| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Due to a bunch of good but big life changes right around the time PF2 was released I didn't actually get a chance to play the final product untill yesterday.
I ran Torment and Legacy (expanded a bit to make it three acts instead of two) yesterday with a group of PF1 and DnD 5e players and we had a blast. So even though I'm super late to the party I just want to say good job Dev team! The game is good and I'm excited to launch a new campaign using the system once I finish converting my Homebrew world.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I may add, it is also more fun to write adventures for IMO. Simplified XP makes tracking milestones easier, encounter building is more intuitive, treasure budgets are less fiddly, narrative-warping magic is easier to account for, monster generations is faster and easier, and overall the cognitive load is more shifted away from making sure the math is working right and more toward making the story work right. The math is done ahead of time in a lot of cases, or reduced where it isn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm especially fond of the +/- 10 to crit succeed/fail. It's made the game a little swingier, and a lot more exciting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's very fun to play, and I think thats why the weaknesses, errors, and bad bits chafe some of its so much. Once I'm in play and if I don't run into those parts I have an absolute blast. I really hope another errata wave and the playtest for the next big book get us into the sweetest of spots with this game.
What are the points of concern for you?
I am having a lot of fun rewriting basically all the ancestories for my homebrewed setting anyways so while I'm making an "Erda Worldguide" I might as well Homebrew around any major issues. At this point it seems well worth the effort.
What are the points of concern for you?
I am having a lot of fun rewriting basically all the ancestories for my homebrewed setting anyways so while I'm making an "Erda Worldguide" I might as well Homebrew around any major issues. At this point it seems well worth the effort.
Errata is out if you've missed it:
I know there are some repeated grumblings about various things, but if they're an issue or not remains to be seen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are the points of concern for you?
I am having a lot of fun rewriting basically all the ancestories for my homebrewed setting anyways so while I'm making an "Erda Worldguide" I might as well Homebrew around any major issues. At this point it seems well worth the effort.
I have a number of concerns. The biggest one is that "Empowering the GM" is awful for people like me who got into pathfinder for Society play and pretty much exclusively play society. I had really hoped Society play would have shaped the core book more, and that's where a lot of things get grumpy for me - persisting damage duration, first aid for persistent effects, Recall Knowledge, Lore, etc. Then it's the big limits on abilities, like Battle Medicine and the damage/healing curve - why bother giving us more HP than 1e if everything hits twice as hard? After that the next biggest would have to be pricing. I think consumables are horrifically overpriced, and we still have exponential pricing which irks me.
Then there's meta concerns, like I really wonder if Pathfinder is good because of the designers or in spite of them, concerns with how the company is run and how it affects the game, but those aren't really system specific - though the effects can be seen in the product. I kind wonder if the fun that keeps me around was so good they got blinded in design and testing as well.
Then there's minor gripes, like how we're much weaker than 1e in many regards, and how many playstyles I enjoyed aren't possible (yet? I hope). I just wanted to work together with my bear mount, or ride a shark. But I know those are minor, I just like talking about them because they were/could be, fun.
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better than PF1 in virtually every way, except for the lack of content, which is only a matter of time. Running the game is so much easier than PF1 ever was - mind you, it's still a complicated game, but more intuitive and less prone of tripping over its own legs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I as Game Master am loving this new edition and having fun with it. Just love how the monsters are build now, love how each one feels unique in tactics and abilities.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just got the chance to try it myself, and I'm having fun. The biggest problems will pretty much all be fixed by more books coming out.
One member of my group is extremely anti-2e, though. It's a shame. He rips apart things that are issues in 2e that were already issues back in 1e and that he used to ignore.
Honestly, I think he has a problem with some of the new moves towards political correctness and inclusivity and the like in the game mastering section of the CRB, and is throwing a tantrum about it. Declaring the game to be a GM's nightmare, mechanically constraining, and impossible to build a creative character with a whatnot, when his real problem isn't actually with the mechanics at all, and he just doesn't want to admit that any part of something he dislikes is good.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just got the chance to try it myself, and I'm having fun. The biggest problems will pretty much all be fixed by more books coming out.
One member of my group is extremely anti-2e, though. It's a shame. He rips apart things that are issues in 2e that were already issues back in 1e and that he used to ignore.
Honestly, I think he has a problem with some of the new moves towards political correctness and inclusivity and the like in the game mastering section of the CRB, and is throwing a tantrum about it. Declaring the game to be a GM's nightmare, mechanically constraining, and impossible to build a creative character with a whatnot, when his real problem isn't actually with the mechanics at all, and he just doesn't want to admit that any part of something he dislikes is good.
He sounds awful and you have my sympathy.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
LittleMissNaga:
You have my sympathies. That sort of thing is always a bother to deal with.
I take players like that aside and quietly ask them to stop because they are sucking the air out of the room and ruining the experience for everyone else. If they continue, then, well, that player may need to find a new table.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just got the chance to try it myself, and I'm having fun. The biggest problems will pretty much all be fixed by more books coming out.
One member of my group is extremely anti-2e, though. It's a shame. He rips apart things that are issues in 2e that were already issues back in 1e and that he used to ignore.
Honestly, I think he has a problem with some of the new moves towards political correctness and inclusivity and the like in the game mastering section of the CRB, and is throwing a tantrum about it. Declaring the game to be a GM's nightmare, mechanically constraining, and impossible to build a creative character with a whatnot, when his real problem isn't actually with the mechanics at all, and he just doesn't want to admit that any part of something he dislikes is good.
Bleah, trying to imagine actually gaming with someone who would have a problem with the level of "political correctness" present in the core book just sounds awful on a fundamental level.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I can sympathize with the guy, things that were issues in 1e should have been addressed this time around, and the PC crowd tend to be kinda awful as well and seeing it codified in the rules can be concerning.
At the same time it's not impossible to find a group that suits your needs and everyone should try to find a game they'll actually enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a serious step up.
We have a couple of lingering PF1 games we're still working through... and if all the tools were there for a full rebuild, I think we'd convert those.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
He sounds awful and you have my sympathy.Just got the chance to try it myself, and I'm having fun. The biggest problems will pretty much all be fixed by more books coming out.
One member of my group is extremely anti-2e, though. It's a shame. He rips apart things that are issues in 2e that were already issues back in 1e and that he used to ignore.
Honestly, I think he has a problem with some of the new moves towards political correctness and inclusivity and the like in the game mastering section of the CRB, and is throwing a tantrum about it. Declaring the game to be a GM's nightmare, mechanically constraining, and impossible to build a creative character with a whatnot, when his real problem isn't actually with the mechanics at all, and he just doesn't want to admit that any part of something he dislikes is good.
Seconded. It's a game with rules, and how we love our rules, but the number one rule is letting people play. It's a game for all. it's about imagination.
I love Paizo's hardline stance on inclusivity, it is not half-hearted, it is sincere and yes please.
What tf is this guy saying about not being able to build a creative character? Within the rules I can make a Halfling junkie katapeshi belly dancer transexual, and they will still get their 10th level Bard spells. If you must have some funny ideas about character constraints, there is nothing stopping you from making a Prophet of Kalistrade Hellknight, proclaiming Make Avistan Great Again.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprised it as fun to play as it is. It reads pretty dry, but the game play is really enjoyable as a DM and player. The three action round was a RPG advancement that was long-needed to make everything about the game more fluid and easier to adjudicate rounds where move and attack wasn't a good option. It makes the entire round progression seem more natural and believable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He rips apart things that are issues in 2e that were already issues back in 1e and that he used to ignore.
I mean, I sort of get that.
Pathfinder 1 was sort of unique in that it had almost ten years worth of baggage the day it came out. There were a lot of problems with that system we were told to suck up and deal with because of legacy issues or because fixing them would cause too many additional problems.
Seeing some of those same issues sticking around in 2e despite the system's fresh start feels bad. Especially when there are so many steps made in a good direction in other parts of the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprised it as fun to play as it is. It reads pretty dry, but the game play is really enjoyable as a DM and player. The three action round was a RPG advancement that was long-needed to make everything about the game more fluid and easier to adjudicate rounds where move and attack wasn't a good option. It makes the entire round progression seem more natural and believable.
So much this!
The game in play has a poetry to it that reading the rules does not capture. I've been consistently surprised by how many times things that seemed awkward from reading the rules actually worked really well in play.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think he has a problem with some of the new moves towards political correctness and inclusivity and the like in the game mastering section of the CRB, and is throwing a tantrum about it.
This prettly aptly describes most of the people I play with. I'm inclined to agree with them that it's a bit annoying too, but I'm not one to throw tantrums about it--certainly not at the table.
Despite our annoyance, I can totally understand why Paizo is doing it. After all, if you don't agree with the mob, you get tossed into the fighting pits to entertain and die. Like anyone else, Paizo wants to have a future, and so they are kowtowing to the largest (apparant) common denominator.
Honestly I can sympathize with the guy, things that were issues in 1e should have been addressed this time around, and the PC crowd tend to be kinda awful as well and seeing it codified in the rules can be concerning.
At the same time it's not impossible to find a group that suits your needs and everyone should try to find a game they'll actually enjoy.
As can I. What it really comes down to though, is whether someone is fun to play with or not. This has little to nothing to do with their political leanings. I've seen people on both sides ruin the game for others, which is a shame. If a person thinks voicing their politics/beliefs (be they conservative, liberal, religious, or something else) are more important than everyone having a good game, then maybe invite them to a political rally and not the gaming table. There's a time and a place for everything. People who can't shut up about inappropriate topics come game time annoy me just as much as Paizo pushing its PC ideals on everyone.
It's not a perfect world, but that doesn't give anyone the right to be a jerk at the table.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Ravingdork.
'Political correctness' is clearly a Paizo's editorial choice, whether the management really believes in that or not (I believe they do).
Disagreeing with Paizo on this matter has nothing to do with playing their game: no actual rule has anything to do with that, and no one will knock at your door to check if you are being inclusive like they suggested.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
What it really comes down to though, is whether someone is fun to play with or not. This has little to nothing to do with their political leanings.
I mean, it sometimes can have something to do with that. I'm trans and bi, and tend to (but not always) play non-straight characters. If someone I'm playing with has an issue with any of those things, I'm not really going to be able to feel comfortable enough around them to have fun, even if they're a good player otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What it really comes down to though, is whether someone is fun to play with or not. This has little to nothing to do with their political leanings.I mean, it sometimes can have something to do with that. I'm trans and bi, and tend to (but not always) play non-straight characters. If someone I'm playing with has an issue with any of those things, I'm not really going to be able to feel comfortable enough around them to have fun, even if they're a good player otherwise.
I get it, but that's not a thing that depends on the rule system, does it?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get it, but that's not a thing that depends on the rule system, does it?What it really comes down to though, is whether someone is fun to play with or not. This has little to nothing to do with their political leanings.I mean, it sometimes can have something to do with that. I'm trans and bi, and tend to (but not always) play non-straight characters. If someone I'm playing with has an issue with any of those things, I'm not really going to be able to feel comfortable enough around them to have fun, even if they're a good player otherwise.
A rules system made by and for people to play? That encourages empathy so that everyone has fun.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about debates on "Political Correctness" get their own thread? Or better yet, none at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better than PF1 in virtually every way, except for the lack of content, which is only a matter of time. Running the game is so much easier than PF1 ever was - mind you, it's still a complicated game, but more intuitive and less prone of tripping over its own legs.
I get sick of hearing this kind of talk, and I think this kind of bashing other systems is what turns people off before they even try PF2e.
PF1e is a great game. It's not for everyone, and that's okay. It has problems, like any game (including PF2e) and I wouldn't run it for every group.
Neither is PF2e. For some groups, 5E is hands down the better choice. Does this make it the "perfect game" and PF2e worthless garbage? Obviously not. It's just that I have an hour for lunch and 5e plays faster and simpler than PF2e.
I'm running both PF1e and 2e games currently, and they're both fun. If you don't like ______ system - good for you. Don't play it. But also don't make an edition war out of nothing.
Just so it's clear, I'm not targeting Gorbacz specially. There's plenty of this negativity on the boards, and it's no wonder why some folks have such a vitriolic reaction to 2e.
PS: PF2e is indeed fun to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get it, but that's not a thing that depends on the rule system, does it?What it really comes down to though, is whether someone is fun to play with or not. This has little to nothing to do with their political leanings.I mean, it sometimes can have something to do with that. I'm trans and bi, and tend to (but not always) play non-straight characters. If someone I'm playing with has an issue with any of those things, I'm not really going to be able to feel comfortable enough around them to have fun, even if they're a good player otherwise.
It's not. What is being described is a people/social matter that no rules change is ever going to fix.
My advice: Game with people you're comfortable with. Why anyone would ever willingly attempt to game with someone who makes them feel unsafe is beyond me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite our annoyance, I can totally understand why Paizo is doing it. After all, if you don't agree with the mob, you get tossed into the fighting pits to entertain and die. Like anyone else, Paizo wants to have a future, and so they are kowtowing to the largest (apparant) common denominator.
Huh. Treating people as equally valuable regardless of how different they are is somehow controversial. If you think that's 'kowtowing to the largest (apparent) common denominator" you may embody the problem Paizo is trying to address.
Director of Game Design
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is entirely gone off topic from what the OP started.
As for our opinions on the social contract at the table, they are in the book, plain for everyone to read. We believe that everyone has a right to be treated equally at the table and that their life is valid and worthy of being explored and expressed. We also believe that everyone should feel comfortable at the game table, that this being a game means that everyone should enjoy themselves and be comfortable, but making this happen requires honest communication and empathy from all involved.
If this is somehow controversial for you, if you cannot come to a place where you treat your fellow players with this basic decency and respect, then Pathfinder, and perhaps even Roleplaying Games themselves, are not for you.
This thread is locked. I invite the Original Poster to try this thread again if they like.
Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design