Pathfinder 2E The playtest is here!!

[Arakasius]

Except lots of those feats give powers and very few of those feats provide static bonuses, so it really seems you’re hung up on the word feat.

 

[Parmandur]

Except lots of those feats give powers and very few of those feats provide static bonuses, so it really seems you’re hung up on the word feat.

So, the document has the word "feat" 2290 times, so well over 5 times a page. There are 3 or 4 different groupings of Feats: I am still somewhat uncertain if "Skill Feats" and "General Feats" are different or part of the same set. At the very least, I feel they could have used a thesaurus to differentiate the types of Feats, it makes the equivocation on level look tame.

If anybody is hung up on Feats, it really seems to be the design team.

 

[MoonSong]

So, the document has the word "feat" 2290 times, so well over 5 times a page. There are 3 or 4 different groupings of Feats: I am still somewhat uncertain if "Skill Feats" and "General Feats" are different or part of the same set. At the very least, I feel they could have used a thesaurus to differentiate the types of Feats, it makes the equivocation on level look tame.

If anybody is hung up on Feats, it really seems to be the design team.

Skill feats are a subset of General feats. You can take them whenever you gain a General Feat or in specific a Skill Feat. But you can only take a General non-Skill Feat when you gain a General Feat. In short Feats are heavily siloed this edition.

 

[TwoSix]

So, the document has the word "feat" 2290 times, so well over 5 times a page. There are 3 or 4 different groupings of Feats: I am still somewhat uncertain if "Skill Feats" and "General Feats" are different or part of the same set. At the very least, I feel they could have used a thesaurus to differentiate the types of Feats, it makes the equivocation on level look tame.

If anybody is hung up on Feats, it really seems to be the design team.

Agreed. If I wanted to clean up the presentation a bit, I'd probably do the following:

1) Rename "class feats" to "class abilities". Drop a lot of the level gating, all class abilities should open at either 1, 8, 14, and 20. Make a lot of the lower level ones scale with level. If necessary, give the fixed class abilities a different name, like class features.

2) Roll general feats into skill feats, and combine their progression. Gate the feats the way master and legendary proficiency are gated (I think at 7 and 15?). Trained feats at 1, Master feats at 7, and Legendary feats at 15.

3) Roll all the multiclass feats and prestige feats into a bundle called alternative class features.

 

[Morrus]

Guys. Play the playtest adventures and then fill out the playtest surveys. Your thoughts on how the playtest document should be laid out are utterly irrelevant.

 

[Parmandur]

Skill feats are a subset of General feats. You can take them whenever you gain a General Feat or in specific a Skill Feat. But you can only take a General non-Skill Feat when you gain a General Feat. In short Feats are heavily siloed this edition.

This is a very logically and clearly laid example of what I'm talking about. There could have been a few more uses of the word Feat in that paragraph, though.

 

[Parmandur]

Guys. Play the playtest adventures and then fill out the playtest surveys. Your thoughts on how the playtest document should be laid out are utterly irrelevant.

Pointless, maybe, but it's fun to theorycraft and talk about it.

 

[RevTurkey]

Guys. Play the playtest adventures and then fill out the playtest surveys. Your thoughts on how the playtest document should be laid out are utterly irrelevant.

If the Playtest rules are representative of a possible final product then maybe the Playtest layout is also representative of how the final book might be presented...utterly irrelevant....seems a bit harsh to me. Not trying to get myself in an argument with the man in charge of the site etc...but surely the layout of the Playtest is at least a bit relevant? I admit that I haven’t read all the posts on here though so maybe I am taking your comment out of context

 

[Morrus]

If the Playtest rules are representative of a possible final product then maybe the Playtest layout is also representative of how the final book might be presented...utterly irrelevant....seems a bit harsh to me. Not trying to get myself in an argument with the man in charge of the site etc...but surely the layout of the Playtest is at least a bit relevant? I admit that I haven’t read all the posts on here though so maybe I am taking your comment out of context

A playtest document is just a playtest document. It’s purpose is to be used as a tool in conjunction with playtest adventures to answer specific playtest survey questions. It’s layout is irrelevant. It’s a playtest document.

As for “a bit harsh” — I don’t think the playtest document has feelings. I’m sure it’s OK with comments about it’s layout’s relevance to the final book. I don’t think it’s feeling will be hurt.

 

[RevTurkey]

I never saw the Pathfinder 1st Edition Playtest but was the layout at all similar to what they eventually went with?

The layout of a rulebook is surely an important factor in helping players understand and learn a game. Maybe the people over at Paizo are indeed interested in every aspect of public opinion about their new book, including how they constructed the layout? Obviously you don’t think they are and that is fair enough...but I thought you wanted to encourage discussion, not shut it down on your forums?

Anyway, I don’t know why I am getting entangled in this issue...I don’t even have an opinion on the layout

The Playtest Rulebook doesn’t float my boat and I mentioned why...so that if anybody from Paizo is interested they can see.

I’ve done my bit for them by taking the time to look and post about it...for those who are into what they’ve done, great...enjoy it.