| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many people, I believe, in these threads are trying to equate the Pathfinder Playtest to Pathfinder 1e.
We, on this forum, are here because Paizo has allowed us to assist them in their endeavors in creating a new edition of Pathfinder. All of us obviously care deeply about the Pathfinder system and are excited to see the changes that Paizo has in mind.
This means all of us get very passionate and zealous about the new rules and how we would like to see them changed. Which in the grand scheme is great and I'm sure Paizo appreciates heavily the time and effort each of us are making.
However, I have seen a lot of comparisons made throughout the threads between this new system and 1e. Which makes it difficult to look at what ideas really can improve the Playtest and what is more about just wanting to continue making content for 1e.
I have no problems with people wanting more things for 1e. I think it's great that people are still having ideas for it and fully encourage people to explore those ideas. Perhaps even make some kick-ass third-party products.
But this specific forum, these threads under the banner "Pathfinder Playtest" are here to test, discuss, and improve what will be the Second Edition of Pathfinder. So please stop comparing the two and instead focus on what you'd like to see adjusted about this new system. Create threads about what new feats you would like to see, how you would like to see a new class implemented, perhaps an observation about a rules weakness/strength, or even just a thread asking for clarification. These are the kinds of things that will help shape this new system we are all here to support.
Thank you and have fun Playtesting
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Gorbacz: True enough but then Paizo also made us prone to version comparisons by saying they want to be able to "tell the same stories" in the new version as in the old.
As a result, many folks are looking at several interpretations of that phrase and doing version comparisons.
For example, if "tell the same stories" means...:
..."Reuse the same narrative elements, even if you change powers, threat levels, and means of addressing specific threats", then folks are naturally going to examine their experiences in PF1 and try to determine "Could I still run this or that AP in PF2 and have it still be recognizable".
..."Tell my own story of my own PC that currently exists in PF1", then folks are going to look at their PF1 PCs and try to determine whether they can not only create a similar set of mechanical capabilities but also determine if their backstory is still supported. I think this has been the point of biggest contention, particularly as regards multiclassing and the ability to pick up new class abilities and options.
..."Be able to reproduce the same in-game stunts that give folks the zest in their games" then folks are going to be trying to determine whether they are still able to lasso a landshark and surf it into town to fight the giant menace or something equally uncovered by the RAW. Put another way, I think folks want to make sure they can still have the same kind of fun and out-there experiences that can make an adventure more specifically your group's. It ties in somewhat with the first point but has more to do with the execution than in the adventure design.
All three of these warrant direct comparison between the two versions.
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many people, I believe, in these threads are trying to equate the Pathfinder Playtest to Pathfinder 1e.
We, on this forum, are here because Paizo has allowed us to assist them in their endeavors in creating a new edition of Pathfinder. All of us obviously care deeply about the Pathfinder system and are excited to see the changes that Paizo has in mind.
This means all of us get very passionate and zealous about the new rules and how we would like to see them changed. Which in the grand scheme is great and I'm sure Paizo appreciates heavily the time and effort each of us are making.
However, I have seen a lot of comparisons made throughout the threads between this new system and 1e. Which makes it difficult to look at what ideas really can improve the Playtest and what is more about just wanting to continue making content for 1e.
I have no problems with people wanting more things for 1e. I think it's great that people are still having ideas for it and fully encourage people to explore those ideas. Perhaps even make some kick-ass third-party products.
But this specific forum, these threads under the banner "Pathfinder Playtest" are here to test, discuss, and improve what will be the Second Edition of Pathfinder. So please stop comparing the two and instead focus on what you'd like to see adjusted about this new system. Create threads about what new feats you would like to see, how you would like to see a new class implemented, perhaps an observation about a rules weakness/strength, or even just a thread asking for clarification. These are the kinds of things that will help shape this new system we are all here to support.
Thank you and have fun Playtesting
Don't worry. The game itself does a really good job reminding everyody that it is not really Pathfinder. I'm sure nobody forgets that, despite the misleadinding Pathfinder 2 title
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, I have seen a lot of comparisons made throughout the threads between this new system and 1e. Which makes it difficult to look at what ideas really can improve the Playtest and what is more about just wanting to continue making content for 1e.
What if we think that would improve the playtest would be the development of a PF2e that was much more based on PF1e, something that really was an "evolution" (Paizo's word choice not mine)?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you do not want people to confuse pathfinder 2e as an improved version of pf1, then developers should not set the goal of making a simplified and better game that remove several issues than the first edition do not you think?
For the rest, common sense says that pathfinder 2e = pathfinder 2.0 so I do not think anyone gets confused by saying 1.5. If you want to say that it's all another game is not true because it is based on the same classes, races and spells of pf1. If it was all another game would not use the name "Pathfinder" and certainly not set in "Golarion".
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
3E and 4E were both pretty serious departures.
Clearly that can be a huge success and can also fall on its face.
Just saying, it is supposed to be new isn't enough.
First, it has to be good. But beyond that, it has to be good at being what the marketplace wants.
The mechanics can put the story first or the mechanics can put gamism first. 2E has made the leap across this boundary.
I agree that expecting each element to be directly equitable isn't thoughtful. (though poo-pooing anything the fans are saying should be done with a lot of caution)
But if the case can be made that a game fails to emulate the overall spirit and feel of the edition it is replacing, then comparisons on this front are desperately needed.
1E mechanics feel like their first job is to make me believe I am the character I imagined, then they work for balance from there.
2E mechanics overwhelmingly put balance first, and then go for feel with whatever is left.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if the case can be made that a game fails to emulate the overall spirit and feel of the edition it is replacing, then comparisons on this front are desperately needed.
I totally agree. "Feel" is both intangible, thus hard to measure and precisely describe, and also absolutely critical when thinking about gaming experiences and enjoyment. When I returned to RPGs a few years ago, I was looking for an experience similar to that I had playing D&D many moons ago. I looked carefully at both Pathfinder and D&D5e, buying the core rulebooks of each of them, and decided that Pathfinder was the best choice in terms of this elusive notion of "feel." However, when I compare the current PF2e playtest system and D&D5e, I think that D&D5e is much more faithful to and "feels" more like D&D to me. I'm not happy that I've come to this conclusion, but it is where I am at right now.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring the parts of PF1 that functioned better than PF2 is not going to make a better game.
PF2 is quite the ambitious project, because unlike PF1 there is no backward compatibility with 10+ years of products, this is an important factor in making sure that all the holes in this edition are patched up.
Honestly, pathfinder 1.5 would probably sell better, but would more than likely inherit more problems than it solves. You also basically got it when you bought Unchained. I used the Unchained RAE from day 1 and even publicly shared my house rules to clean it up and make the already printed materials actually compatible with it.
Mathematical comparisons to PF1 I'll agree are not helpful, because PF2 is using a whole new numerical architecture. Whenever I make math posts, I keep that in mind. It's about function more than fashion in that respect.
Breadth of option comparisons to PF1 seem to be where the contention is. It's not about being able to do x damage by y level, but rather about having the choice of doing q damage, r damage, or p damage at y level, but the game decides only certain classes get access to r, p, or q. Gaining access to this requires feat taxing in the new multiclass system which sacrifices class identity and functionality. That's a valid complaint, and the comparison to PF1 implies that it should not be impossible to fix for PF2.
Resource management is the underlying killer of the new edition. PF1 dumped new resources to manage on you all the time, instead of interrupting the ones from the core chassis of the game. They're trying to find a way to incorporate those superfluous resources into the main game for all characters and that's mostly where the disruption in the game's functionally is coming from.
That and the new rules directly working against each other stifling creativity on part of the players. The iconic characters don't even do what they intend well because of all the conflict. Bounded math ultimately negates the +/- 10 crit system for instance. The hidden design paradigms of the game which we uncovered in the math make posters like me feel duped by what Paizo was trying to sell us when they announced the game however many months ago.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid the reason for closing threads like this isn't that they're overly critical or supportive of the new edition. It's that such threads invariably generate a lot more acrimony than useful debate. Generally speaking, I strongly doubt that any thread beginning with a call for everybody to stop talking a certain way can ever be productive.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I would’ve strongly preferred a Pathfinder 1.5 to this +1/lvl GM-sets-the-DC game we have right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?
Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.
Any character can wield any weapon somewhat effectively so long as they are trained with it, and most of their class features are tied to the mechanics of the game rather than flavor options. Longswords upgrading dice two handed is their power attack, light weapons using DEX universally is their Weapon Finesse, etc.
Getting rid of feats however makes the game a lot more theatre of the mind and forces players and DMs to use colorful language rather than mechanical options on the character sheet to invoke this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?
Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.
5ed D&D doesn't have more character choice options than PF2. But I also do not think having a ton of options is necessary. The main thing about 5 edition D&D is its simplicity, focus on role playing, and elegance. Being super crunchy is not for everyone. Especially new players.
I have played most versions of D&D and Pathfinder, and I prefer 5 edition D&D. A lot of people say it captures the feel of D&D and I agree it does, especially after the failure of 4th edition. The book is a pleasure to read and the art is very inclusive. Its fun!
I am hopeful the 2ed PF will also be a good game. I have faith still.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You read my post wrong. I said if I had to choose between P2 and 5e I would choose 5e, and that I disliked 5e. I did not say my groups are going to switch to any other game. We have P1 and while it could be improved upon (which is why I was hoping P2 would be a refinement and not a new game) we feel it's the best system so far to run D&D with. But if I had to choose between P2 and 5e, 5e wins primarily due to spellcasting not being as s$&# as it is in P2. I don't want to play either.Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?
Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.
This is also more-or-less my position, though I think PF1 does have serious problems due to archetype and feat bloat and the very high powered, scenario trivializing builds resulting from this. However, I think this is something that could be resolved by an evolutionary PF1.5.
Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?
Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.Any character can wield any weapon somewhat effectively so long as they are trained with it, and most of their class features are tied to the mechanics of the game rather than flavor options. Longswords upgrading dice two handed is their power attack, light weapons using DEX universally is their Weapon Finesse, etc.
Getting rid of feats however makes the game a lot more theatre of the mind and forces players and DMs to use colorful language rather than mechanical options on the character sheet to invoke this.
Apart of Mercer DMing, flavourful descriptions are rare a the average table in combat situations (though I ask players to describe their moves when taking out enemies). 5e is extremely fuzzy, when it comes to such situations and relies on GM fiat. With lacking any granularity in combat, 5e seemingly must rely on theatre of the mind heavily. But not every DM is a Mercer and so 5e quickly becomes too simplified and dice rolling without having any options at all.
I played 5e alot and got quickly bored. That's why I came to Pathfinder Playtest. Regarding to the pooled books Wizards has published yet, the playtest material is even in its incomplete stadium a wealth of character customization.
Why those missing PF1 wealth of options in the playtest material are now happily...
It is a system that rewards narration and it plays hard on Narrativism in GNS.
That means it's on the players to be creative and explain in better detail how their character is solving problems. This is encouraged with their hero point system, Inspiration. It encourages role playing.I've found when playing it, tackling the problem with the same mentality of 3.x, and following the steps is the best way to explain it to my DM, it's how I get my points at least. I guess whether you agree or disagree with that tells us something about your play style.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you!
Back on topic. I agree with the OP. A Pathfinder 1.5 that is completely compatible with the last 10 years of content would be ridiculously hard to make, and would end up either completely unbalancing the game (even more so than it already is) or would just end up hardly changing anything. For an example look at Pathfinder unchained. I tried playing with both the Revised Action Economy and the Armor as DR rules. Without significant and extensive work/house-rules/exceptions they just don't feel like they mesh with the original system which all of this content was specifically designed for.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many people, I believe, in these threads are trying to equate the Pathfinder Playtest to Pathfinder 1e.
Almost no one has made the claim that they are the same game on this forum. Almost everyone likes some aspect of the playtest (the most favorable being 3 action economy).
However, I have seen a lot of comparisons made throughout the threads between this new system and 1e. Which makes it difficult to look at what ideas really can improve the Playtest and what is more about just wanting to continue making content for 1e.
Making comparisons to 1st edition, and what is possible in first edition, to what is now changed in second edition as a "I don't like this change" does improve the Playtest.
Several of the changes so far were made because they were compared to 1E in regards to what they allowed the player to do. Ancestries for instance were severely lacking when compared to the original races in PF1.
Being dismissive of criticism like that seems counter productive to an experience based on feedback.
I have no problems with people wanting more things for 1e. I think it's great that people are still having ideas for it and fully encourage people to explore those ideas. Perhaps even make some kick-ass third-party products.
But this specific forum, these threads under the banner "Pathfinder Playtest" are here to test, discuss, and improve what will be the Second Edition of Pathfinder.
Can you explain what you mean here? No one is asking for 1E materials. I would say the voices calling for a roll back entirely to 1E based mechanics are in the minority but of course I've got about as much to back that up as your claim that everyone is complaining for it.
So please stop comparing the two and instead focus on what you'd like to see adjusted about this new system.
No. I have played this style of system since 3.0 came out in 2000. I played 3.5 til its end. I tried 4E and didn't care for it, and then switched to Pathfinder.
If I am going to continue to use the system as my game of choice, it is going to be compared to the system that Paizo chose to continue to support with Pathfinder. Especially since this is meant to be an "evolution" of the product and foster the same types of customization possible in 1E (albeit with a different way).
They are discontinuing support for the old product in favor of the new. If they want me to continue on with them, it's got to be something I like. Voicing opinions on what people want out of the new system is expected.
Create threads about what new feats you would like to see, how you would like to see a new class implemented, perhaps an observation about a rules weakness/strength, or even just a thread asking for clarification. These are the kinds of things that will help shape this new system we are all here to support.
Telling people how to critique a playtest is silly. There is no right or wrong thing to have opinions about (in regards to rules and implementation).
This whole attitude is dismissive. People that don't like aspects of the game are free to speak their mind.
The devs even asked us to do so.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Gorbacz: True enough but then Paizo also made us prone to version comparisons by saying they want to be able to "tell the same stories" in the new version as in the old.
LOL They make statements like 'a caster can go to sleep in 1e, wake up in 2e and not notice the difference...' It seems even the Devs themselves are comparing what you can do in 1e to what you can do in 2e, so why shouldn't the playtesters?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest surveys literally ask "did this feel like a Pathfinder adventure?"
So, clearly Paizo themselves want us to compare to 1e. If they're trying to sell 2e as the new Pathfinder and it comes up short in comparison against the old Pathfinder, that's a thing they probably want to know about.
That's entirely valid feedback. The idea that it's somehow not is just aimed at shutting down criticism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the OP. A Pathfinder 1.5 that is completely compatible with the last 10 years of content would be ridiculously hard to make, and would end up either completely unbalancing the game (even more so than it already is) or would just end up hardly changing anything.
I've never suggested that a PF1.5 which is 100% compatible with all the previous content is possible and desirable. I think an evolutionary PF1.5 could over a period of time replicate the less problematic/bloaty aspects of PF1e with a 2nd ed Core Rulebook, a 2nd ed Advanced Player's Guide, a 2nd ed Advanced Race Guide, etc.
Such an approach could take advantage of all the player and designer experience of the past 10 years. In a very real sense, PF1e could be seen as the "playtest" for an evolutionary PF1.5e (which I'd be happy to call Pathfinder Second Edition for the sake of branding, attracting new players, etc.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3E and 4E were both pretty serious departures.
Clearly that can be a huge success and can also fall on its face.True, though we saw some of what was coming for 3rd Ed in the latter days of 2nd Ed (Players Option), and then Eric Noah's site was great for the lead up to release, already knew quite a bit before the books hit the street.
We saw some of what was to come with 4th Ed from the DDM game, SWSE, and ToB, also Dungeonscape (the Factotum class, encounter-based), but quite a bit of it upon release was out of the blue (most revolutionary edition).
Certainly
I think we knew a ton about both games well before the release date.I recall buying the 3.0 PH on release date and feeling a small pang of disappointment because I couldn't find hardly anything I didn't already know. (But I was still thrilled.... :) )
One of the 4E refrains pre-release was that we were being unfair to judge it without seeing the whole game. Then we got the whole game and our judgements were proven out.
Two very different stories, but they align on this topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One ancillary benefit of going more toward 2.0 rather than 1.5 is that 1.0 remains ripe with opportunity for further development by Paizo or a third party. If it was a muddier transition, both systems could potentially go under, since it would be more difficult to decide which things are rules "canon" for 1e. It'd be like having the issue of non-universal Unchained acceptance multiplied by 100.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One ancillary benefit of going more toward 2.0 rather than 1.5 is that 1.0 remains ripe with opportunity for further development by Paizo or a third party. If it was a muddier transition, both systems could potentially go under, since it would be more difficult to decide which things are rules "canon" for 1e. It'd be like having the issue of non-universal Unchained acceptance multiplied by 100.
so you are saying someone could use the OGL to perpetuate the 3X system and by doing that sink a +X/level would-be next edition?
That could never happen.
:)
(Don't think the marketplace is the same, so a bit of tongue in cheek there, but...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just saying, Pokemon had two games.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a thread that I would call toxic.
In the end, why we can not make comparisons between pf1 and pf2?? Let's drop the mask instead of hiding the true intentions.
In my opinion, any player has the right to make this comparison and it is a duty for those who play the playtest, as it is required by the survey, but it is also common sense.
We really got to the point where we could not say that pf1 is better than pf2. Let's talk clearly, it's because pathfinder 2 does not make a good impression in comparison.
Pathfinder 2e has the great need to take big steps back if it wants to be functional. Currently nobody I know wants to play with it. The problems of the game are not the contents but the system at the base, the comparison with the previous edition is essential.