It’s LAUNCH DAY For The Pathfinder 2 Playtest!

Reynard · Aug 8, 2018

Parmandur said:
What CapnZapp has expressed a desire for isn't 5E, but a game incorporating the OGL lessons from 5E while providing a different, crunchier experience. This is something PF2 could have been.

But was never promising to be. Why is it incumbent upon Paizo to service the disaffected 5e fans? Isn't that WotC's job? Moreover, doesn't anyone else get tired of people making hyperbolic judgments about the business acumen of a company that has already far exceeded expectations? Maybe PF2 will fail and destroy the company, but even if it does it won't be because CapnZapp didn't like it.

TwoSix · Aug 8, 2018

Parmandur said:
You have apparently not seen many of his 5E posts: he has numerous, loudly shared criticisms of the system, and a crunchy alternative is what he has been asking for. Repeatedly.

Thinking that 5E is the current high watermark in the the RPG industry doesn't mean that he has some insurmountable bias, or that Paizo should discount him as a customer. Disgruntled D&D fans who want more crunch is how Paizo built their house. If they simultaneously alienate PF1 fans, and fail to attract 5E fans from the margins...to whom are they selling?

I would be twice as excited for PF2e if it was "crunchy 5e" rather than "streamlined PF1". And honestly, they can get there if they make the feat system less gated and drop the +level bonus to everything.

Morrus · Aug 8, 2018

TwoSix said:
I would be twice as excited for PF2e if it was "crunchy 5e" rather than "streamlined PF1". And honestly, they can get there if they make the feat system less gated and drop the +level bonus to everything.

But they aren’t making 5E. They’re making Pathfinder. That’s a bit like saying “I’d be more excited about ice cream if it was a steak”.

Arakasius · Aug 8, 2018

Parmandur said:
What CapnZapp has expressed a desire for isn't 5E, but a game incorporating the OGL lessons from 5E while providing a different, crunchier experience. This is something PF2 could have been.

But they are making that and I don’t understand arguments that say they’re not. PF2 playtest looks a lot like PF1 from character building and a lot like 5e from in battle flow. There is going to be more feats (both class and general feats) and gating them like they have now is no different than smite evil and weapon training and favored enemy being gated in PF1.

As for bounded accuracy there are two aspects to it. There is difference between players in a party. In that it is like 5e (or like PF1 at level one) where everyone can compete skill wise or bab wise. Both systems are ability mod plus prof mod. The only difference is that PF2 adds level to everything because they want high level characters to be a lot better than low level ones. But if you want to recreate 5e bounded accuracy in PF2 it’s very easy. Just drop the level bonus to everything, or halve it if you want something in between.

TwoSix · Aug 8, 2018

Morrus said:
But they aren’t making 5E. They’re making Pathfinder. That’s a bit like saying “I’d be more excited about ice cream if it was a steak”.

But they could make Pathfinder more like 5e. Nothing is stopping them other than their design intent. A brand has no immutable characteristics other than what its owners choose to give it. They could make PF2e a d100 roll under system, and it would still be Pathfinder.

Arakasius · Aug 8, 2018

I don’t see how they could make PF2 any more like 5e without being 5e. Look at how battle works. It’s got a better and different action system and the critical success/failure system but otherwise they are very similar. Spells scale in the same way, spell power is down in general, they have a similar level of buff spells (and use concentration now too) and so on. If you just compare the combat rules of the three games PF2 is closer to 5e than PF. They have really simplified the rules of the game down.

What they haven’t skimmed down is character building, but that is what PF’s schtick is. And I’m sure that Paizo will add options to build on the core rulebook far faster than WotC.

Morrus · Aug 8, 2018

TwoSix said:
But they could make Pathfinder more like 5e. Nothing is stopping them other than their design intent. A brand has no immutable characteristics other than what its owners choose to give it. They could make PF2e a d100 roll under system, and it would still be Pathfinder.

It would still be *called* Pathfinder, but that’s just a label. It wouldn’t be Pathfinder in any meaningful sense.

TwoSix · Aug 8, 2018

Arakasius said:
I don’t see how they could make PF2 any more like 5e without being 5e. Look at how battle works. It’s got a better and different action system and the critical success/failure system but otherwise they are very similar. Spells scale in the same way, spell power is down in general, they have a similar level of buff spells (and use concentration now too) and so on. If you just compare the combat rules of the three games PF2 is closer to 5e than PF. They have really simplified the rules of the game down.

What they haven’t skimmed down is character building, but that is what PF’s schtick is. And I’m sure that Paizo will add options to build on the core rulebook far faster than WotC.

I wouldn't go that far. The bundling of bonuses into the advantage/disadvantage system is wildly different than PF2e's approach. PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects. And the 3 action system, where so many options can consume 2 or 3 actions, and other effects can spend a variable amount of actions to determine potency, is way more complex than 5e's action-move-sometimes bonus action system. Those are little changes, they affect the entire playstyle of the game.

TwoSix · Aug 8, 2018

Morrus said:
It would still be *called* Pathfinder, but that’s just a label. It wouldn’t be Pathfinder in any meaningful sense.

I'll be honest, with only one edition of Pathfinder released, and that edition derived from another game anyway, I'd have trouble defining what the intrinsic characteristics of Pathfinder are.