Our group is also bowing out of the playtest - and reasons why

[Steve Geddes]

pogie wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ultimately, my contention (pretty much nothing more than a guess from reading between the lines) is that the hardcore "I switched from 3.5 and want PF to always be a continuation of that system" cohort is of dwindling significance economically but form a significant majority of the group being turned off by PF2.

I hear what you’re saying but I think it’s a misstep for Paizo to think they’re going to replace pf1 players who don’t like the new system with new players.

For me, I'm left hoping you're wrong (because I want Paizo to thrive) but I wouldn't really know.

At this stage, I'm going to buy PF2 for a year, but for the first time I find myself struggling to commit to Paizo products beyond that. Whether I continue or not, I truly hope enough people step in to replace any lost customers.

[DaveMage]

I'm certainly going to check out the PDF of the PF2 Core Rulebook, but don't know beyond that.

What I wonder about is how the game is going to be supported. Same subscriptions as PF1 or something else?

[Midnightoker]

Tridus wrote:

For those who don't play shooters, a bullet sponge is a mob that soaks up bullets and has way to much HP. They slow the game to a crawl and turn into a slog because they're not interesting to fight. They just drag on.

2e combat can turn into that when stuff has tons of HP but you can only hit it half the time on your first attack (and far less on subsequent ones), and then it goes and pops another at will Mirror Image. Combat then turns into "we attack it" for 17 rounds of tedium until someone finally falls over.

Rocket tag has its own problems, but it's unspoken virtue is that it keeps the story moving.

Yeah I've played a few games with that issue. Destiny 1 was particularly egregious during the HoW patch.

I prefer unique win conditions, but it's also a lot of work for a gm to generate mouse trap encounters where you offer "tricks" to winning. Those can also be frustrating if too complex to figure out or trivial if too easy though.

It'd be nice if getting conditions to trigger would alleviate HP issues or provide some kind of tactical need in terms of defeating certain enemies, possibly giving weaknesses upon application.

[MartiniPhilosopher]

Themetricsystem wrote:

I really think lots of folks are taking away bad impressions of the system based off the PT rules because the Test requires that DD be essentially a standardized test with little/no room for creative problem solving or even balanced encounters.

The sweet spot for PF has always been allowing groups to use the rules to play their own thing on their own terms, that and providing QUALITY Adventure Paths, neither of these things are currently applicable to PF2 and I fear there are many players who just don't have the temperament or patience for trying new rules only to throw them out a few weeks later.

Here's the thing.

You only get one chance to make a first impression.

That's Paizo biggest problem from here on out. They got their chance to make that first impression and this is what they got out of it. A bunch of people who were fans of their first product really not liking their follow up. People who don't feel like their feedback is being listened to, who aren't enjoying the product, and feel like the development is being railroaded to a predetermined end.

This is a serious, long term problem. Because what happens next is that said product is release and those who are just hearing about are going to go looking for reviews and feedback. And this is what they're going to find. Those same posts describing the not-fun times of play. Which is going to put some crimps on sales going forward.

You only get one chance to make a first impression.

This is the same problem that a lot of game developers are facing these days. Extended "early access" or Kickstarter beta previews are hurting release sales. You don't have to go far to find examples. One I'm all too familiar with is Bard's Tale 4. They had an beta and alpha open to backers while also selling said access during development. You can head over to their Steam store page and find out that the devs didn't pay attention to any of the flaws and bugs brought up during all that supposed testing the paying public was doing for them. And so that game sits and will continue to sit in mixed reviews for the rest of its life.

Any plans InExile may have had about resurrecting the brand or funding an expansion of their studio has to be rethought if not abandoned. They'll be lucky to get sales going forward. It doesn't really matter if they do fix everything and make it look good.

Because that first impression is critical. It sets the mood, the feel for your game in the market.

Paizo needs to get their head turned around before it happens to them.

[Data Lore]

I'm in it for the hardcover on release and will purchase adventures in pdf and for Fantasy Grounds. I really hope they make a sequel to Iron Gods with it.

My only major misgivings are around ease of play and a virtual table top largely solves that.

I'd like more tactical play as well but this game already offers as much or more tactically than 5e, in my opinion, so I'm good with it. It also comes with Paizo APs, which are pretty top notch.

[graystone]

Steve Geddes wrote:

At this stage, I'm going to buy PF2 for a year

As/is, I'm not planning on spending cash on the game. I know someone that works at a bookstore, so I'll check out the book when to comes out: I think they'd need a complete rehaul to get me on board at this point.

[MMCJawa]

Well....I think we really won't know anything until a year or two after the game is released (especially since I do expect a lot more revision).

I think the important thing to consider is that this forum probably isn't a representative cross section of the game buying public. Hell, forums in generally are pretty much dying off, as discussion spaces have moved into sites like facebook and Reddit.

There was basically NO POSSIBLE WAY a new edition could go forward without alienating some existing set of Pathfinder players. We just don't know how significant that set is.

[Zamfield]

Quote:

Another way to describe this is meaningless choices. There's a lot of rules out there that come to the same answer and the effect that gives the player is that everyone is a clone

There are 671 feats in the book, of those only 92 grant your character an entirely new ability not covered by skill uses and basic actions. Most of these new abilities are in the form of powers that cost points and resemble spells. 52 feats merely grant a proficiency increase, most of which don’t t stack. 8 provide a companion, and 13 are a static increase in things like hit points or bonus damage to dice.

The remaining feats modify core difficulty checks of things everyone gets. They grant a bonus, remove a penalty, modify action or time cost, increase duration, altar the targets, or remove prohibitions on the base activity.

I would say that only 30 feats listed actually qualify as a true feat, the rest could just as easily be a handful of tables for ability score, class level, proficiency rank, and penalties, because they are just numbers applied to dice rolls with little description and no role-playing flavor at all.

The powers could be a collection of spell lists since only the fighter, ranger, and rogue are non-spell casters. Even the barbarian has special totem rage powers, although they are the least spell-like and closest thing to a true feat in the entire rulebook.

I’ll probably bring up a new thread since a detailed discussion is somewhat off topic here.

[Voss]

graystone wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

At this stage, I'm going to buy PF2 for a year

As/is, I'm not planning on spending cash on the game. I know someone that works at a bookstore, so I'll check out the book when to comes out: I think they'd need a complete rehaul to get me on board at this point.

I'll do what I did with PF1, wait for Paizo to put it up on their website, and see if its worth anything. Then decide on buying.

A rehaul would be nice. I dislike that the feedback on resonance is leading to keeping it to trouble permanent items, but to problematize mundane healing as well.

Similarly, the ancestry response does reflect feedback: the easy fix suggested to give a heritage and a feat at first level, but doesn't at all address any of the problems created by making ancestry a wacky feat progression of spontaneous mutation, or the blank-slate, samey feel of the races, especially at low levels. The feel of 'pick one of fire resistance, frost resistance or darkvision' certainly doesn't help that.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Steve Geddes wrote:

At this stage, I'm going to buy PF2 for a year, but for the first time I find myself struggling to commit to Paizo products beyond that. Whether I continue or not, I truly hope enough people step in to replace any lost customers.

Well, for what it's worth, I've had great buy-in from my playtest players and seem to have won over a few of the 5E crowd who wanted more customization options. Of my 13 players only 1 had a negative reaction and I'd say 7 were enthusiastic. I'm not entirely sure why this doesn't track with the reports on these boards - it seems on par with other groups I'm following elsewhere - but that also was my experience when Pathfinder First Edition was being playtested. Perhaps the forums just attract a more critical audience...which is actually great for a playtest. I just wish Frank Trollman was around for this playtest.

So, yes, barring a major rules revision that causes me to reconsider, I'll be putting money behind Second Edition and I think a good number of my players will be purchasing material as well. My groups had a great time with combat - even with suboptimal characters - and I'm not worried about things that the developers have confirmed will be fixed for the final version. Exploration Mode is the only section of the rules that I have serious concerns about at this point. But if those don't get addressed I'll just houserule my own fix to it (just like I did with Pathfinder First Edition).

[Steve Geddes]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

At this stage, I'm going to buy PF2 for a year, but for the first time I find myself struggling to commit to Paizo products beyond that. Whether I continue or not, I truly hope enough people step in to replace any lost customers.

Well, for what it's worth, I've had great buy-in from my playtest players and seem to have won over a few of the 5E crowd who wanted more customization options. Of my 13 players only 1 had a negative reaction and I'd say 7 were enthusiastic. I'm not entirely sure why this doesn't track with the reports on these boards - it seems on par with other groups I'm following elsewhere - but that also was my experience when Pathfinder First Edition was being playtested. Perhaps the forums just attract a more critical audience...which is actually great for a playtest. I just wish Frank Trollman was around for this playtest.

So, yes, barring a major rules revision that causes me to reconsider, I'll be putting money behind Second Edition and I think a good number of my players will be purchasing material as well. My groups had a great time with combat - even with suboptimal characters - and I'm not worried about things that the developers have confirmed will be fixed for the final version. Exploration Mode is the only section of the rules that I have serious concerns about at this point. But if those don't get addressed I'll just houserule my own fix to it (just like I did with Pathfinder First Edition).

Of course the "Wait until the final rules before you criticise it" refrain that pops up on the forums from time to time applies to those who currently like it as well. After the PT is finished, things will change and not everyone will like the way Paizo jump.

To be clear, although I'm struggling to get hyped, I have huge respect for Paizo and their ability to make the right call when it comes to this sort of thing. Starfinder is the most recent "hit it out of the park" venture but I think Pathfinder the first time around was also a standout example of picking their moment and making a huge hit of it. I think that talent for taking the gaming community's puls goes back even earlier than that to when they were running the magazines. When they have been less successful (the MMORPG being the best example, I think) they've also done an excellent job of managing those misses, in my view.

I don't really like the new direction of Pathfinder, but if I were a betting man I'd back Paizo's judgement over my preferences when it comes to meeting the market.

[GRuzom]

Snowblind wrote:

Tridus wrote:

...

5e's playtest had a lot of issues early on, too. It worked out pretty well in the end.
...

Yeah, and 5e had something like two years and two months between initial playtest release and final release. PF2E is getting what, like a year or so?

Maybe they should postpone the release? Alpha AND Beta test. I don't think that a rushed edition will do anyone any good.

[Tholomyes]

GRuzom wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

Tridus wrote:

...

5e's playtest had a lot of issues early on, too. It worked out pretty well in the end.
...

Yeah, and 5e had something like two years and two months between initial playtest release and final release. PF2E is getting what, like a year or so?

Maybe they should postpone the release? Alpha AND Beta test. I don't think that a rushed edition will do anyone any good.

I don't doubt that that would produce a better game, but you have to acknowledge that with 5e, they had Hasbro bankrolling them, and for Hasbro, WotC is far more lucrative from MTG than D&D, so waiting a bit on 5e is more viable, since they didn't need to worry about return on investment as much, both because their investment was smaller relative to their total income, and because their gains from that investment could be weighed against the opportunity cost of releasing the system earlier.

Now, Paizo has stated that they're not in a state where they need a bump from 2e, or that they can't delay if need be, and I believe them at that, but I also know that without a wealthy bankroller, it's harder to justify a longer term investment in a system, even if that investment might have some pay off. Essentially it comes down to a question of the ratio between total customers if they launch Gen Con 2019 vs launching Gen Con 2020. As a player, I'd certainly prefer the latter, assuming that comes with a more refined system, but for Paizo, I can see the former being more valuable, assuming that they can get the system to be reasonably good at launch, and expandible for future supplements.

[Slyme]

I currently do not plan to invest any money into PF2, unless there are some drastic changes. Most of the people in my local community feel the same way.

I also work in a game store, we ordered 6 sets of the playtest books, we initially had pre-orders for 3 of the sets.

One of those pre-orders got returned the day after they picked them up due to the customer not liking what they saw.

That left us with 4 sets to sell, in a store with a very active, and very spendy group of PF1 players, an even larger active group of 5E players, and plenty of assorted other RPG and board game players.

Guess how many sets we have sitting on the shelf right now...all 4 (minus some of the map packs, which sold because people can always use maps).

[Lyee]

Going back to the bullet sponge thing, I think it's a real problem in the bestiary. Here's an example from a game I ran yesterday:

Treachery Demon Creature 13
HP 315; Con +7;

Let's talk about those numbers.

At level 13, +7 Con is already more than a PC can get. 'better than is even possible for a PC' is a recurring, annoying theme in the bestiary. It's not even the main thing of a Trechery demon, that's it's deception, disguises, innate miracle spell!. For reference, a PC can get a total of +4, realistically. 16 max start, 19 from stat ups. Maaaaybe a +5 if they pick the con-potency item over their class attribute. +7 is way out.

So how big are his hit dice if we built him like a PC? Maybe he got a racial hit dice of 12, somehow, and then a 12-hp hit dice every level he has. 14 of the biggest hit dice possible! So what does 14*12+13*7 give us? 259. He's still got 56 hp from nowhere, even giving him very generous hit dice and with his better-than-PC-possible Con. On a guy that is not remotely about HP. We could give him Toughness 4 times, and his HP still doesn't make sense.

Even in raw combat, outside of his cool combat stuff, he has 3 natural attacks, reach, innate combat spells, grab, a special attack ability, similar AC to a PC of that level, and amazing saves (+25 fort, good luck getting that on a PC). Why does he also need to be a 315 hp sponge? I feel like +6 con, 14 hit dice with 10 hit points each, for 218 hit points, would be closer to right.

These 'the monster's not-best thing is better than the best possible thing a PC could have' problems are endemic throughout the bestiary, including hp which leads to sponges. Sure, let their specialties shine, but not everything needs that much bulk.

[Gorbacz]

It's fortunate that the monster design paradigm of PF2 is "take the target numbers, work from there" and not PF1's "let's desperately try to emulate the way PCs work and end up having to pull +8 to natural armor and +12 to Stealth out of thin air else the monster won't work like we want it to".

[Lyee]

Yes, which is why I don't actually have an issue with the Treachery Demon's +28 deception at level 13. A PC could achieve, what, +21 before items? Maybe +25 with items and a bard? But the Treachery Demon's thing is deception, so it's okay to be better than an equally leveled PC. Neato.

I have an issue with it also having fantastic saves, and HP, and on-par AC despite being an unarmored thing the size of a barn, and at-will dimension door just because. And this being common.

[Gorbacz]

But that's exactly how the PF2 monster design paradigm works. You won't be able to tear the monster down and say that it has 12 hit dice, therefore it has +12 BAB and +12 to good saves. It's just not how it works. You're trying to reverse engineer and backtrack a bottom-up process of making the monster, except it wasn't designed bottoms-up. It was designed to fill target numbers with substance, and while I'm all for adjusting these numbers if necessary, I'm very happy to see monster design uncoupled from PC design. It makes designing monsters and adjusting existing ones so much easier.

[Cyouni]

Lyee wrote:

These 'the monster's not-best thing is better than the best possible thing a PC could have' problems are endemic throughout the bestiary, including hp which leads to sponges. Sure, let their specialties shine, but not everything needs that much bulk.

I'm pretty sure Mark Seifter noted at one point that some of the skills numbers are incorrectly inflated as a result of a mistake in the building chart they were using.

[Lyee]

Gorbacz wrote:

But that's exactly how the PF2 monster design paradigm works. You won't be able to tear the monster down and say that it has 12 hit dice, therefore it has +12 BAB and +12 to good saves. It's just not how it works. You're trying to reverse engineer and backtrack a bottom-up process of making the monster, except it wasn't designed bottoms-up. It was designed to fill target numbers with substance, and while I'm all for adjusting these numbers if necessary, I'm very happy to see monster design uncoupled from PC design. It makes designing monsters and adjusting existing ones so much easier.

Yes, which is great at a base, conceptual, level.

But being better than the PCs can possibly be, at something that isn't the monster's specialty, just makes PCs feel not special at anything.

I use the PC-building framework only to figure out what roughly makes sense. I do not expect them to have that exact amount of HP, or other abilities. But when they have little-to-no weak points, it's a bit of a pain.

I think we are argreeing on the system for monsters, and concepts such as those in the original monster design blog post. I just disagree heavily on the actual monster stats in the playtestiary.

[Cyouni]

I think one important point that should also be considered is: PCs don't have weakness 12 to certain important enemy things. Weakness 12 is pretty big - I thought that HP number seemed abnormally large (as I remembered a level 20 monster with that much HP) - but the fact that they have those weaknesses is going to slice off a lot more HP every time something hits it than it usually expects.

[ErichAD]

Treachery Demons do appear to have half again as much HP as other things in their CR. Purple Worms are at the same CR and have about as much though, so maybe there's a HP jump for anything without sufficient regen or resistances. This does seem to be a symptom of throwing out process generated stats for monsters.

[Lyee]

Cyouni wrote:

I think one important point that should also be considered is: PCs don't have weakness 12 to certain important enemy things. Weakness 12 is pretty big - I thought that HP number seemed abnormally large (as I remembered a level 20 monster with that much HP) - but the fact that they have those weaknesses is going to slice off a lot more HP every time something hits it than it usually expects.

This feels like the 'optimize for 50%' aspect of the skills system, but in a totally different context.

'This creature has crippling weaknesses, if you optimize to exploit them, it is... exactly as a strong as a normal opponent should be. I hope you're ready for a dull spongefest if you don't have those prepared!'

Weaknesses should feel like you're doing great and taking things down quickly... not a strange way of encoding 'resistance to everything else' by buffing its hp when you add a weakness.

[Wandering Wastrel]

I sympathize with the original poster. I'm going to carry on with the playtest because I've started and I want to finish.

But I'm sure as hell going to hold off on buying the PF2 book when it comes out. I'm going to read the reviews and check the reactions on this forum before I go anywhere near it. Paizo aren't entitled to my money.

[Frames Janco]

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

... Paizo aren't entitled to my money.

Is this antagonisation really necessary? I don't think they've ever tried to suggest otherwise. This is a playtest for people interested in playtesting - they're not running an extortion racket. They've readily accepted and acknowledged several times that a portion of the community won't like their changes. That's to be expected.

[Garretmander]

Lyee wrote:

Going back to the bullet sponge thing, I think it's a real problem in the bestiary. Here's an example from a game I ran yesterday:

Treachery Demon Creature 13
HP 315; Con +7;

Let's talk about those numbers.

At level 13, +7 Con is already more than a PC can get. 'better than is even possible for a PC' is a recurring, annoying theme in the bestiary. It's not even the main thing of a Trechery demon, that's it's deception, disguises, innate miracle spell!. For reference, a PC can get a total of +4, realistically. 16 max start, 19 from stat ups. Maaaaybe a +5 if they pick the con-potency item over their class attribute. +7 is way out.

So how big are his hit dice if we built him like a PC? Maybe he got a racial hit dice of 12, somehow, and then a 12-hp hit dice every level he has. 14 of the biggest hit dice possible! So what does 14*12+13*7 give us? 259. He's still got 56 hp from nowhere, even giving him very generous hit dice and with his better-than-PC-possible Con. On a guy that is not remotely about HP. We could give him Toughness 4 times, and his HP still doesn't make sense.

Even in raw combat, outside of his cool combat stuff, he has 3 natural attacks, reach, innate combat spells, grab, a special attack ability, similar AC to a PC of that level, and amazing saves (+25 fort, good luck getting that on a PC). Why does he also need to be a 315 hp sponge? I feel like +6 con, 14 hit dice with 10 hit points each, for 218 hit points, would be closer to right.

These 'the monster's not-best thing is better than the best possible thing a PC could have' problems are endemic throughout the bestiary, including hp which leads to sponges. Sure, let their specialties shine, but not everything needs that much bulk.

This is something I fully expect to change and be tweaked and so on. Making the creature stats fit in with the system is basically the point of this encounter in the playtest. They are obviously way off with this one right now. Just like they were with the TPK machine at the end of starfinder AP#1.

But it does expose an issue in that bullet sponges are terrible monster design for this system. Hopefully no monsters end up like that in the final.

[GRuzom]

Frames Janco wrote:

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

... Paizo aren't entitled to my money.

Is this antagonisation really necessary? I don't think they've ever tried to suggest otherwise. This is a playtest for people interested in playtesting - they're not running an extortion racket. They've readily accepted and acknowledged several times that a portion of the community won't like their changes. That's to be expected.

Couldn't agree more! I'm not thrilled with PF2 so far, but let's keep it civil.

A lot can happen before the release of the finished game. My main concern is that Paizo has made the test period far too short for a proper test/fixing of kinks.

The finished game should be coherent, wether it appeals to me, or someone with a different taste.

[Dire Ursus]

I don't understand the bullet sponge argument personally. I like longer combats. I felt one of the weaker parts of the 1st edition system is that if you have a boss character take on players there's a very high likelihood that the boss character would get owned in 1 round.

[Gratz]

Dire Ursus wrote:

I don't understand the bullet sponge argument personally. I like longer combats. I felt one of the weaker parts of the 1st edition system is that if you have a boss character take on players there's a very high likelihood that the boss character would get owned in 1 round.

Because too often longer fights in RPGs aren't well designed or are harder to manage, so they become stale and boring. I agree with you that having a 2-round bossfight is very much anti-climatic, but the same goes for fights that last 6 to 8 rounds where every faction of the fight does the same thing over and over.

It's one of the problems that high-level 5e combat has, because even though you hit the boss all the time, the fight doesn't become more interesting just because it lasts longer. To achieve that you'd have to integrate more moving parts and additional challenges to the combat, instead of just whacking at the BBEG.

[Alchemaic]

Dire Ursus wrote:

I don't understand the bullet sponge argument personally. I like longer combats. I felt one of the weaker parts of the 1st edition system is that if you have a boss character take on players there's a very high likelihood that the boss character would get owned in 1 round.

I'd much rather a fight that's done in 1 round because the players planned around the encounter or found the secret macguffin that makes the boss easier to kill as opposed to taking an actual full session to chug through its health pool. Bullet sponges just aren't fun and make the players feel like everything they do is ineffective. That holds true in just about every instance that they appear in.

[magnuskn]

Yeah, the argument of "I want longer fights" sounds great, until you only got a few hours each session due to people growing up and having to sacrifice play hours to little things like "family" and "having to get up early due to work". Then you realize that the entire campaign is advancing at a snails pace because you only get one or two combats done each session. And then you start being happy for fast-paced combat.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Alchemaic wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

I don't understand the bullet sponge argument personally. I like longer combats. I felt one of the weaker parts of the 1st edition system is that if you have a boss character take on players there's a very high likelihood that the boss character would get owned in 1 round.

I'd much rather a fight that's done in 1 round because the players planned around the encounter or found the secret macguffin that makes the boss easier to kill as opposed to taking an actual full session to chug through its health pool. Bullet sponges just aren't fun and make the players feel like everything they do is ineffective. That holds true in just about every instance that they appear in.

There's a difference between 1-2 rounding a monster because you did your Batman/Monster Hunter style prep, exploited its weaknesses to the fullest, and did a bunch of outside the box thinking/tactics vs 1-2 rounds because the wizard landed his save/lose or you drowned it in DPR/action economy as was normal back in the day. That's about as much fun as the 10+ round slog, but on the other hand at least the players can move on from the former faster.

Honestly you could get away with larger hp pools if hp was worked in a different way other than "no difference between max and 1." A person can feel progress if a sword swing lops off the bad guy's arm or breaks a rib (and it isn't just GM flavor text) or triggers some stripe of phase transition that sends the boss to one winged angel mode or whatever.

[Gratz]

magnuskn wrote:

Then you realize that the entire campaign is advancing at a snails pace because you only get one or two combats done each session. And then you start being happy for fast-paced combat.

I find this to be a perfectly acceptable amount of combats for a 3 to 4 hour session, but I might be in a minority on this. I have to say after not having run or played PF for a year, it was quite the change of pace going back to multiple encounters in a row.

[QuidEst]

MartiniPhilosopher wrote:

You only get one chance to make a first impression.

Eh… I feel like Paizo's got about four chances to make a "first impression" on me. There's the start of the playtest, obviously, but I'm going to go re-evaluate at the end of the playtest. Already, one of my middle concerns has been resolved. I don't really expect my biggest concern to be resolved in the playtest update document, but if it is, Paizo's managed to make a good first impression on me with the playtest.

When the final product finally comes out, how could I not go check it out again with an open mind? The core book PDF is going to be extremely cheap for what I'm getting. Finally, I'll have to reassess my opinion after a year and a half or so, once there are a couple books out. I can't stand PF1 core-only, so I'll give PF2 the same fair shake of introducing at least its equivalent of the APG. Starfinder was even able to win me over without introducing new classes, just by fleshing out the gear and feat selections, and patching up some rules issues. That doesn't mean that I'll like it at the end, but it's got a couple of goes first.

I might be an outlier in terms of how many times I'll reassess from scratch, but I think the people who won't even give the final product a fair shake aren't going to be the norm either.

[Tridus]

Dire Ursus wrote:

I don't understand the bullet sponge argument personally. I like longer combats. I felt one of the weaker parts of the 1st edition system is that if you have a boss character take on players there's a very high likelihood that the boss character would get owned in 1 round.

Longer combat when that combat is interesting is one thing. If the battlefield is shifting, new tactics are always happening, and you are engaged in what is going on, it can work well.

Longer combat where that isn't happening and you're simply trying to wear down a huge HP pool before it runs you out of healing is not that. It doesn't require me to be engaged or even paying attention. Sure I'm in a two hour combat, but I'm spending 1 hour and 45 minutes of it on my phone because there is nothing going on to give me a reason to pay attention.

The latter is a bad thing. We've been running into that in a campaign I'm in now that we're near the end, and players are getting extremely frustrated at how in a four hour session we do two combats and nothing else.

That's just a slog after a while, and I don't game to slog through stuff.

[Ikos]

MMCJawa wrote:

Well....I think we really won't know anything until a year or two after the game is released (especially since I do expect a lot more revision).

I think the important thing to consider is that this forum probably isn't a representative cross section of the game buying public. Hell, forums in generally are pretty much dying off, as discussion spaces have moved into sites like facebook and Reddit.

There was basically NO POSSIBLE WAY a new edition could go forward without alienating some existing set of Pathfinder players. We just don't know how significant that set is.

Yes, the boards attract a very specific type of player, hardcore fans deeply attached, deeply entrenched, and possessing the free time to post with regularity. Of the players in both my playtest groups, only two out of the nine of us meet that criteria, including myself. The others either don’t care what is said here, find the boards disruptive to healthy living, or lack time to post given their other responsibilities. Personally, because of these same reasons, I post with relative scarcity, despite being a lifestyle gamer with thousands of dollars sunk into the hobby.

[Belisar]

tivadar27 wrote:

For some people, sure, playtesting isn't for them. For others, they probably simply feel like they're not being heard. So... you come on here to voice this, and are told that, outside of the surveys, why should they listen to this "minority" of people on forums... They're told this BY GAME DEVS as well. It's a good way to disenfranchise a large portion of your player base, in my opinion.

EDIT: Note, I'm speaking towards the structured feedback survey. Yes, you can write whatever you want in the freeform boxes, but there's no reason to believe that that's any more useful than posting on the forums, and it's impossible to get feedback on your statements there.

I understand your point but one should try at least. If your voice is not heard by the devs and the final product is not for you, you did try to convince them at least.

[The Sideromancer]

I am reminded of this

[Tridus]

MMCJawa wrote:

I think the important thing to consider is that this forum probably isn't a representative cross section of the game buying public. Hell, forums in generally are pretty much dying off, as discussion spaces have moved into sites like facebook and Reddit.

This is true. Those other sites aren't a representative cross section either. Nor are the surveys.

The issue with a voluntary playtest like this is self selection bias. You aren't testing against the game buying public, you're testing against the group that will play in a playtest and then submit feedback. That group will skew certain ways naturally, and the people who have been with Paizo a long time and are most invested in Pathfinder are going to be over represented because they're the most invested in being involved.

The thing is... while that might not be a huge group market wise, it's also your core audience. Losing them costs you your most diehard fans, and those are the ones that evangelize and push the game on their friends to try out. They're worth more than someone who plays PFS once a year at the local con and otherwise doesn't know the game exists.

In my own playtest group, we had 7 people and currently have 5. I know that two are submitting surveys, I know one is not, and I'm not sure about the other two. The thing there is that the split of who is and who isn't doing surveys itself skews the survey results because one type of personality is more represented in the results than the other.

Quote:

There was basically NO POSSIBLE WAY a new edition could go forward without alienating some existing set of Pathfinder players. We just don't know how significant that set is.

Absolutely. We have no way to draw informed conclusions.

[Cyouni]

Lyee wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

I think one important point that should also be considered is: PCs don't have weakness 12 to certain important enemy things. Weakness 12 is pretty big - I thought that HP number seemed abnormally large (as I remembered a level 20 monster with that much HP) - but the fact that they have those weaknesses is going to slice off a lot more HP every time something hits it than it usually expects.

This feels like the 'optimize for 50%' aspect of the skills system, but in a totally different context.

'This creature has crippling weaknesses, if you optimize to exploit them, it is... exactly as a strong as a normal opponent should be. I hope you're ready for a dull spongefest if you don't have those prepared!'

Weaknesses should feel like you're doing great and taking things down quickly... not a strange way of encoding 'resistance to everything else' by buffing its hp when you add a weakness.

I do think it possibly has a bit too much HP (maybe about 50 too much, looking at the ice devil), but part of that is the fact that it doesn't have any resistances anymore, compared to its bulk in PF1 where it had DR/good and resisted most elements. Now, even a torch or a nonmagical cold iron dagger is doing significantly more, and lots of small hits can definitely shed through the thing quite a bit faster than normal. Something like persistent damage, for example.

What definitely has way too much health is the purple worm, geez. Based off damage math, I can't see that one not feeling like a slog.