Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doctor Futurity" data-source="post: 7743338" data-attributes="member: 10738">My experience with Pathfinder was that players who really enjoyed it liked having lots of features and options, such as extra spell slots, lots of metamagic feats, the talent trees and other features that give them lots and lots of fiddly bits. The new system is very appealing (to me), but almost every hardcore Pathfinder fan I know is expressing a lot of angst over the implied and outlined design decisions, which feel to them like the game is moving closer to 5E design structure and away from the more articulated design that system mastery as a design concept supports.So...I like where PF2.0 is going, and suspect it will be a game I like. But I may not have anyone locally willing to play it.(BUT! This is based on their reading playtest columns and getting annoyed at things like spell slot reduction. Forum posters who like to make comments about how that helps reduce caster-domination in the game are always forgetting that for every person who got put off by caster domination there was another player who never noticed this as a problem, and a third guy who noticed it and thought it was a feature, not a bug.)(Second BUT! I also find it interesting that many of these same local PF1.0 fans have lots of reservations about Starfinder's design changes, too. Some likening them to 4E design choices, which is practically accusing Starfinder of blasphemy around my neck of the woods. Sigh. These are the same players who are building up huge levels of antipathy toward even the idea of Pathfinder 2.0 being a thing. So a lot of this is probably cherry picking specific design elements....like limiting slots for spells...as proof of their grander worry.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doctor Futurity, post: 7743338, member: 10738"] My experience with Pathfinder was that players who really enjoyed it liked having lots of features and options, such as extra spell slots, lots of metamagic feats, the talent trees and other features that give them lots and lots of fiddly bits. The new system is very appealing (to me), but almost every hardcore Pathfinder fan I know is expressing a lot of angst over the implied and outlined design decisions, which feel to them like the game is moving closer to 5E design structure and away from the more articulated design that system mastery as a design concept supports. So...I like where PF2.0 is going, and suspect it will be a game I like. But I may not have anyone locally willing to play it. (BUT! This is based on their reading playtest columns and getting annoyed at things like spell slot reduction. Forum posters who like to make comments about how that helps reduce caster-domination in the game are always forgetting that for every person who got put off by caster domination there was another player who never noticed this as a problem, and a third guy who noticed it and thought it was a feature, not a bug.) (Second BUT! I also find it interesting that many of these same local PF1.0 fans have lots of reservations about Starfinder's design changes, too. Some likening them to 4E design choices, which is practically accusing Starfinder of blasphemy around my neck of the woods. Sigh. These are the same players who are building up huge levels of antipathy toward even the idea of Pathfinder 2.0 being a thing. So a lot of this is probably cherry picking specific design elements....like limiting slots for spells...as proof of their grander worry.) [/QUOTE]

Verification