|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Hi,
First let me tell you about me. I'm an old git who has played D&D since 1979. Red book basic edition. I've also been an avid tabletop gamer, both historic and fantasy. So I've read and played a LOT of different rulesets. A few of which work brilliantly, and very many of which fail badly. Currently playing Original Pathfinder (OP) and DND5.
My group tried a few games of Pathfinder Playtest (PP). I was going to post a big list of comments, but there is one which is so huge I want to talk about it first:
Any ruleset which uses alternate movement has to be very careful that it doesn't allow the phasing player to completely outmanoeuvre his opponent before the opponent gets to react. Running right around behind him and stabbing him in the back before he can turn, that kind of thing.
Unfortunately, the 3 generic actions per round permitted by PP fails this test badly. With 2 (or 3) times movement and attack, it is possible to run right around a defensive line to attack the wizard/treasure/princess the defenders are trying to defend. It makes defence impossible. Worse, the lack of attacks-of-opportunity for most creatures often means you can often run right THROUGH the opponent's defensive line.
Note that you cannot move so fast in OP (charge must be a dead straight line), nor DND5 (can only dash OR attack)
It's a shame, when I originally read it I thought the 3 generic actions was quite a nice rule. But it doesn't work. It's far too fiddly. We all spent ages micromanaging what's in our left hand, no-one bothered with a shield cos it was too much faff. But worse by far, it's too open to abuse of alternative movement as described above. I don't know how you can fix this as it seems utterly fundamental to PP. But for me, it just doesn't work at all.
Other thoughts:
The +-10 crit system is too complex. Spent ages calculating exact hit probabilities for every attack - yawn!
Wizards cannot "ready" a spell. So you can run right up to a wizard and hit him before he can get a short range spell off.
Mutliple attacks per round unbalances the AC. Low AC is really fatal as even a lowly goblin or peasant can pummel you with multiple attacks.
The PDF rulebook was awful. Never seen a set of rules that needed hyperlinks so badly (yes, I noticed someone has finally done one)
Races in PP are really unbalanced. Elves get lowlightvision and feats AND faster movement than anyone else. They're awesome. Why would anyone play anything but an elf?
Blasting off back to space now. And leaving the PP behind. Thanks for trying.
I'll leave you with a thought:
DND5 made everything simpler, and has lost very little by doing so.
PP has made everything more complex. And has gained nothing by doing so.
Clara Pandy
The movement issue is fairly valid, but my group hasn't had issues with it because we mostly haven't done it because it usually doesn't make sense to run and put your back to the front line, especially spending an extra action or more to do so.
One thing the lacking universal AoOs does, though, is make AoO a much more valuable ability because it's not a universally known and factored-in ability, it can be pulled as a surprise.
And at late-early to mid levels it's not hard to see that your whole frontline has AoO if you really wanted.
Really, it was far from impossible to break the frontlines in PF1 either.
On the +/-10 crit system, what exactly is so complex? You beat DC/AC by 10 or more you crit. Fail by 10 or more, you crit fail.
On Wizards not readying spells, I'm not a great fan of that either but most characters can only move 40-60 feet in a round and still make an attack, which means if they are close enough to do that then they are close enough for the Wizard to walk forward and cast a 30-foot range spell or to stay back and use Reach Spell to make it 60 feet range, so I'm not sure that "You can run right up to a Wizard and hit him before he can get a short range spell off" is accurate.
On multiple attacks per round and low AC, umm, you know that sequential attacks in a round take a -5 penalty on the second and a -10 on the third, right? Sequential attacks really aren't so great in PF2. PF1 has multiple attacks per round as well, but you could pump accuracy so much more than AC that they hit most of the time, unlike PF2. Similarly 5e doesn't even have a penalty on multiple attacks per round if your class gives them. Not quite sure what the issue is here with PF2 that isn't elsewhere. Not to mention that adding your level to AC means things below your level like Goblins and peasants won't be able to touch you after you get some levels behind you.
On the PDF, yeah. Agreed.
On Elves, low light vision is eh, every race gets feats, and yeah movement speed is nice. They are one of the better races but not by a grand margin. All of the races have nice things, like a Halfling's keen eyes or a Dwarf's potential hardiness.
Sorry if the Playtest isn't quite for you, but I really don't see the majority of problems. PF2 Playtest has actually siplified a great deal rather than making things more complex, and has gained a great deal by doing so. Or so at least is the thoughts of my group coming from years of PF1 and a bit of 5e.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
I've seen jokes before about people making posts that amount to "Hi, your system is bad, bye", but I'm not sure I've ever seen one fit the mold so literally...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I've been a Paizo fan since the days of the magazines.
Yes, there has been a lot of back & forth with these rules, as they get put thru the ringer.
But since Jason, James, Erik, and the gang play this game in their offices every single day to get it the game they want to play, as well as share with the world... I just have this feeling in the back of my mind that they are not going to put out crap.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Where are these people coming from that see "Playtest" and start twitching going, "This finished product is awful."
It's also it's been awhile since I've heard that the playtest made things more complicated. If the OP does decide to return, I'll say that my group has really enjoyed the movement mechanics, especially with my paladin who was excitedly talking about getting Attack of Opportunity for our next playtest session (though his complaint is that now he needs more Reactions).
But, I also don't play a high stakes game of Pathfinder, so your mileage my vary. I think if you have some reasonable criticism to levy, this is a good place to say, "How can we fix this thing I don't like?" rather than jumping in flipping the double deuce for no reason and then leaving.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote: I've been a Paizo fan since the days of the magazines.
Yes, there has been a lot of back & forth with these rules, as they get put thru the ringer.
But since Jason, James, Erik, and the gang play this game in their offices every single day to get it the game they want to play, as well as share with the world... I just have this feeling in the back of my mind that they are not going to put out crap.
I'm sure that they'll put out a game that they'll love and enjoy playing... That doesn't somehow prevent me or any other person from looking at it and thinking it's 'crap'. Sony made a the superior Betamax, but that didn't prevent VHS from edging them out of the market: a well made product that not enough people wanted to buy.
For myself, I have serious doubts the new pathfinder is going to fill the same gaming niche the old pathfinder does. It can be a fine game and not be my 'go to' sword and magic RPG. It's much the same way 5e might be a fine game but I don't want to play it and it doesn't fill the same niche as the current pathfinder does for me.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote: I've been a Paizo fan since the days of the magazines.
Yes, there has been a lot of back & forth with these rules, as they get put thru the ringer.
But since Jason, James, Erik, and the gang play this game in their offices every single day to get it the game they want to play, as well as share with the world... I just have this feeling in the back of my mind that they are not going to put out crap.
Amazing, creative people can have a great time, play a great game, and tell a great story regardless of the system they're playing it under.
A great system makes it easier for people who aren't amazing, creative people to do the same.
In PF2, if you don't focus on your AC you get pummeled by multiple attacks per round, if you do focus then you don't.
In PF1, whether or not you focused on your AC you got pummeled by multiple attacks per round.
I prefer the PF2 option.
As for holding a defensive line, readied actions can help. And for those that have AoO, there's less ways to ignore them now.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
And I don't think having more tactical options is a bad thing, PF1 is kinda notorious for not being as tactical as yo might hope.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Edge93 wrote: And I don't think having more tactical options is a bad thing, PF1 is kinda notorious for not being as tactical as yo might hope. This is something that's oft repeated, but like the alleged caster-martial gap which is both a false binary and something I don't generally see, it don't think it's necessarily true. I have played and GMed Pathfinder games that are nose to nose slugging matches and others where movement abounds. It all depends on the terrain, environment, nature of the enemies, etc.
Aye, true enough. My games have actually felt very little of the martial caster disparity that is mentioned, but I do have trouble engineering combat to be more mobile and tactical. I have better luck with it these days though.
However I love PF2 for having both of those things flow great out of the box for me and my group, where one of those issues has taken me years to work out in PF1.
Having run a combat with a spring attacking assassin moving 70ft a round, I can say that static combats are very dependent on the creatures involved. My own halfling vigilante in Hell's Rebels has adopted a similar style, taking 10 for Stealth while spring attacking in and out of the fight so the enemy never sees him while picking them off. It works even better when our bard gets haste on him, much to the GMs chagrin.
TOZ wrote: Having run a combat with a spring attacking assassin moving 70ft a round, I can say that static combats are very dependent on the creatures involved. My own halfling vigilante in Hell's Rebels has adopted a similar style, taking 10 for Stealth while spring attacking in and out of the fight so the enemy never sees him while picking them off. It works even better when our bard gets haste on him, much to the GMs chagrin. Craziest I ever did was an unchained Monk, I got to about 150 Movement with the ability to not provoke AoO's and the ability to move her speed on a successful Reflex save. She managed to do a full circle and kick a mini boss into a cloudkill said miniboss had set up for her and the party.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
I strongly agree with Edge. It is easy enough for an experienced GM to engineer PF1e to mitigate caster/martial issues and to cause mobile combat, without even needing any house rules.
However, the fact that both of these things happen more easily out of the box in PF2e, even for inexperienced GMs, is a step in the right direction in my opinion. "Easy to run well" is a very important goal for PF2e, I think, because it is very obviously one of PF1e's biggest weaknesses.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Removed a post and replies. Do not accuse other community members of being a troll. If you have concerns about someone posting our our forums, please email community at paizo.com with link(s) to the post(s) and an explanation if needed.
ClaraPandy wrote: Blasting off back to space now. And leaving the PP behind. Thanks for trying. Since the OP has left their feedback and said they will not be continuing with the playtest or the discussion, I do not see any reason to leave this thread open.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
|
