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

 

[Nylanfs]

Well we got a start on it, but Lone Wolf beat us getting it into Hero Lab Online because of early access to the rules.

https://twitter.com/PCGen/status/1025896293762322433

https://twitter.com/PCGen/status/1026075273513631744

 

[Maul]

The layout for Pathfinder 2E playtest is horrifically similar to 4E D&D.

The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough. I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.


LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.

 

[houser2112]

The layout for Pathfinder 2E playtest is horrifically similar to 4E D&D.

The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough. I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.


LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.

I haven't read it cover to cover yet, I've only jumped around looking at stuff that was immediately of interest to me. Could you explain what you mean?

 

[TwoSix]

The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough. I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.


LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.

I think you mean a column and half running from the end of page 5 to the middle of page 6.

 

[Morrus]

I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters.

Congratulations.

The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.

LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.

As per the rules of this site, please leave rants against inclusivity out of this forum.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

The layout for Pathfinder 2E playtest is horrifically similar to 4E D&D.

To the rules, yes, the layout is remarkably similar to 4E D&D. Keywords are rampant, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Single class characters are the assumption, with multi-classing as a feat system, like 4E attempted. After re-reading it exhaustively, it's definitely an improvement on 4E's attempt, though I'm still torn about it. Sacrificing class optional class features or archetype features, to replace with secondary class features has, at least in writing, doesn't seem to provide much flexibility in a system advertised on exhaustive customization. I'm curious to see it in actual play. I would have like to see both a true multiclassing option and a feat dipping option, which has been offered in other games, but I am truly excited by risks they've taken with the new system - PF1 was blatantly D&D 3.5, revised again. PF2 is clearly a game inspired by D&D and d20, but with some innovative options that could draw me, at least occasionally, from other games. I just hope it doesn't suffer from the same combat minutiae that torpedoed 3.5, PF1, and 4E for me.

The first 30 pages of the book seems like a scolding from Paizo for not being inclusive or diverse enough. I have never told anyone they could not play in my group based on those parameters. The fact that they think they need to even bring it up means that they think they need to inject their political views into the new book.
LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF MY ESCAPISM.

Maybe consider that the inclusion of that topic, pun partially intended, is to offer said inclusion to potential players that may feel excluded, otherwise? No one has said, or even implied, that you specifically are excluding players, either. And there's no need for shouting. Some players may find that Pulp style cover art inspired games are their bag, while others feel excluded by it, due to the objectification and sexualization they frequently depict. Taking an inclusive approach, especially toward diversity in gaming, doesn't prevent the former group from still enjoying the game their way, and also invites others potentially turned off by former approaches to tone inherent in earlier editions of our games, which weren't necessarily consciously intended, but endemic in our society at the time of earlier publications. Prominent older gamers, the grognards of OD&D, and earlier, have recently been called out for various acts of unsavory -isms, even ones that have publicly espoused support for inclusion and diversity, especially in the #MeToo environment, and I think we need to try to be better as a society. Change isn't going to happen overnight, but it doesn't hurt to reexamine personal approaches and attitudes, to become better toward each other. There's a lot of butthurt over "Social Justice," but if someone is made uncomfortable by another's actions, intended or not, instead of the other party instinctively getting bent out of shape, maybe it would be beneficially to at least consider why the uncomfortable party was bothered. No one is saying that everyone need be Legendary in Perception and Diplomacy, but it wouldn't hurt for some to consider getting Trained.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

Congratulations.



As per the rules of this site, please leave rants against inclusivity out of this forum.

Sorry for missing your response before I posted mine. Morrus, your concision makes up for my verbosity. Also, it's not even remotely my job to moderate, sorry for stepping on those toes!

 

[Kaodi]

I do not object to the politics espoused in general and I agree that they describe the best way to conduct a game. I do think they could have worded it more judiciously though. The way it is written seems a little possessive - as if they merely sold you a revocable license to play the game rather than a copy of the game (This might be a playtest but I assume they are modelling the language they want to use in the real consumer product). I think it would be better if they framed it more as why making inclusive games makes for better, more enjoyable, and most importantly - more reliable experiences. Because co-operative storytelling experiences need sufficient actors and require consistency and casting a wide net and not pushing players out is how you get and keep those things. After all they do say explicitly that the game is for everyone - and everyone includes a lot of asses.

 

[Maul]

Congratulations.



As per the rules of this site, please leave rants against inclusivity out of this forum.

I wasn't against inclusivity........It was the fact that Paizo thought players weren't inclusive in the first place that they had to even bring it up.

I have no problem with inclusivity. As long as a player isn't a dick, I allow anyone to play.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

I wasn't against inclusivity........It was the fact that Paizo thought players weren't inclusive in the first place that they had to even bring it up.

I have no problem with inclusivity. As long as a player isn't a dick, I allow anyone to play.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not you are, there are a large population of gamers, though not a majority, that aren't inclusive. Members of this outspoken sub-culture are why there have been messes like Gamergate. In response to such situations, Paizo is vocalizing that they stand on the side of inclusivity, as most publishers have been doing, and it should be applauded, not railed against. Also, Morrus congratulated you on being inclusive. No one has said that you're not. He's just asking that you abide by the message board rules and not decry Paizo for supporting inclusivity. Paizo including that section in the What is a Roleplaying Game section hurts no one.