Reviews?

[Tim Schneider 908]

In the playtest I felt the game had potential, I could see a lot of design space but there wasn't enough options, there were rough edges, and some of these really limited the game but I still had fun.

For 2E I played 3 delves at paizocon (30 mins, lvl 1) and was lucky enough to get into Mark Seifter's lottery game where I got to play as an Erinyes in a scenario-length longer game with a lot more story and roleplay (Everyone enjoyed themselves thoroughly - though a lot of that is a good story/gm and everyone getting in character).

While none of that is any substitute for laying hands on the rulebook and running a game across multiple levels, my experience is that the 2E I'm seeing has cleaned up all my big issues from the playtest & what I've seen of options (and somewhat based on sheer page count) really fleshed it out & I'm truly excited not just for launch but also the potential I see for the system to expand.

The proof is yet to come - but first impressions are very solid for me :)

[Doktor Weasel]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Unfortunately, the survey has apparently communicated to the developers that people like Vancian casting. Personally, I would have prefered an Arcanist style of casting.
I guess we will have to wait a bit until more options like that become available.

I don't recall any questions in the surveys about Vancian vs Arcasnist style casting at all. So I don't think they'd really be able to get a good view on that question either way. I know I'd have preferred Arcanist style, but there is the very valid point of what do you do with Sorcerers to make up for the face that Arcanist style is basically the best of both Wizard and Sorcerer casting. They'd need a new thing to stay viable. And there is the fact that moving away from Vancian casting would be a big break with tradition. So if it was on the table, there really needed to be some questions about it on the surveys.

So the decision was almost certainly made before the playtest to stick with Vancian. And that's a perfectly valid choice, even if not my preference. They had a lot on their plate, picking battles was necessary.

The question about anticipation for PF2 is complicated for me. I found the playtest very much a mixed bag. Overall though, my reaction was a bit towards the negative end. But some of what turned me off the playtest was due to the torture test nature of it, it can give a lot of good data, but doesn't necessarily make for a fun play experience. Part 2 was a pretty nasty slog for example. Any actual game will be based around experience instead of banging on the rules until the break, so it should be much more fun to play. But many of the problems I had were with the system itself. The overtuned math of the playtest was behind a lot of that. So with that being fixed, a lot of other issues are likely to go away. And then there are the design decisions that I didn't like. Some of those are gone or improved: Resonance for example, or heavy armor. Some of the other things I didn't like are apparently still around like the minion trait and reaction based champions. These are negatives, but not necessarily deal breakers if the rest is good. And there was a lot of good in the playtest. I loved the three action system of course, and the way weapon and armor runes were done (actually I'd have liked to have that expanded to shields, not to boost AC but durability and hardness), monsters all had cool flavorful abilities which make them more interesting to fight, and combats took less real time but more game turns, the best of both worlds. High level play has a lot of potential now to not degrade into a slog.

So when it comes to PF2, the devil is in the details. Are the aspects that I disliked minimized and the ones I like enough to make up for the ones still around? There's no way to tell until I get my hands on the book. And then there's the question of how the rest of my group reacts. They haven't been following things as closely as I have, and a few hated the playtest much more than I did. There is also some resistance to change there. So even if I like it, will I be able to convince others to convert? No clue. In many ways, I'm more concerned about that than whether I'll like the game personally.

[WatersLethe]

For the record, I vastly prefer Vancian to both spontaneous and arcanist style casting. There are plenty of people like me and people who like having the choice. It's not like Vancian is universally disliked at all.

[MaxAstro]

WatersLethe wrote:

For the record, I vastly prefer Vancian to both spontaneous and arcanist style casting. There are plenty of people like me and people who like having the choice. It's not like Vancian is universally disliked at all.

As someone on the other side, who doesn't like Vancian casting, I will also say I don't think Paizo made an ironclad choice pre-playtest.

The surveys were far from the only source of feedback they had, so if they say that people were more in favor of keeping than not, I tend to take their word at it.

[Captain Morgan]

To be fair, I recall Jason mentioning they considered switching over to arcanist casting at some point before,the playtest. I don't remember why he said the idea was abandoned. It may have just been the "what about the sorcerers" thing. Which frankly is good enough for me.

The sorcerer already underwent a huge amount of transformation between PF1 and the playtest. Faster spell progression. All four spell lists. Extra spells through the spontaneous heightening feature. Taking it further away, such as something like the kineticist as some suggested, might have felt too radical.

I think the good news is sorcerers are gonna get even more New stuff in the final version, including at least blood magic and an emphasis on the reusable Focus spells. And it is possible that by third edition they will have an identity distinct enough outside of just being spontaneous.

[Tardin]

I will purchase the first few items, but I have cancelled my subscriptions for 2nd edition. I might get them back later but I don't want to spend too much money on something that I have yet to really see developed.

[Kyrone]

I really want to see how PF2 handles high level, PF1 is rocket tag and 5e shows cracks at lvl 9 and up too.

[MaxAstro]

Kyrone wrote:

I really want to see how PF2 handles high level, PF1 is rocket tag and 5e shows cracks at lvl 9 and up too.

Yeah, this is huge for me, too. In a lot of ways Age of Ashes is going to shape my opinion of 2e for a long time to come, and a big part of that is going to be "how do the late, high level books play?"

[Pumpkinhead11]

Personally not a fan of what i know about Arcanist Style Casting. I think it would be fun as an alternate system, but not the main one. Apparently i was homebrewing a version of Arcanist Casting, based off of spell points rather than spell slots, before i knew it was apparently a thing.

That said, with 2e being a semi-departure into a new game system i do feel that should give Paizo the freedom to try more experimental alternate rule sets. Whenever they get to 2e’s version of Ultimate Magic, some detailed conversion charts for Arcanist and Spell points could easily be slipped in as well as hopefully other ideas they have for casters; weather ones they wanted to try for the Playtest but didn’t, or ideas they come up with along the way.

[David knott 242]

Captain Morgan wrote:

To be fair, I recall Jason mentioning they considered switching over to arcanist casting at some point before,the playtest. I don't remember why he said the idea was abandoned. It may have just been the "what about the sorcerers" thing. Which frankly is good enough for me.

There is also the point that D&D 5E has two types of casters -- spontaneous casters and arcanist style casters (albeit with a different system for calculating number and level of spells that can be prepared). Paizo probably has something in mind that requires retaining traditional Vancian style prepared casters as something distinct from the arcanist style that they currently use only for the actual Arcanist class. That, or they just don't want to mimic the WotC approach to spellcasting classes too closely.

[WatersLethe]

I've always preferred that classic dungeons & dragons slot based spellcasting system originally drawing inspiration from the literary works of American author Jack Vance because it makes spellcasting feel like hard work. Not only does it take time to prepare, but you have to think ahead about what you might face and plan accordingly. Getting caught by surprise means you have to get really creative.

That classic dungeons & dragons slot based spellcasting system originally drawing inspiration from the literary works of American author Jack Vance is an opportunity to really show how exceptional non-users of that classic dungeons & dragons slot based spellcasting system originally drawing inspiration from the literary works of American author Jack Vance are.

Sorcerers feel different and spellbooks make good loot specifically because of that classic dungeons & dragons slot based spellcasting system originally drawing inspiration from the literary works of American author Jack Vance.

[Kyrone]

We still have to see the new heightening system of the spontaneous caster. It's called Signature spell I think?

[Artificial 20]

To expand on PossibleCabbage's solid example, a mark might get hyped for Shadow Strike, as it enables the dark back-alley stabbing that many players may want their rogue to do.

A smark may regard the feat as fixing a problem introduced by the base system or class itself, and not be at all hyped for having to pay for that fix. They might point to the unchained rogue receiving this ability baked in as vindication of their stance.

[MaxAstro]

Personally I've never really been a fan of that classic dungeons & dragons slot based spellcasting system originally drawing inspiration from the literary works of American author Jack Vance, but I realize that's it's easier to house rule out of the system than to house rule in.

Viewed from that point of view, Paizo's decision to retain that classic dungeons & dragons slot based spellcasting system originally drawing inspiration from the literary works of American author Jack Vance makes a lot more sense to me.

[Diego Valdez]

Removed a post and some replies to it. Be cool to each other please. No need for name calling or slang criticism. Also lets try to stay on topic and keep the editions wars out please.

[Sara Marie]

I removed a couple more posts from the thread.

When talking about future releases, it would be more productive to talk about the things you would like, the things you're excited about, or your own fears, hopes, and dreams.

It is not the best use of the forums or your time to make posts building up an effigy of everything you guess or assume someone might complain about so that you can then make up arguments to burn them down.

[Charlie Brooks]

Quote:

classic dungeons & dragons slot based spellcasting system originally drawing inspiration from the literary works of American author Jack Vance

I prefer the acronym CDnDSBSSODIFtLWoAAJV. It's easier to remember.

[Tim Schneider 908]

My view on the Vancian casting front is that I want Vancian, Spontaneous, and Arcanist style. Cause it gives us 3 distinct cool ways to distinguish caster classes, giving 3 distinct styles of play & making everyone happy. Wizards don't have to have Arcanist casting - Arcanists can!

I'm a little sad Arcanist casting didn't make the core at all, but I hope it'll show up fairly soon after (Given the class's popularity I don't imagine Paizo will miss that chance). That said the book is already very big, I don't think they'd have wanted to cut any original core classes, and I can understand their argument for Alchemist (needing the most rules support to work how they wanted).

I imagine the request to keep all the existing stuff but fit another class without increasing page count may have a few minor conflicts with physics, but aside from that I feel like it's a perfectly reasonable request... :P