I feel invested in Paizo to a point and owe them that, but I'm not at all optimistic for the final game. I think the designers are living in a world of confirmation bias, and they're not collecting good enough data to actually draw meaningful conclusions from the surveys. I've found the multiple choice surveys particularly lacking, and only really felt I was able to convey information via the open forum ones...


18 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.

This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.

None of my players went to GenCon and got any direct input from the devs, but "this is designed for PFS play" was the conclusion that every one of them came up with after they read the book and made their first character. And if PFS play is where they see their future growth, that's wise. I'm not on their marketing team, and I only see a tiny fraction of the RPG market that mostly applies to my bookshelves. A restricted, homogenized system may be the perfect move forward if organized play, and the materials to support it, are where the market is going. But it's not where my bookshelves are going.

I moved from D&D3.5E to PF1E after buying, reviewing, and rejecting D&D4E. I know what it feels like to go from "shelf full of options" to "just core books". And I know what makes a new system worth that downgrade for me. I've been doing this since D&D came in boxes (yes, I'm old), so this isn't my first system change. I took one look at Paizo's revamp of the sorcerer (for example) in the 1E CRB and wanted to try that character. I haven't seen a single playtest character option yet that I want to explore that way.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:


But that's the thing: Paizo is making a game that appeals to people. (At the very least, they presented us with a game that was appealing to their in-house playtesters and designers.

But my desires and the goals of Paizos staff as it relates to game design are different. Paizo wants to design a game that will meet their sales objectives. I want to see a game I want to play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pogie wrote:
The more I read about 2E the more I want to just bring in changes from Unchained into 1e or just go play 5e.

I am definitely cannibalising PF2 for 3rd Ed/PF1 and 5th Ed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.

This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.

None of my players went to GenCon and got any direct input from the devs, but "this is designed for PFS play" was the conclusion that every one of them came up with after they read the book and made their first character. And if PFS play is where they see their future growth, that's wise. I'm not on their marketing team, and I only see a tiny fraction of the RPG market that mostly applies to my bookshelves. A restricted, homogenized system may be the perfect move forward if organized play, and the materials to support it, are where the market is going. But it's not where my bookshelves are going.

I don't want to debate if the conclusion that this was designed for PFS is correct, but I do want to debate the conclusion that designing for organized play is a good idea...

The fact is that I've been doing organized play for a while, and a *lot* of players come from home games that fell apart that they enjoyed and want to play more. A *lot* play PFS as well as home games with people they've met through PFS. I think trying to sustain a game on organized play primarily is doomed to failure, the player base for these games isn't maintainable without a draw outside PFS.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
pogie wrote:
I don’t understand this mentality of “it’s your loss” if you don’t participate in the playtest.

This concept is central to any process involving representation, whether it be politics or consumer feedback. It's the cornerstone of how change occurs in an egalitarian society. Being absent from the discourse means your interest are not heard and then never acted upon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not in any way opposed to organized play, for the record. I've actually been a convention judge for D&D back in the 2.5E Living City days. I think having a viable and accessible organized play system is and has been an overall positive for the whole hobby.

I'm not even claiming our perception that this edition of Pathfinder is being designed around PFS is correct - I'm just saying that the game has that feel (whether those were the design goals or not) to quite a few folks.

I don't *know* if that perception is a good thing, but I don't *think* it is.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I've playtested for several other games. The problem is, there's not really much criticism to give when you viscerally detest nearly every aspect of a game.

Sure, I could write up a playtest report detailing the problems with the Action Economy, +10/-10, Forced 'Optimization', and the excessive usage of Conditions and/or persisting damage, but in the end all it comes down to is that this is a game I would never, ever play - which means Paizo's probably not interested in my feedback since to appeal to me, they'd pretty much have to do away with their entire design philosophy for the new edition. Frankly, I don't really care much either as there are lots of RPGs I do enjoy so dropping PF from the roster isn't a big deal.

I will stick around until the final release, however. I have little confidence that the finished game is anything I'll actually want to play, but if nothing else, it should interesting to watch the creative process involved as the game slowly takes shape.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
pogie wrote:
I don’t understand this mentality of “it’s your loss” if you don’t participate in the playtest.

This concept is central to any process involving representation, whether it be politics or consumer feedback. It's the cornerstone of how change occurs in an egalitarian society. Being absent from the discourse means your interest are not heard and then never acted upon.

I’ll bite. Central to economic theory is th3 concept of opportunity cost. Why would I waste my time giving feedback on a game that I have no confidence I will enjoy playing when I could spend my free time doing something I enjoy more and thus place a higher value on?

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Every person who avoids participating just makes it more sure that their group won't get anything they want.

...
Effectively, your loss.

No, Paizo's loss...they lose out on hundreds, more likely thousands of my dollars worth of revenue.

I gave the playtest a shot, I filled out their surveys, then I watched as the changes they made moved the game even farther away from something I would want to play.

Unless something miraculous happens at this point, I will never spend a cent on PF2E.

I have 20 years worth of D&D 3, 3.5, and PF1E material to work with, it's not like I need a new game system. If I did, it wouldn't be what PF2E is turning into...I would sooner go back and play in the Palladium game system again.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Slyme wrote:

I could spend hours discussing all the things I don't like about PF2E...versus the couple things I think they got right.

Lets just break it down to roughly 90% negative, 10% positive.

At this point, there is no salvaging PF2 for me. Someone call me when Paizo starts work on PF3E, or when another company does what Paizo did when D&D took this huge of a misstep.

Every person who avoids participating just makes it more sure that their group won't get anything they want.

They've said that they're willing to rip out even the proficiency system - the core system of the game - all the way to its roots if enough people have a problem with it, so this just makes it more certain that your group isn't represented.

Effectively, your loss.

It's actually Paizo's loss because ultimately that's one less group of friends buying their products :(

My take: I think there is a decent system hiding inside PF2 but they'd need some significant changes to the critical failure / success system to realize it. Psychologically a 50% success rate feels bad especially for an optimized character but that is what the critical system demands. Ideally an optimized character would have 75% success rate for maximum addictiveness. The game would also feel better if success rate got better as you leveled. I.e leveling actually meant something rather than playing progress quest. Perhaps success rate for an optimal character should scale from 55% to 75% from level 1 to 20.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FangDragon wrote:
It's actually Paizo's loss because ultimately that's one less group of friends buying their products :(

My wife bought me the Starfinder Rulebook as a present this Christmas. We started a long-anticipated GURPS Dungeon Fantasy RPG campaign after my Pathfinder campaign ended in May 2018, so I am considering a Starfinder campaign after the GURPS. No matter how good Pathfinder 2nd Edition will be, I will not be able to get to it until 2 years from now. I keep participation in the Pathfinder playtest low pressure, to avoid competing with the GURPS game, which is why we are only up to In Pale Mountain's Shadow in the playtest.

Not that Paizo would complain about me spending money on Starfinder.

FangDragon wrote:
My take: I think there is a decent system hiding inside PF2 but they'd need some significant changes to the critical failure / success system to realize it. Psychologically a 50% success rate feels bad especially for an optimized character but that is what the critical system demands. Ideally an optimized character would have 75% success rate for maximum addictiveness. The game would also feel better if success rate got better as you leveled. I.e leveling actually meant something rather than playing progress quest. Perhaps success rate for an optimal character should scale from 55% to 75% from level 1 to 20.

I wonder whether they picked the 50% success rate because with two attacks at 1st level, the first at 50% and the second at 25%, and the third action used to Raise a Shield, the expected number of hits per turn would be 0.75, the same as the 0.75 of a 75% hit rate on a single attack.

However, 0.75 as a single attack per turn is 3 hits to every miss, but 0.5 + 0.25 as two attacks per turn is 3 hits to 5 misses. Psychologically, more misses than hits feels far from competent.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I just have very little interest in a system which requires system mastery in order to build a character which is viable, if not capable of thriving. "Thriving" seems like an opposition goal, i.e., the developers don't want a character built to do X to ever be good at doing X, only "better than a person with no investment in X."

Couple that with a number of build options offered by the game being traps which aren't viable at all (which reinforces system mastery).

It was certainly possible to build a character who wasn't viable in 1E, but it wasn't <I>as</I> possible as saying, for example, "I think I'd like to try an animal companion" or "I'll put this feat into improving snares so I can set traps!" or "I cast Disintegrate without casting True Strike first."


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
pogie wrote:
I don’t understand this mentality of “it’s your loss” if you don’t participate in the playtest.

This concept is central to any process involving representation, whether it be politics or consumer feedback. It's the cornerstone of how change occurs in an egalitarian society. Being absent from the discourse means your interest are not heard and then never acted upon.

There are times that the desired outcome of an individual is so different from the process that no amount of participation will result in a meaningful adjustment in outcome.

No matter how many campaigns they volunteer for, how many election cycles they vote in, or which candidates they talk up to friends, a Monarchist will never see their goal of returning a democratic republic to kingship by participating in democracy. Likewise, a a DM or player who has goals opposed to balance at all costs and tight maths is unlikely to ever get what they want out of this playtest no matter how much they participate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
While I'm not willing to throw in the towel myself, I will say that in its current state PF2 has no chance of convincing me to convert from PF1.
Pretty similar to how I feel. Short of a complete ground up rework, PF2 has completely lost my interest. They are turning it into a game I just do not like. I'll give the final version a look once it comes out...but Paizo is unlikely to get my money for anything 2E related.
Same, the switch in attitude from "let us help you create the character you want to create" to "you can only create the characters we want you to create" is too much of a turn off.
Couldn't agree more. If I had to compare how I feel about character creation in first edition versus second edition, it would be like going from a grocery store where I'm given all the ingredients I could ever want to put a meal together the way I like it, to going to a restaurant and having to pick from a couple dozen meal options. Only a few of these really interest me, and the fact that I can substitute fries for a salad really doesn't cut it.

I'm quite sure I know the answer but just to be sure your statement isn't misinterpreted: Do you feel like you have a wider range of characters in PF1e using the CRB only vs PF2e using the playtest material?

If the answer is yes would you attribute class feats as being responsible for those?

1st I don't think it's fair to only limit to the CRB. PF2e is competing against the games in my collection and that includes a near full set of PF1e books. That said, I absolutely could make many more characters in the base PF1e core book than this playtest document. Class feats are a huge part about that, but also the multiclass system. I would much rather a PF1e style multiclass system that finally fixed multiclass spell-casters, monks, and any other archetype who's primary thing wasn't multiclass friendly.


Assuming that the game's creation is still in ebullition by sometimes borrowing extreme paths of design that a normal group of players could easily hate just to test certain limits, the alpha question for me is: This has been it really worth the trouble to base the game on a public issue rather than build the architecture internally?

I feel that not by noticing the atmosphere of negativity that reigns everywhere in the forum. I even wonder if Paizo would not have been too avarcious, because yes, the purpose of this large-scale survey allowed them to probe a lot of people, but it also allowed them to bail out their treasure chest. Because, let's face it, this also gave them the opportunity to sell the playtest books when these same rules or barely changed will be resold to us a year later or at the end of the playtest ...

Did not this translate into the symbolism of the double-edged knife that is just too sharp?

When the weeds begin to spread in the garden (innumerable complaints from the testers about the design of the game), it is laborious to give back to the earth all its vitality of yore.

Regardless of the pitfalls along the way, I wish PF2e that their fallow garden becomes, despite everything, a beautiful rose garden at the end ......

My apologies for my mediocre English.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well if things are one sided and small I would expect them to be changed quickly. one sided but large expect it to take longer. Conflicted and Large I wouldn't expect fast changes. Play testing isn't for everyone. The game isn't flawless which is the whole point of the play testing. However if you go into play testing with a change it immediately and my way only then yeah you will not be happy. Probably best in this circumstance to just not participate and see where it ends up once its all over.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.

This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.

Okay, that has to be the most damning thing I've heard so far about PF2E. It seems to be actively an design which does not cater to me, but rather to a setting which prescribes things not needed for home groups. The sacrifices to get their desired ruleset for conventions actively work against the other half of their customer base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pogie wrote:
The more I read about 2E the more I want to just bring in changes from Unchained into 1e or just go play 5e.
I am definitely cannibalising PF2 for 3rd Ed/PF1 and 5th Ed.

That seems to be the way forward for me as well, if the spell pass doesn't get the results I hope for. Get the new CRB as a PDF and export anything good as optional houserules to my home game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
I very much like degrees of success for spells, but I think that +/-10 method of achieving it is flawed as it forces all those problems in game's math. In skills, it forces the feeling of playing "Three Stooges the RPG", both through math that is against you, and the fact that critical failures even exist.

I agree that +/-10 for crits is a problem, or rather a root of several things that are visible problems. It means that bonuses have to be kept down because once you go beyond ~60% chance of success the chance of a crit starts getting silly.

And I'm not sure it's easily fixable with a closed d20+bonuses system. The systems I've seen that have had various degrees of success have generally done it in one of these way:

1. Natural roll (e.g. PF1) where a dice roll of some range is a crit. Examples are most post-3e D&D versions where a natural 20 is a critical success in combat.

2. Margin of success (e.g. Savage Worlds, TORG), where a roll exceeding the difficulty by some number is a critical. This often works better if the roll is somehow open-ended - both Savage Worlds and TORG have success rolls that can explode in various ways, creating a natural curve. Both also have multiple degrees of success - TORG has a Good success for a margin of 5 to 9, and Outstanding for 10+, while Savage Worlds gives you one Raise for every 5 points of margin.

3. Dice pools where you roll a number of dice and count how many exceed a particular number. Also creates a pleasing curve regarding numbers of successes, allowing for more granularity than just fail/success/crit (but on the other hand removing the satisfaction that comes from a CRIT!).
-3a. A variant of this is the system used in FFG's Star Wars games, where the dice have various symbols on them for successes/failures or advantages/disadvantages, creating a two-dimensional system of success/failure as well.

4. Fractional successes, where the chance of a crit is some fraction of your chance of success so that the ratio of crits to successes is always the same barring rounding errors. Examples are Runequest (at least some editions) where a Special success is rolling 1/5 your skill or below and a Critical success is rolling 1/20 your skill or below, or the original Alternity game where a Good success was 1/2 your skill and an Amazing success was 1/4. This usually works best with a roll-under system, because then it's easy to figure out the fractions involved.
-4a. A sub-class of this is the way crits are handled in some versions of Warhammer and also the Swedish game Hjältarnas Tid, where you roll d100 and doubles (11, 22, etc.) are crits. If the roll is also a success, it's a critical success, but if it's a failure it's a critical failure.

PF2 is going for margin of success on the roll, but since you have a flat and closed probability curve, it is not bringing the results you get in Savage Worlds or TORG.

51 to 100 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / my future here All Messageboards