Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder players, what do you like about the playtest rules?

[Walking Dad]

Hi, the question is above.

Essentially, which problems you might have with your favored systems are possibly solved in the playtest? Is anything in there you would like to adopt as a house rule for your Pathfinder game? Are you even impressed enough to change to this system or adopt it to some of your games?

Or did the playtest just plainly failed to impress you (positively)?

Please don't list what you dislike. There are enough other threads for this, thanks!

 

[Stormonu]

I'd love to use Advantage/Disadvantage in my game - most especially how it works on Aid Another actions; probably something I'll steal for my games if players will go along with it.

The open skill list is intriguing; in many ways I prefer it to the rigid skill list of 3E/Pathfinder, but I don't think it will work in the framework of Pathfinder.

Overall, the playtest has not, so far, grabbed my interest enough to make me adopt it - it's an interesting approach, but certainly incomplete and not a real stand-out at this time. It's just another fantasy heartbreaker at this point in time.

 

[Li Shenron]

Essentially, which problems you might have with your favored systems are possibly solved in the playtest? Is anything in there you would like to adopt as a house rule for your Pathfinder game? Are you even impressed enough to change to this system or adopt it to some of your games?

I am a 3ed player and DM, although I didn't migrate to PF (and I prefer 3.0 over 3.5).

My main (possibly only) problem with 3ed is that it takes a lot of effort to prepare and run. I've been without gaming for a few years, and already I've forgotten a lot, and the idea of sitting down and prepare a whole adventure with my current "rules-fitness" level makes my head spin...

The playtest rules feel to me like a simplified version of 3ed, plus the obligatory new-edition characters power boost (I would rather not have it... but then some of those boost are actually among the most intriguing ideas of the playtest package), hence it makes me feel that 5e could be just what I need: similar to my favourite edition but much simpler to play and much easier to house rules as well, if you want to complicate some specific areas of the game.

I'm not sure, but right now I don't think I can apply 5e as "patches" to 3e. If my problem with 3e is that nowadays I don't feel like spending too much time working towards mastering the core rules, then having to work for mixing 3e+5e is somewhat a similar problem.

 

[IronWolf]

My comments are based on a read through, not a play test yet (though I really hope we can pull one together).

The Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic intrigues me. Need to see it in play. My initial reaction was that it was very cool. But as the discussion threads mention how it will work with a large number of critters I do begin to wonder. Game play will help me make a better decision on this.

I think I could get to like a variation of the long rest mechanic. I don't like going back up to full hp in a single night's rest. But perhaps something like rolling your hit dice in d8's to gain back a chunk hp might work.

Our group uses a house rule for Heal checks in PF that let us gain HP back a little faster based on the amount we roll on the Heal check. The long rest mechanic adapted a bit could replace this.

I need to see the more powerful at-will spells in play to make a better informed comment. My gut reaction is that they are on the powerful side, but actual play needs done before I make my mind up.

Overall, there are some cool things in there. At this point I am not seeing enough to make me switch from Pathfinder to this new iteration. It is early in the playtest though, so things may end up compromising to a more suitable system for me.

I do think if WotC had released this as 4th edition D&D they would have seen much less abandonment of the D&D brand for other systems (whether it be Pathfinder or retroclones).

 

[Kinak]

I've run one Pathfinder campaign and am started up on another. My playtest group included another Pathfinder GM and a Pathfinder player.

At this point the game flows much simpler with much less prep. That might just be first level, but if they can keep that up, I might just switch for that.

This shows through double for the monsters. Pathfinder is still hobbled by 3e's monster designs, but you just can't condense Pathfinder stats the way they did there.

Both the other GM in our playtest and I are independently considering bringing advantage/disadvantage into Pathfinder. It cuts down on math beautifully, creates a larger reward for improvisation, and makes the rogue totally awesome.

On a rogue note, skill mastery might end up replacing the rogue advanced talent of the same name. In general the "nevermind, I'm taking 10" was a big hit.

I really like how the cleric spells worked. Semi-spontaneous casting (or, honestly, full-on spontaneous casting) seem like a far better fit for a divine class.

The character creation seemed clunky. Which sounds weird, I know, with it not being included, but there are too many decisions made at first level. I'd be tempted to start at level 0 (with a race and background), then getting a class and theme as you level up.

Checks also had their ups and downs. The more freeform skills are mostly positive, but it feels like the attributes need bigger bonuses to differentiate characters when you have a random factor as large as a d20.

So, yeah, looks very good in all. As long as they keep the complexity down, I'm pretty excited. Otherwise, I'll break it down for parts.

Cheers!
Kinak