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

 

[mellored]

Well, people can do what they want. But yeah, that’s useless playtest feedback. Play the games as written and answer the periodic playtest questions.

"What I changed to make your game fun for my group" seems like perfect feedback to me.

 

[Arakasius]

People seem to be too hung up on the word feat and history of certain feats going back to 1e. Even though in PF1 most martial classes had baked in class features that provided far more differentiation than exists in PF2. But since power attack or point blank shot was generic in PF1 it bothers some people that it’s not specific. Rangers in PF2 are no less viable for missing Point Blank compared to fighters than they were in PF1 to fighters for missing weapon training, focus/specialization feats and having much less feats in general. I think there is room for some generic weaker combat feats to make it in to the general feat pools for gish options and straight class builds, but they should be weaker than options available to true martials. Just like if in PF1 that everyone would take weapon training if they could (or smite) but couldn’t. I’m not going to be hung up if the feat that you take a significant character building choice to take is named something that was shared in 1e.

 

[Reynard]

"What I changed to make your game fun for my group" seems like perfect feedback to me.

I imagine you have never designed a game and tried to iterate it based on playtest feedback. "What I changed to make your game fun for my group" is almost useless feedback and in fact counterproductive. "We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z" is useful feedback.

 

[mellored]

I imagine you have never designed a game and tried to iterate it based on playtest feedback. "What I changed to make your game fun for my group" is almost useless feedback and in fact counterproductive. "We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z" is useful feedback.

Giving a solution is better than just listing problems.

But if you want to be verbose...

"We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z, so we change a,b, and c, which fixed the issues and now it's fun for my group"

 

[Reynard]

Giving a solution is better than just listing problems.

It isn't, actually, because if the rule is in fact a problem then there are going to be a lot of other folks reporting issues with the rule. Most of them would provide solutions that are only good solutions for their group, not generally. Game design is a real technical field. Trust designers when they ask you for a specific kind of feedback.

But if you want to be verbose...

"We played your game and it wasn't fun for my group because x, y and z, so we change a,b, and c, which fixed the issues and now it's fun for my group"

That's not verbosity, that's specificity, but the latter half 8s still not likely to be much use to the designer in a massive playtest like this. If yours was one of a half dozen groups that got the rules for alpha tests, that sort of thing would be useful. In this case, this late in the design, chances are the design team has a bunch of alternatives and iterations in the hopper for any given system and what they are interested in is whether the methodology they chose works. They need aggregate data, not anecdotes.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure. I turn to Pathfinder when I'm in the mood for super-cluttery.

And I'm not saying you aren't.

But I think most people turned to Pathfinder because WotC stopped releasing stuff for their beloved 3rd edition.

Now that there exists a good official Dungeons & Dragons, that in addition is way less cluttery than before, I'm worried Paizo is chasing a shrinking market.

 

[CapnZapp]

1. Why would Paizo want to remake 5e?

Lol.

Talk about irony.

You do know how Pathfinder started out right? (Yes, a remade 3e)

 

[CapnZapp]

I paid, oh, zero for these rules. That's free. By claiming it isn't, you are not understanding the concept.

I won't claim something is free just because you don't pay with money.

The synonym of "free" we're looking for here is "for nothing". Having to give up personal details is not nothing.

So it isn't free. Very simple.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would say "yes." Look at the statistics of how many Pathfinder 1 and D&D 3.X games are still being played. There are so many indie games would love to have a market share like that. Is it as big as 5e D&D? No. But is there a market for "super-cluttery D&D games"? Most definitely.

Now you're using the term "market" in a way that's almost meaningless.

The relevant questions are:
- will the PF2 market be big enough for Paizo?
- could Paizo have gained market share by moving with the times and declutter its upcoming game, taking inspiration from how WotC in 5th edition finally and truly fixed a lot of issues with D&D that has plagued the game for decades?

I'm afraid I believe the answers to be "no" and "yes", respectively.

 

[Parmandur]

And I'm not saying you aren't.

But I think most people turned to Pathfinder because WotC stopped releasing stuff for their beloved 3rd edition.

Now that there exists a good official Dungeons & Dragons, that in addition is way less cluttery than before, I'm worried Paizo is chasing a shrinking market.

Beyond just the Byzantine organization, they have also changed the rules significantly enough that it then moves from "D&D" to going against the other fantasy hearbreakers on the market. This engenders the question "why PF2 instead of Runequest, DCC, Savage World's or Genysys?"