Pathfinder 2E The playtest is here!!

[houser2112]

Paizo does seem to be getting crucified by some on the Paizo forums as if this playtest IS 2nd Edition Pathfinder, final product, cradle and all; however, given the level of detractions, I do feel like there are some major changes in store.

As well they should, if people are sincere in what they don't like. This playtest is Paizo telling us what the current state of PF2 is. Presumably, if no one raised any issues, the playtest will become PF2. So some crucifiction is necessary and justified if people don't like the playtest, or else those major changes are not likely to happen.

 

[Zardnaar]

I will eagerly download the pdfs, but I will have to be content living vicariously through you guys, since there's little chance I'll get to play it; my group just isn't all that enthused to leave 5E behind.

ETA: Just caught myself up on the multiclassing thread on the Paizo boards. My enthusiasm just took a nosedive. You can no longer be a Fighter x/Wizard y; You will be a Fighter x with some wizard tacked on, or a Wizard y with some fighter tacked on. Essentially, multiclassing is an archetype and dipping is dead.

The wizard feat is really good though. A fighter with that feat is almost a 2E AD&D wizard again due to the way it scales. Its a better deal than 5E Eldritch knight you and the arcane initiate feat.

Took me a while to figure out how to get 3 attacks with a fighter. YOu have to wait to level 14 I think and can't move, something a level 5 fighter can do in 5E (or a level 2 one action surging).

The boost system is also interesting at character creation and level 5,10,15. Not a fan of he ancester system though most of the racial feats are meh. A flaw is a simple -2 to whatever.

Racial hit points at level 1 are also interesting, seems like HD are gone and you get max hp when you level up. Some interesting concepts but the class feats are a mess and the fighter is 9 pages long lol and still feels crippled.

 

[Reynard]

I feel bad for the poor folks at Paizo that are going to have to wade through all the playtest comments that are obviously a result of people not reading the new rules and being confused why the old rules don't work.

 

[mellored]

I feel bad for the poor folks at Paizo that are going to have to wade through all the playtest comments that are obviously a result of people not reading the new rules and being confused why the old rules don't work.

Explaining the rules well is part of their job.

 

[mellored]

Took me a while to figure out how to get 3 attacks with a fighter. YOu have to wait to level 14 I think and can't move, something a level 5 fighter can do in 5E (or a level 2 one action surging).

you have 3 generic actions, so anyone can attack 3 times (and not move) at level 1. Though you take a 0/-5/-10 penalty. So you will probably attack twice and move.

Most of the scaling seems to be with the damage dice. So a high level fighter will do 6d10+str damage per hit. Though there are feats to help give an "extra" action, or avoid some of the multi-attack penalty.

 

[Arakasius]

Explaining the rules well is part of their job.

Sure that is but when the objection to the rule is “Why doesn’t this work like it does in PF1 (see power attack or other changes) than that’s really not their problem. If you want to play PF1 with some simplifications it already exists in Pathfinder Unchained. They’re still going to have to wade through real criticism with useful feedback vs people who just want PF1 again. They can’t really do that. PF1 is pretty much dead at this point. (Starfinder outsells it easily)

 

[RevTurkey]

Hi all, I’m going to jump in to point out my initial thoughts after looking at the Playtest Rulebook just so I did post some input somewhere...

I think clearing up the action economy system and attacks systems etc is a good move.

I think the +1 per level seems like a real rollercoaster ride to superhero status and weird effects that don’t have basis in any sort of pseudo realistic simulation.

I think Goblin as a race is not for me. Half-Orc was never a favourite of mine either. I like my races more distinct from the types of creature the game presents as antagonists. Also...Goblin’s with good Charisma? Why? Because they are little? Weird.

Alchemist as a class is not for me really either.

I never liked how other classes (Cleric I am looking at you) got to wield Magic-User spells like Fireball through Domains..this hasn’t changed but I wish it had.

At first glance..some of the spells seems pretty weak compared to the editions of old. I have the same problem with PF1.

So many feats...Like 20 or so feats to keep track of over a characters career...too much for me, I never liked feats in the first place...I find they tell players what they cannot do (because they don’t have a feat) rather than inspire creativity.

Anyway...I could go on...but not much point...Paizo haven’t shown me a game that I want to play. If they had streamlined and created a less cumbersome version of D&D and backed that up with their adventures I’d be more interested.

I’ll keep an eye on what they eventually bring out and I wish them well but they haven’t captured my imagination sadly.

 

[Reynard]

Explaining the rules well is part of their job.

Reading the rules and attempting to implement them in good faith is part of the playtesters job. Its the intersection of those things that improves the playtest rules to finished status. It is already clear some folks are just going to complain that things are "broken" or "don't work" without making that good faith effort. They are probably the same people that will claim paizo doesn't listen to feedback when the company doesn't turn PF2 into PF1.

 

[Jer]

I don't see streaming as a breakout field for PF2, but it'd be interesting if that takes off. The one PF Critical Role episode, the Goblin One-Shot, was painfully involved in crunch minutiae.

Why would you want to play Pathfinder if you didn't want crunch minutiae? In my mind that's what the PF brand is - it's the version of the game that is for players who like massive amounts of crunchy options in their games. The folks for whom 5e is too streamlined and doesn't provide enough options.

Streaming would be difficult with that kind of brand, I think. You'd need to find listeners who are interested as much in the crunchy rules tabletalk as the narrative. I don't know, but I suspect that's a much smaller audience than the audience for streaming overall. (Although I will admit that I always enjoyed the "leveling up" episodes of The Adventure Zone when they were in their 5th edition campaign and hearing them make choices and adjust their character sheets. I'm probably the weird one there tho.).

(I also think looking over the playtest document that they might be misunderstanding their audience a bit - the playtest rules are way too "cleanly" laid out and that, combined with the reliance on keywords and tags, makes the book look like the 4e Players Handbook in ways that I suspect irritate their core audience who are still with them even after 5e emerged. My scan through the system doesn't make me think it has much in common with 4e at all mechanics wise, but the layout and presentation of the rules kind of does. For a brand that developed a large audience based on being "not 4th edition" when it came out of the gate, that's a risky move).

 

[Parmandur]

Why would you want to play Pathfinder if you didn't want crunch minutiae? In my mind that's what the PF brand is - it's the version of the game that is for players who like massive amounts of crunchy options in their games. The folks for whom 5e is too streamlined and doesn't provide enough options.

Streaming would be difficult with that kind of brand, I think. You'd need to find listeners who are interested as much in the crunchy rules tabletalk as the narrative. I don't know, but I suspect that's a much smaller audience than the audience for streaming overall. (Although I will admit that I always enjoyed the "leveling up" episodes of The Adventure Zone when they were in their 5th edition campaign and hearing them make choices and adjust their character sheets. I'm probably the weird one there tho.).

(I also think looking over the playtest document that they might be misunderstanding their audience a bit - the playtest rules are way too "cleanly" laid out and that, combined with the reliance on keywords and tags, makes the book look like the 4e Players Handbook in ways that I suspect irritate their core audience who are still with them even after 5e emerged. My scan through the system doesn't make me think it has much in common with 4e at all mechanics wise, but the layout and presentation of the rules kind of does. For a brand that developed a large audience based on being "not 4th edition" when it came out of the gate, that's a risky move).

I am basically in full agreement with everything you say here. But as to the question if Critical Role, specifically, switching to PF2, the actors involved are creative and smart people who have been playing 5E regularly for years: and they frequently get confused by the complexity if their own characters. This is hardly any isolated phenomenon, as most people I know find 5E option heavy and complex. They also tend to glaze over when I start telling old man stories about how 3E worked.

The vibe in this playtest is very, very 4E: walls of Feats, instead of powers. Not very fun reading, which was disappointing.