It’s LAUNCH DAY For The Pathfinder 2 Playtest!

Today’s the day! You can now download the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playtest book!

Head on over to Paizo.com to download it for free.

Its tinged with a little sadness for those of us who preordered the hard copy, as issues with Amazon means that our copies have been delayed by an indefinite amount.

’’When Paizo was planning this year's Pathfinder Playtest, we expected to exceed our own ability to fulfill orders on a timely basis, so we decided to use Fulfillment by Amazon. Unfortunately, Amazon's reports indicate that most customers will not be receiving their orders by tomorrow's release date. They shipped 3 orders on July 28, 3 more on July 29, and no orders on July 30 or 31. Today, they have shipped almost 10% of the outstanding orders, and they are continuing to ship through the night and into tomorrow. They have so far been unable to tell us when they will complete shipping.”

However, at least the PDFs are still available for free in the meantime.

Adventure chapters are also available alongside the rule book, with the first being available today. They are as follows:

1. The Lost Star, Aug 7 - Aug 26 (Also available at Gen Con on Aug 2.)
2. In Pale Mountain’s Shadow, Aug 7 - Sep 9
3. Affair At Sombrefell Hall, Sep 10 - Sep 23
4. The Mirrored Moon, Sep 24 - Oct 8
5. The Heroes Of Undarin, Oct 9 - Oct 21
6. Red Flags, Oct 22 - Nov 4
7. When The Stars Go Dark, Nov 5 - Nov 18

 

[Aldarc]

Pathfinder 2 feels more cluttered with jargon than any edition of D&D, 4e included, ever did. I cannot see any of my players picking this up and lasting five pages of reading from this jargon-induced nightmare of writing. Especially since most of my players are not native English speakers.

 

[zztong]

In theory, they might do those more general surveys later... but given that's the stuff that will require the most work. You'd think they'd want to get that out sooner. Hopefully they're just trying to give people more than a twenty days to read the book and play the game.

Exactly. Their schedule has to involve something like having everything settled around the new year. If they wait until November to find out they need to rip up and redo big sections then they leave no time to playtest those revisions, much less come up with new mechanics. And OMG, there are big sections that need replaced.

 

[Arakasius]

Lots of hyperbole again from people who have not played the game and likely never had any intention of playing the game.

Now that I've DM'd about 5 hours of game over 2 nights I feel like I have more to add now. Our group enjoyed it a lot and is moving over our PF1 game to PF2. We spent the last 1.5 hours of last night working on moving their level 11 characters over.

The combat class feats people think are required to make function characters is no more true than not being a functional ranged character who is a non fighter in 5e. A ranged Paladin is just fine in PF2 despite not getting double/triple shot. A fighter will do 2 attacks at -2 against separate targets. A paladin can just do iterative attacks but can hit the same target. Does this mean the Paladin archer doesn't function? No it just makes it a bit worse, and they can do things like Blade of Justice or Righteous Ally to give damage buffs to their weapons to have higher static bonuses or more dice rolls on it.

The class feats in general are not giving bonuses to hit, and in only a few cases are they giving bonuses to damage. Could I see them moving a couple combat generalist feats into the general feat pool? Sure, but I don't expect a lot of it because doing that is part of what allows casters to steal all the martial's tricks and put them on a class with 9th level spells. Martials having exclusivity to martial attacks to me is no more unfair or broken then casters getting exclusive access to powerful spells.

As for feedback, well they have no need to just listen to the people who shout loudest, whatever their motives are. And there are some very loud people on the internet and tbh from what I've seen regarding the skill system people are arguing about they want things that are worse for the game. Unless people think PF1 was fun when the game got past 7th level and skills became pointless in the face of magic. That being said there is still a lot of stuff that I would be happy if they change/modify.

1. I wouldn't mind being a bit more conversational in tone in certain parts of the rulebook, mostly around the modes of play. I'm perfectly fine being very concise and specfic within battle.
2. I don't think there is much point to the -2 penalty for the opportunity attack types (AoO or Retributive Strike). I could see them just going to flat roll on that.
3. Dying rules are changing I guess, it seemed fine from the one unconscious person we had in our session but I'm curious to see what they go with.
4. I could see them tweaking the multiclassing rules (since now only way to multiclass is through archetyping since you can't change your original class) Then again in PF1 unless you were doing full BAB to full BAB multiclassing was a total trap.
5. I would like the ready action to be a 1 action thing so you can do something cooler with the ready like cast a spell.
6. I wouldn't mind trying level/2 for all the level based numbers to keep numbers a little down, but I love the new proficiency numbers in that like 5e it guarantees the upper and lower bounds of a party are within a certain value.
7. Not sure how much I love the take on some polymorph forms. Mainly I'm not a big fan of something like Righteous Might not allowing you to cast spells. Now I don't mind just having the elemental forms have their own stats again and not be based on their own. I also don't mind not having Natural Spell and making Wild Shape just a reskin for full casters. Now being a beast feels like a beast, but I don't like things like Righteous Might shutting down casting. I also find the rules for some of the durations on them a bit weird. It's hard to make a druid who stays at an animal the full time.
8. Inflexibility of signature skills in how you can take them independently from your class. I don't mind that its an opportunity cost, but there should be more options to add a signature skill so you can get to legendary in something that's not typical for your class.
9. Resonance probably needs changes. I like the goal of limiting magic item use (per 5e) but there is probably a better/cleaner way to do than the current rules.

I'm not concerned about feat/tweaking options. This is Paizo and they're going to add a lot more to that. That's why it amuses me that people are focusing so much on the feat balancing between classes. This is a playtest and its pretty clear the final game is going to have more than what is presented here, and further books will of course add even more.

Edit:
10. Ancestry feats likely need changes I think to be more front loaded. I'd shift more bonuses to heritage feats, give two choices at level one and then give less options to take on ancestry feats as they level.

 

[Kaodi]

With Paladin I mean if you really hate their feat options that much why not just multiclass into Cleric and get your spellcasting back?

 

[Jester David]

Lots of hyperbole again from people who have not played the game and likely never had any intention of playing the game.

I actually kinda wanted to play.
I was unlikely to play in the playtest due to time. My 5e game is in the middle of things, which is going slow due to summer business. But had I liked the game, I might have tried a one-shot or done something later. Because 2/5ths of my gaming group want a little more from the ruleset. They want more options for their character. And having Pathfinder 2 as an alternate system would have been nice.

Instead, I had to force myself to even finish enough of the playtest book to do a review and have zero interest in actually buying the physical book enough to play.

The combat class feats people think are required to make function characters is no more true than not being a functional ranged character who is a non fighter in 5e. A ranged Paladin is just fine in PF2 despite not getting double/triple shot. A fighter will do 2 attacks at -2 against separate targets. A paladin can just do iterative attacks but can hit the same target. Does this mean the Paladin archer doesn't function? No it just makes it a bit worse, and they can do things like Blade of Justice or Righteous Ally to give damage buffs to their weapons to have higher static bonuses or more dice rolls on it.

Except for the "soft cover" of shooting past an ally. (There's a special term for that, which I cannot be bothered to look up.) And the volley penalty for using a ranged weapon in a standard dungeon environment.

Without the feats, you are going to suffer.
Meanwhile, if you're not taking feats that complement your build... you're taking feats that give you bonuses to do things you're not actually doing.

The class feats in general are not giving bonuses to hit, and in only a few cases are they giving bonuses to damage.

Go back and look at how many feats have an icon by them.
Every single one of those is NOT just a bonus to hit. You gain a LOT of action options from class feats.

Could I see them moving a couple combat generalist feats into the general feat pool? Sure, but I don't expect a lot of it because doing that is part of what allows casters to steal all the martial's tricks and put them on a class with 9th level spells. Martials having exclusivity to martial attacks to me is no more unfair or broken then casters getting exclusive access to powerful spells.

Casters could almost use it.
Just losing automatic scaling of spells is pretty much enough to bring casters down from quadratic to linear. Especially if they're burning class feats to get better at archery rather than progressing their spellcasting like they're expected.

Having something like two-weapon fighting feats in the general feats is not going to break the casters. It will be nice for characters, such as the iconic rogue, who is always portrayed as fighting with a rapier and a dagger, without having to dip into fighter.

As for feedback, well they have no need to just listen to the people who shout loudest, whatever their motives are. And there are some very loud people on the internet and tbh from what I've seen regarding the skill system people are arguing about they want things that are worse for the game. Unless people think PF1 was fun when the game got past 7th level and skills became pointless in the face of magic. That being said there is still a lot of stuff that I would be happy if they change/modify.

WHICH IS EXACTLY THE COMPLAINT WE JUST MADE.

Yeah, they shouldn't listen to who complains the loudest. They should get information on all the complaints and see which is common among all the audience. They should gather feedback from the entire audience and see what the largest percentages want, don't want, and are looking for in an update. But the surveys don't do that. They're all very much based on fine tuning some pretty niche aspects of the ruleset and not really asking the big questions like "could you build a character you liked", "how do you feel about assumed magic items", or even "did you have fun playing?"

I'm not concerned about feat/tweaking options. This is Paizo and they're going to add a lot more to that. That's why it amuses me that people are focusing so much on the feat balancing between classes. This is a playtest and its pretty clear the final game is going to have more than what is presented here, and further books will of course add even more.

I don't think the giant release schedule of Pathfinder 1 was good for the game or the company. I expect Pathfinder 2 to have a release schedule much more like Starfinder, which has had three hardcovers in a full year but none of which have focused on classes.

 

[Arakasius]

Respond to some of your points.

1. Screening is a +1 to AC. Hardly crippling for any offensive character. (compared to the +4 it was in PF1)

2. In responds to suffer that's why I said hyperbole. If you want to play a martial character in 5e then you "suffer" immediately if you're not a fighter, because action surge, more attacks and more ability score improvements blow anything else out of the water. But classes like Barbarian and Paladin can do fine because they have other class features that make up for that. Just because a PF2 fighter has a couple more to hit than you (and likely less damage because of not having rage or Paladin weapon buffs) isn't going to make Paladins and Barbarians unplayable. And of course Paladins and Barbarians have special abilities that do things a fighter can't.

3. On class feats mostly being actions you're exactly right and that's my point. PF1 was all about take your one style of attack and then take power attack/weapon focus/furious focus/etc to pump as many static bonuses out of it as possible. And a class like fighter did have "mostly" exclusive access to weapon specialization and greater weapon focus. The fighter feats are nearly entirely action economy and giving things to do in battle. They're not pumping up hit (point blank shot is, but they've already said they're likely doing away with volley) so the difference between a fighter double shotting and a paladin archer just taking two shots isn't enough to make Paladin suboptimal or broken. Yes the fighter has a higher average to hit and will crit more, but likely the Paladin will have considerably higher damage mod between Blade of Justice and Righteous Ally. I just don't think its enough to make one unviable and I'll take note of that in the game I DM since we do have a Paladin.

4. Casters have never needed to burn feats to progress their spells, metamagic is a fine bonus but hardly required.. Basically most PF1 power melee builds were classes like Cleric or Druid or Summoner coming in with their 3/4 BAB and taking all the martial feats which combined with their powerful spell list made up the attack bonus. I don't think losing scaling hurts them that much either considering they get more of the power of the spell straight up (compare fireball at level 5 in PF1 vs PF2) as well as getting to cast spells in higher levels for the heightened benefits. Similarly a single class DC for all spells make it that lower level spells continue to be useful while in PF1 low level spells by high level were either utility of worthless. I think casters will continue to be strong and gishes are better than ever, even if you don't multiclass into another class.

5. If they want to give double slice (or something similar) to rogue than that is cool. I just don't think its needed for martial feats to be in a general pool for everyone to take unless they're extremely basic things.

 

[CapnZapp]

I actually kinda wanted to play.
I was unlikely to play in the playtest due to time. My 5e game is in the middle of things, which is going slow due to summer business. But had I liked the game, I might have tried a one-shot or done something later. Because 2/5ths of my gaming group want a little more from the ruleset. They want more options for their character. And having Pathfinder 2 as an alternate system would have been nice.

This.

 

[CapnZapp]

2. In responds to suffer that's why I said hyperbole. If you want to play a martial character in 5e then you "suffer" immediately if you're not a fighter, because action surge, more attacks and more ability score improvements blow anything else out of the water. But classes like Barbarian and Paladin can do fine because they have other class features that make up for that. Just because a PF2 fighter has a couple more to hit than you (and likely less damage because of not having rage or Paladin weapon buffs) isn't going to make Paladins and Barbarians unplayable. And of course Paladins and Barbarians have special abilities that do things a fighter can't.

Actually the Paladin and Barbarian are fine. More than fine, actually, since two simple levels of Fighter multiclass gets them most of what you say they "suffer" from not having.

Smite nova or double hit points is easily better than the level 6 bonus ASI (which is the only one that really counts, since past level 11 you don't really need much of anything seeing how stupendously powerful high-level 5E characters are).

The true casualty, however, is the Rogue.

 

[zztong]

Lots of hyperbole again from people who have not played the game and likely never had any intention of playing the game.

I'm not sure who that's directed at, but I am playing PF2 as part of the playtest.

As for feedback, well they have no need to just listen to the people who shout loudest, whatever their motives are.

Exactly. Which is why I am frustrated by the questions they're asking in the survey. They appear to be focused on tweaks, but I think big chunks of character generation are horrible. Its just my opinion, of course, but I think Ancestries, Backgrounds, Classes, and Skills all need significant work. I'm undecided on Feats.

Look, I don't always get the luxury of picking the game system. I'm part of two different games where I co-DM and play. In both cases, the primary DM picks the game system. One is sticking with PF1, the other is active in the Pathfinder Society and is running the PF2 playtest. I suspect that second game will play PF2, so I have an interest in trying to make PF2 something more appealing as I will probably have to bite the bullet and play it.

 

[mellored]

It's not just those feats though. 2 of the 3 automatic features they get that aren't just armor/weapon/skill stuff are tied directly to Retributive Strike. Including one that's named Holy Smite in what has to be the biggest troll job in table-top RPG history.

well, I still disagree that they are underpowered. Again, they get 2 features, not 1.

But I do agree that it feels bad, and not particularly paladin-y.

I wouldn't have minded Retributive Strike if it was a feat, but making it the defining Paladin feature and hinging two big other features on it and a whole bunch of class feats was definitely not the way to go. It shoehorns the Paladin into purely reactive gameplay, which is an inherently weaker way to play.

Having it as a feat isn't a bad idea.
Hmm....

Paladin's Sacrifice (new base feature)
When an ally within 5' would be hit by an attack, you can push them 5' out of the way, step into their location and take the attack with a -2 A.C. penalty.

Retribution strike (feat) when you use paladins sacrifice, you can also make an attack against the attacker as part of the same reaction.

And other stuff like that.