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

 

[CapnZapp]

Except that it requires resources to do so and has associated non-material costs. If Paizo thought they could produce 5e APs, even 5e conversions of older APs, and make a net profit, I have no doubt they would. Whether it is wanting to focus on PF or not grow too big or whatever, they have decided that sticking with PF (and adding Starfinder) is better for them than supporting 5e. Who am i to second guess that?

I think it is likely they believe in their hubris it is time to take market leader head on, even if it at is strongest ever.

PF2 does not seem like a rational decision made by a company fully aware where it's success came from.

(Hint: it came from piggybacking, not wrestling, the 500 pound gorilla. And it came at a time when the gorilla was preoccupied with eating poisoned bananas and producing a less than popular edition)

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course it is not free, you still have to pay for the electricity to run your computer and your internet connection.

It just uses the "free" tag so that you can tell that you do not have to pay money for it as opposed to the other meanings of free.

Sure, relativize all you want.

 

[CapnZapp]

Your assessment would have been far more credible and your questions far more "relevant" if you did not feel obligated to insert your raging bias in the bold.

I didn't insert it in bold.

 

[Aldarc]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], it seems that you are projecting both hubris on Paizo and a competition between Paizo and WotC that exists only in your head, and it's severely clouding any rational judgment on your part of Pathfinder 2 here.

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], it seems that you are projecting both hubris on Paizo and a competition between Paizo and WotC that exists only in your head, and it's severely clouding any rational judgment on your part of Pathfinder 2 here.

I am assuming Paizo is gunning for Pathfinder levels of success.

However - you could be right and I could be wrong. I guess Paizo could be content with a small slice of the pie.

 

[Maxperson]

It might seem that way, but only if you have been brainwashed by Facebook and their ilk.

I urge you to think again.

1. I've already shown you how to get around that. 2. Paizo is not Facebook or even remotely close to being Facebook or its ilk. It doesn't have the numbers, variety of people, or platform style to be useful to advertisers in the same way that Facebook and its ilk are. 3. It clearly doesn't really bother you, or you wouldn't be here. You've given that information out already.

Hopefully now you too will reserve "free" for its intended meaning "gratis" instead of the marketing siren call of "it's free just sign here".

And I've already shown you how your uselessly broad definition of "free" means that "gratis" doesn't exist. Literally everything you do costs time, the most precious resource we have.

 

[Aldarc]

I am assuming Paizo is gunning for Pathfinder levels of success.

However - you could be right and I could be wrong. I guess Paizo could be content with a small slice of the pie.

When Paizo created Pathfinder, it was not intended to compete "head-to-head" with 4e D&D. It was intended as a stopgap measure for their survival as a company. If people have now left Pathfinder 1 due to 5e - for whatever their myriad of reasons - then Pathfinder 2 is likely also meant partially as a stopgap for their survival and as a means to evolve their game into a new future. I see them looking to retain the core of the customers they have rather than those they lost. 5e is good, but it is not perfect. I know of a number of groups here in Austria who actively prefer Pathfinder over 5e. They enjoy creating builds, more player decision points, rules mastery, the zero to EPIC! feel,etc. that 5e does not satisfactorily "solve" for them. I don't know if Pathfinder 2 will retain that core audience, but I don't think that it is fair to attribute any hubris to Paizo for creating Pathfinder 2 as WotC made 5e.

5e captured lightning in a bottle, much as WoW did with the MMORPG market. But that does not mean that every successful MMO should be WoW-like just to make a niche for itself. In fact, many games that sought to take WoW on "head-to-head" or referred to as "WoW-killers" often turned out to be duds. The MMO games that persist are often those that sought to establish their own identity. And I think that Paizo likely desires to establish their own brand identity away from D&D such that Pathfinder is not just a "D&D 3.75" brand that perpetually competes with D&D 4E, D&D 5E, or D&D 6E. But obviously their own legacy is intricately tied to D&D, so there is a difficult tight rope they are walking between their desire to preserve the spirit of Pathfinder's D&D roots while also striking into new territory. If it results in Paizo's equivalent of 4e? I'm perfectly okay with that, especially if it generates new revolutionary ideas in the market and possibly leads to Paizo's own equivalent of 5e. But I doubt that Paizo is blinded by hubris. I think that they have genuine love for Pathfinder and the d20 system.

I have my own issues with Pathfinder 2. I don't know if I will play it. My gaming group has enough games as it is that we are looking to play. But I also don't know if I will play 5e for reasons other than convenience of what my group may want. There are a lot of us in my gaming group who are dissatisfied with 5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

I like some parts of the playtest, the boosts for example, did not like their races erm ancestry section, and the classes are a bit to fiddly and are struggling to understand some of them including the fighter.

 

[houser2112]

Yes. Zero need. Rangers have some pretty nice ranged feats, including favored aim which negates that -2 penalty. That's also combined with Hunt Target which reduces the penalty for your extra attacks, also compensating for that -2 penalty. And that's if you want to use a longbow instead of something else and just enjoy the bonuses.

Those are good options, but I don't want my only combat options to be so heavily tied to my class features.

Rangers need to be good at ranged, and they are. Fighters are the masters of weapons, so they also need to be good at ranged, and they are.

Yes, no argument here.

You want to have it all and are complaining that you have to spend some feats to get it all.

I don't mind spending feats to get what I want. I do mind spending a feat on Fighter Dedication (a feat tax because it gives me nothing that I want itself) to get what I want, and doing so locks out any other archetype/multiclass I want to take until I take 2 fighter feats.

Each class needs to have unique ranged feats

This is the fundamental issue I have with the situation. I don't like that they've segregated fighting style by class. They've changed from a system such that each (non-fighter) class had incentive to go in a certain direction (either in the form of free feats or weapon proficiencies), but could break out by spending feats, to a system where each of those classes is heavily disincentivized from breaking out of the silos that are established, by using the strict multiclassing rules.

Pathfinder 2 has set it up so that each one has unique feats with ranged weapons.

As I said above, this is good, but I want generic options too.

There is no feat tax. If you want to have it all, pay the COST to get it all.

Fighter Dedication is a great feat, provided that you weren't already a martial character. If you are, though, it qualifies as a tax.

 

[Maxperson]

Those are good options, but I don't want my only combat options to be so heavily tied to my class features.

That's an understandable argument. Calling a feat a tax when it isn't, isn't.

I don't mind spending feats to get what I want. I do mind spending a feat on Fighter Dedication (a feat tax because it gives me nothing that I want itself) to get what I want, and doing so locks out any other archetype/multiclass I want to take until I take 2 fighter feats.

Again, this is no different than multiclassing in other games/editions to get what you want. You ended up with class features you didn't need or want in order to get the ones that you did. Having to get something you don't want when you pay a cost to get something you do want is not a tax.

This is the fundamental issue I have with the situation. I don't like that they've segregated fighting style by class. They've changed from a system such that each (non-fighter) class had incentive to go in a certain direction (either in the form of free feats or weapon proficiencies), but could break out by spending feats, to a system where each of those classes is heavily disincentivized from breaking out of the silos that are established, by using the strict multiclassing rules.

Which is again an understandable position, but a different argument than feat taxes.

Fighter Dedication is a great feat, provided that you weren't already a martial character. If you are, though, it qualifies as a tax.

It can't qualify as a tax, because it's not required that you take it.