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

 

[Zardnaar]

He only likes one edition of D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

He only likes one edition of D&D.

OD&D (1974) is the one true edition of D&D.

 

[Arakasius]

You said “PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects.” and you’re wrong despite how much you’re trying to walk it back now that someone called out your misinformation. Spending your entire turn concentrating on buffs that are weaker than their 5e counterparts is probably not a good idea. Also by my rough count today there is about 50-60 spells requiring concentration, so it is pretty common.

 

[TwoSix]

You said “PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects.” and you’re wrong despite how much you’re trying to walk it back now that someone called out your misinformation. Spending your entire turn concentrating on buffs that are weaker than their 5e counterparts is probably not a good idea. Also by my rough count today there is about 50-60 spells requiring concentration, so it is pretty common.

You seem fun.

 

[Arakasius]

Yeah people who call out bs are a pain. Maybe we could spend the next six months about how to make the final game better and provide actual feedback for the playtest or we can just rehash edition wars that everyone is sick of. There is plenty of actual things we can discuss that I think would be useful and are actual points of concern. Such as:

1. Is there a way to prevent multiclassing being a trap that is more flexible than playtest rules?
2. Do casters need more spell slots?
3. What is the balance between class gated feats and what should be general? (Aka how to stop casters stealing all the martials toys)
4. Is there perhaps some clarification needed on hand moving. (In regards to paladins using lay on hands while using a 2h weapon)
5. What is your tables experience with resonance. Does it do what the devs intended or is there a less fiddly way to do the same thing?

Those are things I’d like to discuss.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you need to define "feat tax" then. I define it as "feat you have to take to get some other feat, that you wouldn't take on its own merits".

I define it as it was introduced. A requirement to hit the baseline that the game requires. The expertise feats in 4e fit that bill. The game math was off and they corrected via feats, which was a mistake. Having to take feats to be where you should be without them is a feat tax. Pre-requisites are not a tax. They are a cost.

It is quite different. I didn't have to multiclass to advance a fighting style in 3.PF. I could do it faster by multiclassing into fighter because fighter granted combat feats, but I could do it entirely with general feats if I so desired.

No. It's no different. Sure, you could customize better in PF. That doesn't make these changes a tax. It just means that the rules have changed and the costs are different. I happen to agree with you. I prefer more options outside of the classes. It's one of the reasons that 3e is still my favorite edition of D&D. However, moving the costs around doesn't create a tax. You are not required to take these feats, so no tax exists.

I don't understand this argument. If a non-fighter wants Point-Blank Shot, Double Shot, and Triple Shot, they have to take Fighter Dedication. "Tax?" may be a subjective argument, but "Prerequisite?" is not.

Sure, it's a pre-requisite, but it's not a tax. Nobody has to take those feats, especially rangers who have plenty nice ranged feats of their own. Wanting them doesn't make the feats required. I just makes them worth paying for.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah people who call out bs are a pain. Maybe we could spend the next six months about how to make the final game better and provide actual feedback for the playtest or we can just rehash edition wars that everyone is sick of. There is plenty of actual things we can discuss that I think would be useful and are actual points of concern. Such as:

1. Is there a way to prevent multiclassing being a trap that is more flexible than playtest rules?
2. Do casters need more spell slots?
3. What is the balance between class gated feats and what should be general? (Aka how to stop casters stealing all the martials toys)
4. Is there perhaps some clarification needed on hand moving. (In regards to paladins using lay on hands while using a 2h weapon)
5. What is your tables experience with resonance. Does it do what the devs intended or is there a less fiddly way to do the same thing?

Those are things I’d like to discuss.

Perhaps playing the game as designed in the playtest rules will help determine the answers to these questions.

 

[Maxperson]

You too can relativize all you want. Changes nothing.

You mean like relativizing personal information the way you did? Look in a mirror, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and pot meet kettle...

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I suspect that the issue that you raise here is why (1) they are anchoring their rules to their Golarion setting, and (2) attempting to strike out a bit more boldly away from D&D 3e. These things help establish a clearer identity for their brand. But it seems like a good place to start for answers would be looking at why people are playing comparable systems. Why Pathfinder 1 and not 3.Xe D&D or 5e D&D? Why are people not playing Pathfinder 1 and opting for 3.Xe D&D or 5e D&D instead? Adventure Paths likely constitute part of the appeal, but I know many gamers here who prefer Pathfinder 1 over 5e and 3.X who don't use the Adventure Paths.

 

[CapnZapp]

You mean like relativizing personal information the way you did? Look in a mirror, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and pot meet kettle...

Look.

Don't call something free if you don't hand it out no strings attached. This is very simple.

That the morning cereal you need to eat to not starve to death before visiting Paizo's site costs money is entirely beside this issue, and bringing it up is only your way of trying to squiggle out of owning up this fact.

I believe we're done here.