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

 

[Schmoe]

Haha, four responses and three very different answers. But thanks! Interesting stuff. The play test looks really nice and my first impression is that I can see what [MENTION=6951223]thekittenhugs[/MENTION] means, although it seems the “4edification” is relatively surface level.

In that sense, I see similarities between 1e and 2e: taking the same basic game but cleaning it up and organizing it a bit.

What makes folks say 2e to 3e? That’s a pretty big jump.

Also, I’m sure this has been discussed but it seems formatted for digest size.

I'd like to preface this by saying that I don't have extensive experience with PF. I only played a bit, though I own a number of the books and have read a bunch of adventures. I also haven't made a character or played PF2 yet, either. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

As someone who lived through all of those changes (except 4e->5e, because I never switched to 4e), I thought the 2e->3e shift was the best analogy for a few reasons. First, 3e was a big shift from 2e. Wide collections of random sub-systems were largely consolidated into just a few, vague rules omissions or voids were codified and standardized. It introduced a new class (the sorcerer) and made some big changes to others. On the other hand, it still felt very much like 2e D&D. In a large sense, it felt like 2e but just bigger and bolder. 3e either took existing subsystems and unified them, or took part of the game and evolved it and fleshed it out. The rule-set was a larger-than-life 2e rule-set.

By contrast, the 1e->2e shift was, as you say, more of a slight re-organization and tidying up of the rules. It made proficiencies official, which was neat, but most everything else looked like 1e with a small facelift.

3e->3.5e was even less of a change than 1e->2e.

As for 3.5e->4e, that was another thing entirely. 4e felt like a completely different game. It no longer supported TotM. All classes were just different collections of powers. Monsters, equipment, and powers all conspired together to make the math the same across all tiers, just with bigger numbers. I loved some of the innovations in 4e (minions in particular), but it was so much more gamist than previous editions that it felt like it sprang from an entirely different family of games. It was decidedly NOT the D&D I was familiar with. With 1e through 3.5e, I could play in my simulationist fantasy worlds and find a way for the rules to provide some sort of internal consistency to the game. With 4e, I just couldn't do it. It was unabashedly a game, not a toolset for creating adventures, and it wouldn't let me forget it.

So when I look at PF1->PF2, I get the impression that it is significantly expanding the design space in some of the areas that were introduced in PF1. It is also consolidating some disparate systems into a more unified set of mechanics. But at the end of the day, it still feels like Pathfinder. There are some big innovations, for sure, but I can see the ties between the two systems. PF2 feels like a bigger and bolder PF1, where they have doubled-down on what PF1 was all about. It's not a radical departure from what PF1 was at its core.

Does that help?

 

[Charlaquin]

My players would LOVE the super-crunch of Pathfinder.

And to be honest, so would I.

As a player. As the DM, simplified monster/NPC stats that give up any notion of following the same rules as PCs is a must.

...NPCs don’t follow the same rules as PCs in PF2 though.

 

[qstor]

I think it's more like 3.5e to 5e. After a quick glance, PF2 seems a lot more simpler in some respects. It's toned down a lot of the power options. There's comments on the Paizo boards like "I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design trends. "

I can see a lot of PF1e fans won't like it. I have friends that are big power gamers and a lot of the "candy store" is closed in that regards. We'll see if more builder books for PF2 come out or if Paizo follows WotC lead and slows production of material.

 

[Azgulor]

I don't doubt you that PF1 fans of the power level may be wailing and gnashing their teeth, but this PF1 player is really digging what he's seeing thus far.

 

[Shadow Demon]

One cool thing is that conversion of Paizo adventure paths to 5e is going to be easier with PF2 than with PF1. In particular, there is less extraneous feats and skills with monsters and NPCs. Although I still don't understand how the monster math actually works...

 

[CapnZapp]

...NPCs don’t follow the same rules as PCs in PF2 though.

True.

But when I heard them boast (somewhere) "Now you can create a NPC in half the time" I realized I needed to let go of the hope. Half of way too long is still... way too long.

As a contrast, I'd say a high-level NPC in 5th edition takes 5% of the time of high-level d20. Not the same ballpark.

 

[Azgulor]

True.

But when I heard them boast (somewhere) "Now you can create a NPC in half the time" I realized I needed to let go of the hope. Half of way too long is still... way too long.

As a contrast, I'd say a high-level NPC in 5th edition takes 5% of the time of high-level d20. Not the same ballpark.

If it follows Starfinder's methodology, "half the time" is the high-water mark. I was strongly in the PCs and NPCs should use the same rules camp until I played Starfinder. The first few NPCs I made were comparable time-wise to PC creation but that's only because I was learning the system and constantly comparing the "PC build" of the character to the "NPC build" to better understand the differences. Starfinder sold me on their NPC system, and I expect PF2 to do the same and if it's even close, NPC-creation time drops significantly.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was strongly in the PCs and NPCs should use the same rules camp until I played Starfinder.

In contrast, all the time I DMs 3.0 and 3.5, I asked myself why I had to build NPCs at all.

I like spending my prep time on other stuff. I like taking my NPCs off the shelf (including lifting "unique" ones from the hardback adventures and then slightly tweaking them).

I want a game with d20 (and PF) complexity on the player-side but 5E's (complete lack of) complexity on the DM side.

 

[Azgulor]

In contrast, all the time I DMs 3.0 and 3.5, I asked myself why I had to build NPCs at all.

I like spending my prep time on other stuff. I like taking my NPCs off the shelf (including lifting "unique" ones from the hardback adventures and then slightly tweaking them).

I want a game with d20 (and PF) complexity on the player-side but 5E's (complete lack of) complexity on the DM side.

Then you'll likely be covered over time but not at the playtest launch.

Pre-made NPC sources have long been a Paizo staple: Gamemastery Guide, NPC Codex, Alien Archive, etc.

 

[mewzard]

I think it's more like 3.5e to 5e. After a quick glance, PF2 seems a lot more simpler in some respects. It's toned down a lot of the power options. There's comments on the Paizo boards like "I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design trends. "

I can see a lot of PF1e fans won't like it. I have friends that are big power gamers and a lot of the "candy store" is closed in that regards. We'll see if more builder books for PF2 come out or if Paizo follows WotC lead and slows production of material.

Well, I mean, yes and no. In some ways, there's been a bit of a tone down, and the gap between martials and casters has shrunk some between skill feats and ritual casting that martials can do.

...But then you see things like the 10th Level Primal Spell that Druids can learn that literally lets them turn into a Kaiju, and you know things haven't all gone down power wise.