I haven’t really seen any reviews on this product and I know there have been quite a few who have now tried the finished product. ( I did listen to the knowdirection review)
What are your guys final thoughts now on this?
Major improvements since playtest?
What did you like?
What didn’t you like?
Is it going on the right direction?
Developers please feel free to throw your thoughts in as well.
I’m already down for every product on release and 3x of limited core rulebooks so I’m confident to say the least.
( Only looking for opinions on this from everyone involved, please leave debates and conflicts to other threads. Thanks.)
I suspect "quite a few" is an overestimate. I expect that some people played at PaizoCon, with pregenerated characters. I was at the UK Games Expo, where the demo games were still run with the Playtest rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there were definitely somethings that I didn't remember from last year, such as [Fighter] Valeros having a reaction from his shield that didn't require raising it.
Not sure what this refers to, there was definitely Fighter Reaction to Raise Shield in Playtest.
Anyhow, AFAIK it was already confirmed Paizo was running final rules games at these Cons. That said, I wouldn't consider just playing in one-off pre-gen game to qualify one to write a game system "review". Reveal some spoilers of mechanics and such, sure, but that's not a review in my book. That would require actually having access to full rule-set, and time & perspective to muse on it's systemic dynamics beyond simple scope of 1 PC at one level.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between a full system dive and an experiential review, but it doesn't mean an experience isn't a valid review, even a brief one. I personally am very analytical and prefer those deep dives, usually from someone who has clocked many hours playing the product, when I'm checking products myself, but experiential reviews are important too, and in the playtest they sometimes helped us determine situations where the mechanic that was better for gameplay was actually not better for overall player experience.
|
Not sure if it helps, but I did run across this podcast with some first impressions from the UK Games Expo. Not a lot of new rules reveals or anything, but I thought it was a good listen.
I guess what I thought was happening wasn't happening at all then. I've never been to one of these conventions and I knew it wasn't complete access to everything but I never realized it was limited to level 1 play only.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the con. The short 30-minute demos are level 1 and are what is at UKGE, but Paizocon had a lot of other opportunities. My lottery games at Paizocon were a level ~4 game, a level ~8 game, and a game where they leveled up from 1 to 14 during the session (sort of, it was very different). Others had different options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and a game where they leveled up from 1 to 14 during the session (sort of, it was very different).
When are we going to get these FIGHTER SQUAD! rules? Forget Plaguestone and turnips, I want to introduce people to the PF2 with wacky fighter hijinks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable reviewing a roleplaying game system before reading the entire book, having time to digest it, and several different opportunities to both play and run it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then there will be people with the playtest so firmly stuck in their heads that they'll insist on judging PF2 as though it were the playtest, even after its own release. That's the most fun group of all!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then there will be people with the playtest so firmly stuck in their heads that they'll insist on judging PF2 as though it were the playtest, even after its own release. That's the most fun group of all!
In fairness, "these are the absolute worst ideas our team has had, let's call them a playtest and see if they aren't as bad as we think they are" is a poor way to make a first impression. I've been generally positive about what I've seen post-playtest but I'm not gonna blame anyone who took their playtest experience and decided Paizo has very little goodwill to work off of now.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then there will be people with the playtest so firmly stuck in their heads that they'll insist on judging PF2 as though it were the playtest, even after its own release. That's the most fun group of all!In fairness, "these are the absolute worst ideas our team has had, let's call them a playtest and see if they aren't as bad as we think they are" is a poor way to make a first impression. I've been generally positive about what I've seen post-playtest but I'm not gonna blame anyone who took their playtest experience and decided Paizo has very little goodwill to work off of now.
When Pathfinder 2nd Edition comes out, I will compare the Playtest ideas to the final result, since I am curious about design.
However, very little of the playtest looked like testing the worst ideas. Some was testing extreme ideas that would have been good if they worked, and they did not work well enough, but only a test would show that. Therefore, Paizo tested.
What I saw revealed in the 6 rules updates during the playtest is that Paizo had some details off balance and changed those details. They lacked a complete vision for some classes, such as the ranger, and gradually developed that vision in full in response to playtest feedback. They tested some universal mechanics for the playtest that were not as universal as they hoped. (A universal mechanic is one that can be explained once and applied to all ancestries and classes--great for quick explanations to new players.) For example, heritages had to be separated from ancestry feats. On the other hand, the paths that existed in some classes--totems for barbarians, muses for bards, orders for druids, etc.--seems to have been promoted to a universal mechanic.
Well since you guys completely derailed my post about as much as possible (sarcasm), I guess I have another question since now I know there isn't the kind of review potential out there that I thought there was.
Are you guys excited for it?
Personally I am extremely excited for it. I've been playing Starfinder for the last 2 years since it came out and I've loved it. I quit playing Pathfinder merely because I felt the system was just way too bloated and I wasn't really enjoying it anymore.
As far as the bombing with 1 star reviews, I think that is just a small sect of the more fanatically inclined people that are in every subculture trying to hold onto a semblance of something they care about.
I think it will be a longer conversion for some but that eventually most of the old 1E players will convert over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I'm excited. I've been bastardizing what I can from the reveals into my own playtest games. Stuff like Treat Wounds for example. I can't wait for the final version so I can implement the larger math changes, which generally strike me as quite good. In particular, I think the new proficiency model will align itself better with PF1 skill DCs for my conversion efforts. Level+2+ability score is a lot closer to the level+3+ability score that you had on a class skill you always ranked up in PF1, which will work out well at low levels, and the EML plus item bonuses should help keep things on an even keel beyond that. Unfortunately, the skill bonuses in PF1 made creating appropriate high level DCs kind of impossible.
Playtest characters lacking that class skill bonus+ other things like racial or class feature bonuses made it harder to decide what even those low level DCs should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played a lot of very different RPGs, I would say that the changes are not that drastic. It mostly looks and functions like the same game. The underlying math and how they divvy up bonuses and stats is honestly pretty minor in the scheme of things. I would argue this is the natural evolution of PF's mechanics and a fix for inherited problems.
Well thank god that isn't what they did then was it? They made the most radical changes, not the worst. And most of them, going by surveys were very well recieved. Even the one totally axed mechanic (Resonance) wasn't totally panned in the surveys, with just the fact that those who didn't like it absolutely abhorred it making the choice to remove it.And then there will be people with the playtest so firmly stuck in their heads that they'll insist on judging PF2 as though it were the playtest, even after its own release. That's the most fun group of all!In fairness, "these are the absolute worst ideas our team has had, let's call them a playtest and see if they aren't as bad as we think they are" is a poor way to make a first impression. I've been generally positive about what I've seen post-playtest but I'm not gonna blame anyone who took their playtest experience and decided Paizo has very little goodwill to work off of now.
Two words: signature skills.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two words: signature skills.Well thank god that isn't what they did then was it? They made the most radical changes, not the worst. And most of them, going by surveys were very well recieved. Even the one totally axed mechanic (Resonance) wasn't totally panned in the surveys, with just the fact that those who didn't like it absolutely abhorred it making the choice to remove it.And then there will be people with the playtest so firmly stuck in their heads that they'll insist on judging PF2 as though it were the playtest, even after its own release. That's the most fun group of all!In fairness, "these are the absolute worst ideas our team has had, let's call them a playtest and see if they aren't as bad as we think they are" is a poor way to make a first impression. I've been generally positive about what I've seen post-playtest but I'm not gonna blame anyone who took their playtest experience and decided Paizo has very little goodwill to work off of now.
Not trying to pick a fight Arachnofiend but you seem to have a very negative opinion of Paizo and seem to expect the worst from them and if that's the case no meaningful conversation can be had about this, however if this is not the case my argument to Signature skills being a "Worst Idea" is as follows.
Signature skills seemed to be a way to keep the concept of the class skill (which is a thing present in all the D20 systems I've ever seen) while still being useful in the new skill system but when enough people told them that they instead liked the idea that anyone should be able to train anything (which a a Roleplayer I heavily agree with) they changed it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really disliked signature skills and still feel a little perplexed on what the idea was there... But it got changed pretty early on and the new skill system of auto training we got instead was superior both to signature skills and class skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have a pretty positive image of what PF2 looks like in post-playtest previews; seems like everything I hated about the playtest has been fixed or removed in some manner.
Buuuut I was pretty optimistic about what I was seeing prior to the playtest, too. To the point where when the playtest's details were revealed I felt like I was directly lied to on some details. And now I am working from the unenviable position of trying to convince my less generous friends that the poor look the playtest gave does not necessarily mean the final product will be as bad; a problem that would not have occurred had Paizo been more realistic in the things they tested out, rather than throwing in mechanics that flew directly in the face of what makes Pathfinder appealing in the first place for... no reason at all, really. I can't actually envision a scenario in which the Paizo devs believed Signature Skills would survive community scrutiny. I don't have that little faith in their capabilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't actually envision a scenario in which the Paizo devs believed Signature Skills would survive community scrutiny. I don't have that little faith in their capabilities.
I think it was because class skills and Cross class skills have survived in D20 systems in general for at least 16 years and I may be wrong but I believe Signature Skills was the 2e version of class skills. I'm glad it was removed for the same reason I typically ignore the class skill list, It got in the way of more interesting roleplay
I think signature skills could have persisted if "ways to gain more new signature skills" were plentiful and inexpensive. From a certain perspective, they served as a guidepost for "these are things this class is generally expected to be good at" which is potentially helpful to some people.
After all, people generally come up with things like "I want to be incredibly sneaky" at chargen, rather than organically; for organic development "I am an expert at stealth" should suffice. But gaining signature skills should have been at the level of a background or skill feat, not a class feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am personally super excited. I really got into TTRPGs at 5e and dabbled in pf1 and starfinder. I am probably going to wholesale switch my GMing to pf2. If I could run with just playtest rules, I would. Sure the rules arent perfect, but dang are they good.
A few friends who I played starfinder with were really uninterested in 2e. Not that they hated the playtest, but it just wasnt what they know. They have spent almost a decade playing with pf1 and it's like a comfortable couch after a long day. They think the rule changes are nifty, and would be open to a oneshot or a small adventure, but it just isn't for them.
I feel like these people make up a lot of who are sticking with pf1. That, or it's too early and the options they are looking for havent been written
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know their are but you gotta admit its weird to have people that hate pf2 for vancian spell casting but played and enjoyed pf1.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those people are probably just playing PF1 with Spheres of Power. Which, if PF2 ends up being successful, I can only assume DDS will churn out a version of for the new system.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you guys excited for it?
I've always liked the PF setting, modules and APs, but I didn't like 3.5 and thus I didn't learn PF 1e. It became very complex very fast and right now it is bloated with trap options. I would have liked to learn it anyways but I didn't move fast enough.
Now we'll have a new system that I can learn from the beginning and follow along as it develops, absorbing it in small, easy-to-learn chunks. It's easier and simpler, but still satisfyingly crunchy. It allows a lot of character customization. It brings spellcasters back on par with martial characters, potentially getting rid of the Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards problem, and at the very least ameliorating it. It will soon be supported by a plethora of optional rules a group can use to change various aspects of the game to their hearts' content. It has been streamlined and made slicker, more efficient and more elegant. It lets you improvise dcs mostly from a table of 5 difficulties and 3 levels of modifiers. Every episode of Oblivion Oath is being a real fun to watch, easy to follow and easily comprehensible.
And most of all, I won't have to try and adapt completely different rules systems to run the APs for my friends - I can finally use the right rules for the setting just as they are, or with minimal adjustments.
Hell, you bet I'm excited.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm generally excited for PF2. I quit GMing PF around 2 to 3 years ago, as I found preparing for sessions just too cumbersome and tedious. So I've switched with my group of friends to a leaner system, that's easier on me as the GM, but still allows for a lot of customisation for the players.
Anyway, in that same time span I've joined an online group with rotating games and so we ended up playing some of the Playtest when it dropped. And while the Playtest wasn't always fun (having whole turns of no one hitting anything and new rules every two weeks, just to name a couple), at least I was liking the direction we are going in. The new action economy, streamlining classes, to allow more adaptability and modality between classes, and independent monster rules (Hooray!) simplified the system, while the degrees of success added a welcomed layer of complexity.
Overall since my experience with the Playtest, I actually could see myself GMing Pathfinder again, and that makes me really happy, as I want to return to Golarion for some more adventures and I always love to bring back PCs with previous campaigns and do callbacks to these campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you guys excited for it?I've always liked the PF setting, modules and APs, but I didn't like 3.5 and thus I didn't learn PF 1e. It became very complex very fast and right now it is bloated with trap options. I would have liked to learn it anyways but I didn't move fast enough.
Ehh, don't get too excited about getting away from the "trap options"; it's a simple fact of the matter that a game that sells itself on breadth of options, some of those options will suck. It's unfortunate that a lot of the options in PF1 suck deliberately, but we probably can't avoid that unless Paizo gets a mechanics-first guy like Seifter to sign off on everything to make sure that it's more than "flavorful" before it gets published. Which is not a reasonable expectation.
Like, I'd sure hope there are fewer trap options in PF2, but don't bet on it. Some things are going to suck because the writer wanted them to suck, some things are going to suck because the writer thought it was stronger than it ended up being. Just the way it is.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ehh, don't get too excited about getting away from the "trap options"; it's a simple fact of the matter that a game that sells itself on breadth of options, some of those options will suck. It's unfortunate that a lot of the options in PF1 suck deliberately, but we probably can't avoid that unless Paizo gets a mechanics-first guy like Seifter to sign off on everything to make sure that it's more than "flavorful" before it gets published. Which is not a reasonable expectation.
Like, I'd sure hope there are fewer trap options in PF2, but don't bet on it. Some things are going to suck because the writer wanted them to suck, some things are going to suck because the writer thought it was stronger than it ended up being. Just the way it is.
For what it's worth, Paizo switched up their editorial and design processes, so one of the Pathfinder designers is assigned to each product to work with the developers. My understanding is that it's at least in part to help keep the rules design more consistent, but the idea that the guys responsible for the underlying core rules are more involved in the ancillary products is probably a good sign.
Mark Seifter has a high-level explanation of the process on his twitch channel, "Arcane Mark." (I'd find and link it, but I'm on mobile and it's one of the first few he did so it's not too hard to find.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter has a high-level explanation of the process on his twitch channel, "Arcane Mark." (I'd find and link it, but I'm on mobile and it's one of the first few he did so it's not too hard to find.)
Here is Mark’s Making an RPG Book stream.
His twitch channel is here, but only last couple of streams are archived there by twitch. Rest can be found on his youtube channel.
|
I know their are but you gotta admit its weird to have people that hate pf2 for vancian spell casting but played and enjoyed pf1.
I feel like i'm probably in this demographic. Vancian casting was also a drawback for me in PF1 but there were a few good alternative options for my favorite class (cleric) in the inquisitor or oracle. In PF2 you are forced to play a divine sorcerer or bard (for now) which aren't the best substitutions (and not a good match for my favorite race of dwarf).
I still want to see how 2nd edition turns out before making my decision but vancian casting is a big negative for me. Especially because one of the things i was looking forward to was heightening spells (on the fly) and vancian takes that away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven’t really seen any reviews on this product and I know there have been quite a few who have now tried the finished product. ( I did listen to the knowdirection review)
What are your guys final thoughts now on this?
Major improvements since playtest?
What did you like?
What didn’t you like?
Is it going on the right direction?
Developers please feel free to throw your thoughts in as well.
I’m already down for every product on release and 3x of limited core rulebooks so I’m confident to say the least.
( Only looking for opinions on this from everyone involved, please leave debates and conflicts to other threads. Thanks.)
I played Hunt for Blackfang at PaizoCon and we all had a really good time. We were playing with level 1 Pregens so really only had limited experience but I thought the game flowed well, it was fairly easy to play our characters and each had something interesting to contribute. It is still only a snapshot so I can't provide a real review and in particular, until I can start making characters I won't feel like I have a decent sense of the game.
I am looking forward to running it at GenCon and introducing it to friends.
What I experience indicated they kept much of what I liked from the Playtest and improved from there. I suspect there will be those still not happy but I also expect that many who did not like aspects of the Playtest, if they give PF2 a chance, will find a game they can easily enjoy.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know their are but you gotta admit its weird to have people that hate pf2 for vancian spell casting but played and enjoyed pf1.I feel like i'm probably in this demographic. Vancian casting was also a drawback for me in PF1 but there were a few good alternative options for my favorite class (cleric) in the inquisitor or oracle. In PF2 you are forced to play a divine sorcerer or bard (for now) which aren't the best substitutions (and not a good match for my favorite race of dwarf).
I still want to see how 2nd edition turns out before making my decision but vancian casting is a big negative for me. Especially because one of the things i was looking forward to was heightening spells (on the fly) and vancian takes that away.
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.