The Next Step


Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest General Discussion


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So, the playtest is under way. I assume people are submitting survey answers when they have playtested something.

My question is this - will there be a 2nd version of rules to playtest? Or will we only ever have this one version before a final product?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely second the call for a 2.0 playtest. Enough people have had enough problems with several of the classes that the devs should take all the comments, make the changes they want, and release a 2.0 to see if their changes have helped. There is no need to race the book to print if a lot of people will be unhappy with the final product.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Samurai wrote:
I definitely second the call for a 2.0 playtest. Enough people have had enough problems with several of the classes that the devs should take all the comments, make the changes they want, and release a 2.0 to see if their changes have helped. There is no need to race the book to print if a lot of people will be unhappy with the final product.

How many people have these problems? How many is "enough"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Samurai wrote:
I definitely second the call for a 2.0 playtest. Enough people have had enough problems with several of the classes that the devs should take all the comments, make the changes they want, and release a 2.0 to see if their changes have helped. There is no need to race the book to print if a lot of people will be unhappy with the final product.
How many people have these problems? How many is "enough"?

Dozens! Well mainly a vocal Dozen maybe, and mostly only about Oracles and Witches but a lot of people will be unhappy!

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:


Dozens! Well mainly a vocal Dozen maybe, and mostly only about Oracles and Witches but a lot of people will be unhappy!

And for every one person on the forums, there are probably a dozen more out there that would feel similarly when they read the book. We are here because we are some of the more vocal, loyal, and involved fans, and pooh-poohing the forum's comments, thinking "aahh, the people out there will love whatever we put out." makes a mockery of the playtesting process (and is probably what led to D&D 4th edition and it's failure).

I filled out the survey in as much detail as I could. I hope and trust that the devs will hear the fans and it isn't all a jumbled mess of "well some liked this and some didn't". That's why I think a playtest 2.0 is critical so they can see what fans prefer. There were multiple rounds of the core PF2 rules, and I think they learned something each time.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

1) you can read the designers' minds?

2) 4th Edition wasn't liked but it wasn't a failure, it brought in the monies.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Shoving aside the hyperbole and doomsaying There's only so much you can redo and redo, there are time constraints, and hyper-focusing too much can lead to issues.

Such as what happened to Alchemist.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

1) you can read the designers' minds?

2) 4th Edition wasn't liked but it wasn't a failure, it brought in the monies.

The fact that they did a playtest for PF2 and APG at all means I can infer they either care about the community or want to give the appearance that they do.

And 4e might have been a decent game, but it was too far away from the D&D mainstream, and it led directly to 5e, which by all accounts is doing much better than 4e did, and IMHO is a much better game. I hope and trust Paizo learned from that history and we don't have to wait until Pathfinder 3e. From listening to the devs videos, they sure seem to.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Samurai wrote:
thinking "aahh, the people out there will love whatever we put out."

and okay?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
There is no need to race the book to print if a lot of people will be unhappy with the final product.

Except for the whole "making money to pay the employees" thing. I'm pretty sure they don't set arbitrary deadlines, and instead base them on budgets and the need for income at specific timings, so "racing the book to print" is in fact necessary. They can get feedback from the community through play tests but they have to publish the rules to make money, and every day they work on polishing it without publishing is lost money.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Samurai wrote:
Vlorax wrote:


Dozens! Well mainly a vocal Dozen maybe, and mostly only about Oracles and Witches but a lot of people will be unhappy!

And for every one person on the forums, there are probably a dozen more out there that would feel similarly when they read the book. We are here because we are some of the more vocal, loyal, and involved fans, and pooh-poohing the forum's comments, thinking "aahh, the people out there will love whatever we put out." makes a mockery of the playtesting process (and is probably what led to D&D 4th edition and it's failure).

I filled out the survey in as much detail as I could. I hope and trust that the devs will hear the fans and it isn't all a jumbled mess of "well some liked this and some didn't". That's why I think a playtest 2.0 is critical so they can see what fans prefer. There were multiple rounds of the core PF2 rules, and I think they learned something each time.

That's how all things are, taste and opinion are always going to vary from player to player, the "fans" are unlikely to give a unified answer, some will like it, some wont.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:


That's how all things are, taste and opinion are always going to vary from player to player, the "fans" are unlikely to give a unified answer, some will like it, some wont.

That's very true, but from reading these forums, I don't get the impression that most fans are overjoyed with the witch and oracle designs at the moment. It'll be interesting to hear the results of the playtest responses, if they give them out, and even more interesting to see a hypothetical playtest 2.0, and/or the finished book.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Lots of people said PF2 needed a playtest 2.0 after the first playtest; instead, the devs took what they learned in the first playtest and completely knocked the game out of the park.

I trust them to do the same again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
Vlorax wrote:


That's how all things are, taste and opinion are always going to vary from player to player, the "fans" are unlikely to give a unified answer, some will like it, some wont.
That's very true, but from reading these forums, I don't get the impression that most fans are overjoyed with the witch and oracle designs at the moment. It'll be interesting to hear the results of the playtest responses, if they give them out, and even more interesting to see a hypothetical playtest 2.0, and/or the finished book.

You just can't get a sense of most fans from reading the forums. The sampling bias is so dang strong.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty dissatisfied with a variety of stuff in the playtest (Investigator's combat capabilities and almost the whole of the Oracle class, for the most part), but I don't think a second wave is a particularly reasonable thing to necessarily expect, or that the lack of one is indicative of any dismissiveness on Paizo's part given the tight time frame involved.

A second wave would be nice, certainly, but the time frame may just be too tight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
Rysky wrote:

1) you can read the designers' minds?

2) 4th Edition wasn't liked but it wasn't a failure, it brought in the monies.

The fact that they did a playtest for PF2 and APG at all means I can infer they either care about the community or want to give the appearance that they do.

And 4e might have been a decent game, but it was too far away from the D&D mainstream, and it led directly to 5e, which by all accounts is doing much better than 4e did, and IMHO is a much better game. I hope and trust Paizo learned from that history and we don't have to wait until Pathfinder 3e. From listening to the devs videos, they sure seem to.

What was good about 4E? What was liked?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Let's not get into edition wars. This thread is about what the next steps for the APG Playtest are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Moreover, if we do not see a v2 that doesn't mean we won't see ideas from the community incorporated.


You will in the printed materials.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I guess the PF2 core playtest pretty evidently showed that surveys > vocal minorities on forums. If you'd look at forum during the PF2 playtest as evidence of what people are after, you'd get, in particular order:

- stop making this and continue with PF1,
- remove +level treadmill, verily,
- buff casters,
- do away with resonance,
- "race" instead of "ancestry",
- drop the political correctness,
- don't call everything "feat",
- no goblins, nobody likes them,
- keep NPCs and monsters built like PCs,
- every combat is a TPK, the game is broken.

Aaand only one of the above ultimately happened, likely because it actually resonated (ha ha ha, you folks get it? Resonance didn't resonate! Oh, Gorbacz, you are so funny, killing me every time, let me drink to that) with the larger audience as expressed in surveys. So much for "me and a lot of people on this forum think you should do X".

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So...

There will not be another round of play testing. We are getting a lot of great data from the Surveys that is going to allow us to refine these classes for the final version of the book.

Since this thread is already filled with flags and edition warring, I am going to call it done.

This thread is locked.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / General Discussion / The Next Step All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion