Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ParanoydStyle" data-source="post: 7631163" data-attributes="member: 6984451">I absolutely and pointedly ignored D&D 5E until last year when I realized it was the only thing anyone in my area was playing. So I actually checked it out and turns out, it's pretty darn good! I mean, I also absolutely and pointedly ignored Pathfinder 1E for the same reason right up until 2017--D&D 3.5 was scratching that itch for me perfectly--then in 2017 I started seriously thinking about developing content for PF for the first time since it was/is so popular, and then later in 2017 my circumstances changed, the only game that any of my friends were running was Pathfinder, so I finally took a good look at Pathfinder 1E and hey, what do you know, this is pretty good? I didn't necessarily assume that D&D 5E was bad, but I was sufficiently "afraid" that was the case to stay away from it for about half a decade. I stayed away from Pathfinder 1E for almost a decade. Again, I didn't necessarily assume it was bad, it just wasn't necessary when I had D&D 3.5 and people to play D&D 3.5 with.   I WAS aware that the opinions I'm soliciting are those formed from the playtest. Having participated in the playtesting of a (smaller) AAA tabletop game (Shadowrun 5E) it's my experience that the final manuscript won't differ DRAMATICALLY from the playtest document. Example: I was one of like 60 people that told Jason Hardy like 60 times that dwarves were missing their thermographic vision which they had always had as a racial ability since the first edition of the game. Shadowrun 5E went to print with dwarves that did not have thermographic vision.I could be wrong of course. It could be wildly different from the playtest doc in this case. I do know that a) I saw the "playtest document" laid out, bound and for sale in a Barnes & Noble--which I don't like, at all, like, particularly if you are a large company, you can charge for something you've perfected to the best of your ability but it's hella wrong to charge people to help you perfect something-- and b) flipping through it casually, I saw much I did not like and little to nothing I liked, but that was last year and I do forget the specifics. I do know that I was being exposed to PF1E and D&D 5th for the first time and falling in love with both of them around that point and I felt the opposite way about the PF2E playtest document.Also, forgive me for thinking that the game was already out. For one, to Morrus' point, I have heard a great deal of opining on its quality for a game that's not actually out. In my own defense, to me it seemed to follow that if they had the playtest document laid out, printed, bound, and for sale on store shelves LAST YEAR, they would have the actual game out by now.I did NOT know that everyone who had bought the playtest document from Barnes & Noble was under NDA. How's that even work?Holy <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ing smiley face smiley face smiley face smiley face. I didn't know that. That is utterly REPUGNANT. This should literally be against the law. </blockquote>

Verification