Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

[darjr]

Jason Buhlman was a GaryCon running PF2 events. I think they were the playtest rules. Last year they swore players to secrecy and collected back all materials. I wonder if they had any closed door games with the release PF2 stuff? I would have liked to have seen some of that or played it.

 

[Nilbog]

I would most certainly buy a Rise of the Runelords 5e hardback. I've always wanted to run that AP but I refuse to DM 3.5 or PF.

I would love for Paizo to convert their AP's to 5e. I'm running a Runelords campaign in 5e now, and while the conversion work isn't the hardest, it would still save me so much time if it'd been done officially

 

[Ancalagon]

I just didn't find PF2 to be fun. Even character creation wasn't as fun. I kept finding dead end options vs must have options that made different characters of the same class very similarly built. It doesn't matter if you have 10 options to choose from when 8 are bad and 2 are great. Everyone picks the same 2.

This is very true, but it's also true of 1e pathfinder . The difference between an optimized character and a meh one is massive.

 

[Ancalagon]

A question about the "not fun" playtest: did they only test the combat pillar?

 

[Staffan]

A question about the "not fun" playtest: did they only test the combat pillar?

No, the playtest also tested exploration and, I think, some amount of downtime rules.

The main issue is probably that people approached the playtest as a preview when it was explicitly designed to stress test various aspects of the system. For example, one of the adventures instructs the players to make characters that are experienced demon-fighters from the Worldwound, and then proceeds to pit them against ever-increasing waves of demons which will eventually overwhelm them - the goal of the adventure is to see how much it takes. That's certainly useful information for the designers, but it's not very fun for the players. It also didn't help that the rules were fairly rough around the edges, with skill DCs designed around a very punishing treadmill.

I think it would have been better for Paizo to look at how Wizards did their playtesting for 5e - start small, with only a few classes and/or only the first few levels and a simple scenario. Then gradually iterate on that and expand, allowing them to judge response to certain things and either iterate on them or throw them out. But instead they provided a sort-of complete set of rules, which got updated as the playtest went along, which means they're locked into certain paths. For example, one version of the Sorcerer in the D&D Next playtest gradually took on more draconic traits as they cast their spells which meant that over the course of a day they'd gradually turn into a warrior-type. This did not turn out to be a great idea, so it was scrapped. But if a similar bad idea of a PF2 class turned out to be a bad idea, they couldn't reboot it and do something else.

 

[zztong]

We just finished the last part of the playtest AP two days ago. I was surprised to learn the DM, who has been pro-PF2, has not been happy with many aspects of the rules. In particular, he commented on not liking the characters that we came up with during the playtest. Of all the characters we made for all of those adventures, he liked four of them. If we made a party from them we would have (1) a heal-bot Cleric, (2) a two-handed sword Barbarian (w/Sorcerer), (3) a shield-specialist Paladin, and (4) an armor-wearing two-handed sword wielding Wizard (w/Ranger). Nobody at the table cared for how the Ranger, Druid, and Alchemist played. The Bard was okay. Nobody mentioned the Sorcerer other than to remind us that the Barbarian was MC'd into it, but never cast a spell. The jury was out on the Rogue and Monk because they didn't get much play. The Fighter was good and (as the Wiz/Rng player) I'd switch to Wiz/Ftr next time because I never used my Ranger abilities other than wearing armor, wielding a high-damage weapon, and AOOs.

The pro-PF2 DM didn't like the multiclass system, had trouble with the skill system, and thought spells didn't consistently deliver benefits that matched their level.

Another person at the table plans to run a self-written adventure using the PF2 playtest rules. The table is basically waiting on the finished PF2 rules to try. At this point, I can't predict the long-term viability of PF2 for us. The main DM picks the system and he seems to have moved from being pro-PF2 to being on the fence. With the upcoming adventures he'll get to see life as a player and make his first character.

 

[Retreater]

No, the playtest also tested exploration and, I think, some amount of downtime rules.

The main issue is probably that people approached the playtest as a preview when it was explicitly designed to stress test various aspects of the system. For example, one of the adventures instructs the players to make characters that are experienced demon-fighters from the Worldwound, and then proceeds to pit them against ever-increasing waves of demons which will eventually overwhelm them - the goal of the adventure is to see how much it takes. That's certainly useful information for the designers, but it's not very fun for the players. It also didn't help that the rules were fairly rough around the edges, with skill DCs designed around a very punishing treadmill.

I think it would have been better for Paizo to look at how Wizards did their playtesting for 5e - start small, with only a few classes and/or only the first few levels and a simple scenario. Then gradually iterate on that and expand, allowing them to judge response to certain things and either iterate on them or throw them out. But instead they provided a sort-of complete set of rules, which got updated as the playtest went along, which means they're locked into certain paths. For example, one version of the Sorcerer in the D&D Next playtest gradually took on more draconic traits as they cast their spells which meant that over the course of a day they'd gradually turn into a warrior-type. This did not turn out to be a great idea, so it was scrapped. But if a similar bad idea of a PF2 class turned out to be a bad idea, they couldn't reboot it and do something else.

Our experience with the playtest was also very negative, primarily for this reason. They assigned us to do a "stress test" instead of having fun with it. All the encounters of "see how many mindless fights you can endure in a row without healing" type of playtests should have been handled internally. The Doomsday Dawn playtest came across as lazy and rushed. It was a bad promotion for PF2, and it certainly didn't win any fans in my region.

So it seems that PF will keep losing fans to D&D 5E (or other systems) or hang on to a few diehard PF1 enthusiasts.

In my opinion PF2 is doing exactly the opposite of what Paizo would need to do to bring me back as a fan.

 

[CapnZapp]

Paizo needs to throw the current PF2 system in the garbage. They need to understand that Paizo will only remain relevant if they stay in D&D's orbit, and stop dreaming.

An independent Pathfinder will never be nearly as large.

Then they should hire a new set of designers that create a Pathfinder version of 5th Edition that keeps the DM-side simplicity, while beefing up options and build complexity of player characters and high-level monsters.

 

[Haffrung]

For a contrary take on PF2, this long-time D&D player who bounced off PF1 has was impressed enough by the PF2 playtest rules that he's planning to buy the PF2 core book, Bestiary, and new AP, and start a campaign in the Fall.

 

[MockingBird]

Interesting, I find reading about the play test interesting for sure. I see the hardcore PF1 group swear by it, not sure if this is just blind faith or if they truly enjoy it. The groups that seem to play several different RPGs tend to be dissatisfied with it. I'm not so sure about the hard core 5th ed players, I'm not sure they even bothered with it (I'm in the latter group and the most I have done is skim over the free pdf and read players reactions). I doubt I put 5th on hold to try it any time soon. My group is very satisfied with D&D for the moment. I am very curious to see how it does once it releases. I like Paizo and the competition is good for the hobby, hopefully they do well. I just wish they would convert some APs to 5th.