Pathfinder 2E The playtest is here!!

[Aldarc]

People complained about Resonance being linked with any notions of physical attraction (i.e., Charisma), but reading through the Charisma description, I noticed that physical appearance and attractiveness was dropped from their understanding of Charisma.

 

[Kaodi]

Armour does not mess with your spellcasting anymore? So taking the Fighter dedication as a Wizard is actually *really* good?

 

[mellored]

Armour does not mess with your spellcasting anymore? So taking the Fighter dedication as a Wizard is actually *really* good?

Since your limited in actions, I'd say cleric would be better. More out-of-combat buffs.

I mean, haste isn't great when you take a -10 to on that extra attack.
Though blur wouldn't be bad.

 

[Kaodi]

Conversely I am somewhat disappointed that the Fighter Dedication does almost nothing for Druids because otherwise I totally would make a Druid with the Fighter and Rogue dedications for some faux 1e Bard action, .

 

[Brother MacLaren]

My first knee-jerk reaction is that this was written by a programmer. Keywords, icons, and so on. But then again I know Mark Seifter is a programmer.

Old RPGs were written by humanities types (history and lit). Or social sciences; Tom Moldvay (one of my favorite creators) had a Master's Degree in Anthropology. This makes them read very differently.

3.X and PF1 are more code-ish than Gygax but less so than PF2. Even the distinction between 'fluff' and 'crunch' is IME a 3E-ism that recalls the way code is split into executable portions and comments. Pre-3E didn't have that separation (again, IME). All of the text had meaning for interpreting an unclear rule.

Somebody, I think it was Monte Cook or Sean K. Reynolds, had a quote regretting spelling everything out so specifically in the rules and making it all so mechanical... a 'My God what have we done'... 3.X went in one direction, and PF2 has gone much further in that direction. Like 4E in that regard. I don't think that's good for the hobby in the long term. I think they should have placed more emphasis on GM judgment calls and allowed for table variation (and this is something I perceive 5E to have done a bit). It's a shame, the playtest document actually does speak to making sure everybody has fun, but the way the rules are presented seems to me to force the GM into the role of a code compiler.

This all speaks to the presentation of the information, the experience of reading it, and the conceptualization of how the rules are to be used. It doesn't address the actual gameplay (haven't had the chance) or the content.

In terms of the actual content, I like the ability score system favoring MAD over SAD. I like the bounded accuracy-ish aspects. I LOVE keeping paladins LG only, and the removal of Neutral options for several evil deities. I like a lot of the fighter abilities. And that's about it on first glance. A lot of things I'm apathetic about, and most of it I don't like compared to PF1.

Well, I guess that makes me a "neophobe." Must be why I thought the Star Wars prequels weren't as good as the original - but they were newer! How could they not be better? Or why I thought MM8 wasn't as good as MM7. Or why I think Queen is better than Nickelback. Nickelback is newer! How can they not be better? Yeah, I just reflexively hate new things. I'll go hang my neophobe head in shame now.

 

[MoonSong]

I've just noticed... PF2 runs on the Silver standard!

 

[MNblockhead]

My first knee-jerk reaction is that this was written by a programmer. Keywords, icons, and so on. But then again I know Mark Seifter is a programmer.

Old RPGs were written by humanities types (history and lit). Or social sciences; Tom Moldvay (one of my favorite creators) had a Master's Degree in Anthropology. This makes them read very differently.

3.X and PF1 are more code-ish than Gygax but less so than PF2. Even the distinction between 'fluff' and 'crunch' is IME a 3E-ism that recalls the way code is split into executable portions and comments. Pre-3E didn't have that separation (again, IME). All of the text had meaning for interpreting an unclear rule.

Somebody, I think it was Monte Cook or Sean K. Reynolds, had a quote regretting spelling everything out so specifically in the rules and making it all so mechanical... a 'My God what have we done'... 3.X went in one direction, and PF2 has gone much further in that direction. Like 4E in that regard. I don't think that's good for the hobby in the long term. I think they should have placed more emphasis on GM judgment calls and allowed for table variation (and this is something I perceive 5E to have done a bit). It's a shame, the playtest document actually does speak to making sure everybody has fun, but the way the rules are presented seems to me to force the GM into the role of a code compiler.

This all speaks to the presentation of the information, the experience of reading it, and the conceptualization of how the rules are to be used. It doesn't address the actual gameplay (haven't had the chance) or the content.

In terms of the actual content, I like the ability score system favoring MAD over SAD. I like the bounded accuracy-ish aspects. I LOVE keeping paladins LG only, and the removal of Neutral options for several evil deities. I like a lot of the fighter abilities. And that's about it on first glance. A lot of things I'm apathetic about, and most of it I don't like compared to PF1.

Well, I guess that makes me a "neophobe." Must be why I thought the Star Wars prequels weren't as good as the original - but they were newer! How could they not be better? Or why I thought MM8 wasn't as good as MM7. Or why I think Queen is better than Nickelback. Nickelback is newer! How can they not be better? Yeah, I just reflexively hate new things. I'll go hang my neophobe head in shame now.

Well the wonderful thing is that there are so many choices these days. The old stuff is still there and there are lots of new options that don't spell everything out.

 

[Nork]

The issue with spelling everything out in gory detail is that I suspect the in house playtesters don't actually play it that way. My money is they 'know how it works' and are then shocked when everyone gets angry over paladins or other martial oriented divine casters trying to cast spells per the actual rules because their internal playtests and the rules don't actually match up with each other and in reality they've internally been just doing what everyone else is trying and failing to see how to do per the rules.

Of course with very expensive employees worth their pay, the comments still usually don't actually match the code. Seems like a fools errand to try and detail the rules in gory detail for an RPG.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Well the wonderful thing is that there are so many choices these days. The old stuff is still there and there are lots of new options that don't spell everything out.

Yes, that is true. I don't worry for myself that I will be unable to find games I enjoy.
I do worry for Paizo that this will not be as successful as they hope. They are a great company with good customer engagement and some fantastic products.

For the overall success of the hobby, I think embracing and guiding GM agency is probably a better option.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, that is true. I don't worry for myself that I will be unable to find games I enjoy.
I do worry for Paizo that this will not be as successful as they hope. They are a great company with good customer engagement and some fantastic products.

For the overall success of the hobby, I think embracing and guiding GM agency is probably a better option.

I think the overall success of the hobby is bolstered by lots of different games with different foci and methodologies. It isn't just because some players like once kind of game and others like a different kind -- sometimes I want a game that plays one way, and other times I want one that plays another. Sometimes a loosey-goosey GM fiat style game (OSR stuff, FATE, whatever) is good, while other times a game that really codifies everything is better for what I want to do or the mood I'm in or whatever. Sometimes I want a game that is zero work for me as GM that really enables improvisation, and other times I want to get elbow deep into the engine and fiddle with the technical aspects. Games that try and do all those things usually end up doing none of them especially well, so it is good to have options. Based on a cursory reading, PF2 falls between PF1 and 5E in complexity and so might hit a sweet sport -- or not. That's what the playtest is for, for me anyway.

As an aside, it looks like Fantasy Grounds is giving official support for the playtest, which will make it tons easier for me to really put the system through its paces. Woo hoo!