Pathfinder Version 2

[Dilvish the Deliverer]

This leaves me with less of a desire to even try and learn the rules.  I, mean, if it was the only game in town, then sure.  Bit with 5E and original PF?  Why bother?

[TheAuldGrump]

Honestly, if Paizo wants to deal with loss to 5e, what they should do is release 5e conversions of their Adventure Paths.

 

As it is, I have zero interest in PF2.

 

Heck, I stopped looking up the articles in the Paizo Blog months ago.

 

As for 5e... I think that 5e is what 4e should have been, both for rules and for the license.

 

I don't like it as much as Pathfinder, or even 3.5, but it is a progression rather than an innovation. And, yes, much, much simpler and easier for new players to get into.

 

The Auld Grump

18 hours ago, BlazingTornado said:

Well, a few hp and the ability to strike with anything with a stronger die than d6, but yeah.

 

 

Anywho the playtest rules have been officializedicized... Anybody got thoughts? I've heard little good so far.

If we are talking Basic then all weapons did a D6, so does not pertain. Use a Longsword - d6. Use a Mace - d6. Use that goblin that annoyed you so much as a club - d6.

 

The Auld Grump - and add in the faster leveling....

[Doug Sundseth]

Still waiting for my printed copies. What I've seen looks to have both good and bad, but I'm not sure the new integrated system is better than the old integrated system. 

 

The Glass Cannon Podcast's playtest runs seemed OK-ish, but that's filtered through them, and they're ... not really good at rules anyway. Plus their game was low level, which is the easiest domain to design for, so it didn't really speak to higher-level play.

 

Still sitting at "Cautiously Pessimistic". 

[BlazingTornado]

1 hour ago, TheAuldGrump said:

If we are talking Basic then all weapons did a D6, so does not pertain. Use a Longsword - d6. Use a Mace - d6. Use that goblin that annoyed you so much as a club - d6.

 

The Auld Grump - and add in the faster leveling....

Well I've got the Rules Cyclopedia so I'm more of a Mentzer guy than a Holmes guy I guess.

 

 

 

Also apparently the way everything is laid out in the PF2E playtest docs is such a disorganized mess, one of my players commented that "Paizo really don't know how to build a new system from the ground up".

[pfscape]

 

Agree with the 4e board-gamey/video-gamey comparison.

 

Spent 15 minutes hacking this image together to give you a sense of how we felt, which isn't necessarily bad as games go.

 

 

[Cranky Dog]

18 minutes ago, pfscape said:

 

Agree with the 4e board-gamey/video-gamey comparison.

 

Spent 15 minutes hacking this image together to give you a sense of how we felt, which isn't necessarily bad as games go.

 

 

It looks more interesting as a board game than an actual RPG.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Cranky Dog

[GreyLurker]

I don't mind the systems of PF2.

3 action combat round, how they handle things like initiative and combat maneuvers don't look bad.

resonance seems like an ok idea but I don't think it should apply to potions and scrolls.  More like attunment from Exalted.

Damage on magic weapons...kind of think the extra dice of damage should be more a about your level of Weapon proficiency rather than how many shinnies I have on my sword.

 

but the classes...oh god no.  That whole "Everything is a feat" character creation set up.  That is exactly what kept me away from 4E

 

At best I'll steal some of the systems and port them over to my PF1 campaign

that or go play Exalted

 

[NebulousMissy]

It sounds like my gaming group will want to do the Official Playtest^TM so now I get to learn the system. Before Saturday. Oof.

[Sylverthorne]

Guys... remember, this is a /playtest/.

The actual rules may look very different by the time they come out.

 

If you're going to yell about it, at least try playing it first... and then yell at Paizo about the stuff that is broken. >.<

[Paradoxical Mouse]

I literally squeed when I saw all of the feats. I usually make a character, then fit stats, class, etc. to them. The feats mean I can make THAT character, not just a rough approximation of them.

[GreyLurker]

1 hour ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

I literally squeed when I saw all of the feats. I usually make a character, then fit stats, class, etc. to them. The feats mean I can make THAT character, not just a rough approximation of them.

I'm finding it's the opposite.  So many things are locked to specific classes or level gated that I am having real trouble making the character I want.  Most of my ideas leave me with no choice but to take a multiclass archetype, which gets in the way of looking at other options

[BlazingTornado]

My characters are never so minutely overcomplex that I find myself pouring over every feat... I don't think I've ever even come up with a D&D character I felt I would need to multiclass with for them to feel "complete".

 

I dunno. Maybe I've seen so many people WAIT for their character at a certain level/number of feats and I'm just... already with my character at 1st level...

[TheAuldGrump]

3 hours ago, Sylverthorne said:

Guys... remember, this is a /playtest/.

The actual rules may look very different by the time they come out.

 

If you're going to yell about it, at least try playing it first... and then yell at Paizo about the stuff that is broken. >.<

Hey, at least they are running a public playtest!

 

It was a lesson that WotC learned from, and that Piazo taught, and a very, very important step.

 

But - let us be fair here - I have not said broken, I have said that what I see in no way makes me want to play.

 

And, for a game, that is a very bad sign.

 

Possible worse than broken.

 

The last time I felt that - to a much greater degree - was 4e, and actually trying 4e made me hate the game more, not less.

 

Contrary to some opinions, yes, you generally can figure out of a game interests you by reading, not just by playing.

 

The Auld Grump

[SamuraiJack]

2 hours ago, GreyLurker said:

I'm finding it's the opposite.  So many things are locked to specific classes or level gated that I am having real trouble making the character I want.  Most of my ideas leave me with no choice but to take a multiclass archetype, which gets in the way of looking at other options

 

Except multi-classing is impossible from everything I've read so far.. 

[GreyLurker]

16 minutes ago, SamuraiJack said:

 

Except multi-classing is impossible from everything I've read so far.. 

It's not impossible it's just that it works like an archetype.  You don't actualy multiclass you just burn a feat in order to steal a few abilities from another class, by using even more of your feats.

 

If anything it's how 4E did multiclassing with a few tweaks to it.