Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.

[SimonMoon6]

They need to add "be nice to girls" in the Core Rulebook to make all the mean people follow it as RAW

Just girls, right? Not women? I think I can live with that.

(That's a joke.)

[Scowling Dragon]

But using it to reinforce my point about why they aren't the best design goals.

Right those are bad design goals, you said it, not me but that appears to be the current design philosophy at Paizo.

Nope. It helps. It helps a lot.

So you speak for every LGBT person ever? Or I guess "For the ones that count".

[Morty]

So you speak for every LGBT person ever? Or I guess "For the ones that count".

So let me get this straight. You disregard any arguments for representation from people who are concerned with it, because they can't speak for all LGBT people or any other minority... but for some reason, your opinion about why representation doesn't matter speaks for more than just yourself.

[Florian]

2. By doing what exactly? "Make all levels more fun/deeper", "Create comprehensive settings rules that you can use to alter the tone and feel of the game", "Make different levels feel like different kinds of play, for example as in BECMI"

Ok, let´s see:

The first part would be: Can we still support the three styles of play we already offer, so PFS module, regular module, adventure path?

So, looking at adventure paths, they already included a lot of stuff that is way beyond the early D&D-like gaming style of D&D, from managing kingdoms, espionage, running a guerrilla army/rebellion, going into romances and political intrigues, and so on.

The stuff you find in the Ultimate books really broadened the kinds of "story" that can be supported.

Looking at the PF2 playtest module, you already find "wilderness exploration" and "social exploration" covered, which got a way better treatment and rules integration (skill feats) than PF1/3.5E.

[Storyteller_Arc]

So.... they're carrying the torch from PF1, is what you're saying?

http://wesschneider.tumblr.com/post/...pathfinder-rpg

PF did make an effort to be a lot more open and inclusive about LGBTQ in their writing from early on.

Huh. Neat. Kudos to them!

Guess that making it right in the core book will help through.

Right those are bad design goals, you said it, not me but that appears to be the current design philosophy at Paizo.

Okay, firstly, I said their bad design goals due to not breaking down the 'Why' of the goal. Not that the design philosophy itself, was bad.

Secondly, citation needed.

[Scowling Dragon]

But for some reason, your opinion about why representation doesn't matter speaks for more than just yourself.

Because I don't just go off opinion. I go off of argument as well.

I don't just say "4=4 because I said so"
I say "Well under our current understanding of reality 1 is a stable symbol measurement of existence denotating a singular. Our symbol for four such singulars is 4. 1+1+1+1=4"

My argument was that fundamentally its impossible to satisfy everybody at once, and by setting up the expectation that everybody should expect to be satisfied (Or demand to be satisfied) is setting up for disaster.

My very argument was that you could not speak for everybody. I was countered with "Yes you can".

And now your saying that the argument that you can't speak for everybody is just my opinion. Which I suppose is true. And 4=4 is also at best just a opinion in our unobjective cognitive process.

But I never really expect to change anybody's opinions on the matter. Its something that's repeated so often its near downright instinctual. You don't overcome instinct with a internet post.

I only really go here to get the comic anyway and I keep getting suckered into these arguments. Because such politics leave no space for ambivalence I suppose.

[Kish]

Because I don't just go off opinion. I go off of argument as well.

I don't just say "4=4 because I said so"
I say "Well under our current understanding of reality 1 is a stable symbol measurement of existence denotating a singular. Our symbol for four such singulars is 4. 1+1+1+1=4"

My argument was that fundamentally its impossible to satisfy everybody at once, and by setting up the expectation that everybody should expect to be satisfied (Or demand to be satisfied) is setting up for disaster.

My very argument was that you could not speak for everybody. I was countered with "Yes you can".

And now your saying that the argument that you can't speak for everybody is just my opinion. Which I suppose is true. And 4=4 is also at best just a opinion in our unobjective cognitive process.

But I never really expect to change anybody's opinions on the matter. Its something that's repeated so often its near downright instinctual. You don't overcome instinct with a internet post.

I only really go here to get the comic anyway and I keep getting suckered into these arguments. Because such politics leave no space for ambivalence I suppose.

That's a lovely description of events, which regrettably lacks any relation to reality.

In reality, you responded to

I think the playtest document actually have a mention of same-sex relationships and how possible they are in Golarian.

Its small, but it goes a long way.

with

It never does.

No effort to support it at all. And then you started going on about not being able to represent everyone...because somehow, a specific effort to represent LGBT people better than previously equals an obviously futile bid at representing everyone.

So you can claim that's equivalent to saying that 1+1+1+1=4. but in reality it's much more like saying that 1+1 is 17, and responding to correction by yelling that only an idiot would not recognize that the other 15 digits are implied...somehow.

[CasualViking]

So, about that point 3: Innovation.

Clearly, someone at Paizo has heard about "tense rolls". But they also clearly haven't heard about concepts like "Roll or say yes", "negotiating stakes", "comedy of errors" or any of the myriad of concepts around the core idea of "resolve a task with dice rolls". Judging from the unbelievable ****show that is Inspire Courage or the Assurance feat - to take two examples out of many - they have learned nothing of game design over the last two decades.

I have seen worse from amateurs, but I honestly expect a greater level of know-what-I'm-doing than this. From amateurs. From professionals...that is some Mike Mearls level bull****.

[Minion #6]

Judging from the unbelievable ****show that is Inspire Courage or the Assurance feat - to take two examples out of many - they have learned nothing of game design over the last two decades.

Assurance in particular stands out. Requiring a feat to take 10+modifiers would be frustrating... requiring a feat to literally take 10 and nothing else is nonsense. Characters that are experts in a field are going to fail often in that field because of silly decisions like that.

[Storyteller_Arc]

Ya know, if its only one or two specific examples that are a problem... that it means that in general, Paizo is doing a good job, and its just making a mistake here and there?

[Minion #6]

Ya know, if its only one or two specific examples that are a problem... that it means that in general, Paizo is doing a good job, and its just making a mistake here and there?

Nobody who dislikes the playtest overall thinks it's just one or two specific things that are a problem. You're tilting at a windmill there. And before you try and quote the user I was replying to, he said "out of many". Not just "two examples", but "two examples out of many". Trying to cherrypick that to mean that there's only two examples total is dishonest.

[Storyteller_Arc]

Eh... you say that, but quite frankly the general impression I get from people on this thread is that it's there either bitching about stuff which Paizo has changed/done that apparently hasn't been 'good enough' in how they've actually changed things. Or its people bitching about very specific examples without taking the overall picture into account.

I mean yeah, I admit that I missed the entire 'two examples out of many' bits, but that doesn't really change my statement or the impression I get from this thread.

Like, seriously. Paizo notes that Signature Skills is a mistake, so they remove them. They note that the Skill challenges are too small between untrained and trained, so they change that, they note that they've made a mistake with Resonance, so their working on a change to it. People keep asking for their Design goals, so they post them...

Yet most people here still bitch about those issues, as if Paizo hadn't changed them at all!

[Minion #6]

People have explained to you repeatedly at length why these things are not good enough, and you have just complained that they don't think the way you do. You have constantly told people what they're thinking, what they're asking for, what they like, what they don't like. You do realise that other people have other perspectives than you, right? For all your yammering about subjectivity, you consistently refuse to see that your opinion itself is subjective.

To get back to the actual topic , has anyone completed the rules survey? It's quite comprehensive, and worth doing. There were some puzzling options in there, including one that I wish went beyond "not at all" in negative options. There's a proposal in there to remove +level and be a 5e-style bound accuracy system. Terrible, terrible idea if you ask me, but I'd put the actual probability of that happening at <1%. Superflat competencies like that make you feel the opposite of heroic.

[CasualViking]

Ya know, if its only one or two specific examples that are a problem... that it means that in general, Paizo is doing a good job, and its just making a mistake here and there?

You just went from insultingly dismissive to straight out disingenuous. Goodbye.

[Cosi]

Yet most people here still bitch about those issues, as if Paizo hadn't changed them at all!

Just because you change something, or respond to something, doesn't mean you've fixed that thing. The fact that something worked one way and now works a different way is not evidence that thing is now fixed. The vast majority of ways there are for things to work are bad. It is entirely possible to switch from one thing that is bad to another, or to respond to something in an unsatisfying way.

[Rhedyn]

So, looking at adventure paths, they already included a lot of stuff that is way beyond the early D&D-like gaming style of D&D, from managing kingdoms, espionage, running a guerrilla army/rebellion, going into romances and political intrigues, and so on.

You should read the Rules Cyclopedia before making all those claims.

[Storyteller_Arc]

Just because you change something, or respond to something, doesn't mean you've fixed that thing. The fact that something worked one way and now works a different way is not evidence that thing is now fixed. The vast majority of ways there are for things to work are bad. It is entirely possible to switch from one thing that is bad to another or to respond to something in an unsatisfying way.

I mean... they pretty much did fix most of the things they've addressed so far... they haven't ever switched from one bad thing to another bad thing, nor have they responded to pretty much anything in an unsatisfying manner from what I've seen on their actual forums...

People here just really seem to love bitching about the playtest, without actually acknowledging its good sides and what Paizo is doing right.

[Gnaeus]

I mean... they pretty much did fix most of the things they've addressed so far... they haven't ever switched from one bad thing to another bad thing, nor have they responded to pretty much anything in an unsatisfying manner from what I've seen on their actual forums...

People here just really seem to love bitching about the playtest, without actually acknowledging its good sides and what Paizo is doing right.

Ok. What is Paizo doing right?

PF2 has fixed the following problems.

I’m pretty sure Steve is fudging his dice rolls.
Mary never shows up on time.
Bob smells funny and eats all the chips.

Since no one will be showing up to play this train wreck, all fixed.

If they do anything else right I’ll let you know.

[BWR]

I mean... they pretty much did fix most of the things they've addressed so far... they haven't ever switched from one bad thing to another bad thing,

Neither have they actually dropped the bad stuff in favor of something better. They've just made it marginally less bad.

IPeople here just really seem to love bitching about the playtest, without actually acknowledging its good sides and what Paizo is doing right.

"We lobotomized you to fix your headache, and your shoes fit a bit better too."
"Yay! Better shoes!"

[Storyteller_Arc]

Neither have they actually dropped the bad stuff in favor of something better. They've just made it marginally less bad.

> Dropped Signature Skills completely
> Dropped death making you slowed
> Are heavily reworking Resonance as we speak.

[Faily]

> Dropped Signature Skills completely
> Dropped death making you slowed
> Are heavily reworking Resonance as we speak.

- Level to saves, skills, and other stuff is still pretty terrible, imo. I'm not a fan of making everyone "equal", because the difference between trained and untrained is so minimal.
- Magic is terrible. Casters at the moment are wasting spells to no use at this rate in playtest because monsters have such a high chance of succeeding spell DCs. Higher level spell slots are wasted on boosting spells.

[Rhedyn]

- Magic is terrible. Casters at the moment are wasting spells to no use at this rate in playtest because monsters have such a high chance of succeeding spell DCs. Higher level spell slots are wasted on boosting spells.

It's really weird how my Savage Worlds (no power point variant) novice (level 1) druid feels like he has more utility than a mid level PF2e Druid and he only has 2 powers.

The main draw of D&D in general compared to other games is the advance magic system.

[BWR]

> Dropped Signature Skills completely
> Dropped death making you slowed
> Are heavily reworking Resonance as we speak.

Like I said, they've made it marginally less bad.

[Storyteller_Arc]

- Level to saves, skills, and other stuff is still pretty terrible, imo. I'm not a fan of making everyone "equal", because the difference between trained and untrained is so minimal.
- Magic is terrible. Casters at the moment are wasting spells to no use at this rate in playtest because monsters have such a high chance of succeeding spell DCs. Higher level spell slots are wasted on boosting spells.

- The difference between trained and untrained is 4. That's a significant difference considering the tight maths of the new system.
- 'Magic is Terrible' is an extremely broad and open-ended statement that is incredibly subjective. There is a lot of people who will agree with this statement, as well as people who disagree verdantly, and others who are happy that magic users have been nerfed, meaning that they don't dominante the later levels as much as they used to.

Through there is a lot of discussion about the underlying maths of the game, and a lot of people believe it is too difficult, that much I can give you.

Like I said, they've made it marginally less bad.

And this is why I think people just keep bitching. Because these sweeping, significant changes, are dubbed to be 'marginally less bad'.

[Minion #6]

And this is why I think people just keep bitching. Because these sweeping, significant changes, are dubbed to be 'marginally less bad'.

I do see bitching here, yes.

Can you please stop derailing this thread by complaining that people disagree with you? We didn't like the playtest before the changes, and the changes just aren't good enough to fix that. Simple as that. You might think they should be good enough, but that doesn't shift my or anyone elses opinion a single iota.

[EldritchWeaver]

- The difference between trained and untrained is 4. That's a significant difference considering the tight maths of the new system.
- 'Magic is Terrible' is an extremely broad and open-ended statement that is incredibly subjective. There is a lot of people who will agree with this statement, as well as people who disagree verdantly, and others who are happy that magic users have been nerfed, meaning that they don't dominante the later levels as much as they used to.

Through there is a lot of discussion about the underlying maths of the game, and a lot of people believe it is too difficult, that much I can give you.

Granted, people do create threads about how the math is bad, but I haven't seen any developers replying in them (but I'm not that active there, so I might have missed some - if you have a link, please add one). But in regards to:

- "The difference between trained and untrained is 4.": People complain that the difference between TEML is just 1. At that end they changed nothing.
- "'Magic is Terrible'": I'd say mathing out the success chances of spells and noticing that they basically are at best 50/50 of success (forget about critical success), that you get only few spell slots per level, and that the effects of spells in the success category are nerfed compared to 1e leaves only the conclusion that spellcasters are basically rendered impotent in the BFC and debuff categories.

And this is why I think people just keep bitching. Because these sweeping, significant changes, are dubbed to be 'marginally less bad'.

Those changes may be significant in their areas, but sweeping I'll grant only for Resonance, and that just for the reason that they tied the magic items to that.

But I haven't seen anything about fixing the 10th level spell slot. As it is (Update 1.3), you get only one spell of that category per day. It was claimed in a preview that the most powerful spell of 9th level have been moved there. But what they didn't mention is that Wish has been seriously nerfed down to a point, where it is just an additional of spell level progression. Other 10th level spells are the same. There is nothing special about them. And if that is just complaining on the high end, they nerfed even prestidigitation. The very part which allowed for player cleverness is gone. Which fits the rest of the rules which have been turned into cages to restrict player choices and player agency.

[Dracojai]

I wish I could contribute to the discussion, but as I've yet to play, I'll just say...
Go minion #6.

[Storyteller_Arc]

I do see bitching here, yes.

Can you please stop derailing this thread by complaining that people disagree with you? We didn't like the playtest before the changes, and the changes just aren't good enough to fix that. Simple as that. You might think they should be good enough, but that doesn't shift my or anyone elses opinion a single iota.

I'm not annoyed that people don't like the playtest.

I'm annoyed that people are completely and utterly ignoring the fact that the playtest is changing and evolving in response to feedback.

Those changes may be significant in their areas, but sweeping I'll grant only for Resonance, and that just for the reason that they tied the magic items to that.

Right. Because changing the fundament way that skills work, and ya know, how you DIE, are not sweeping changes at all.

[Minion #6]

I'm not annoyed that people don't like the playtest.

I'm annoyed that people are completely and utterly ignoring the fact that the playtest is changing and evolving in response to feedback.

Disingenuous and dishonest. We acknowledge the changes, and find them not satisfying. You are the one ignoring this. I don't know how you keep missing it, as I've said it in basically every post I've made in response to you, as have many others, multiple times.

Hence why I at least think you're annoyed that people don't like it - since you're continually and repeatedly willfully ignoring what people are actually saying.

[Recherché]

Dude, you're not going to argue people into liking a game that they've tried and found wanting. It's just not going to happen.

- The difference between trained and untrained is 4. That's a significant difference considering the tight maths of the new system.
- 'Magic is Terrible' is an extremely broad and open-ended statement that is incredibly subjective. There is a lot of people who will agree with this statement, as well as people who disagree verdantly, and others who are happy that magic users have been nerfed, meaning that they don't dominante the later levels as much as they used to.

Through there is a lot of discussion about the underlying maths of the game, and a lot of people believe it is too difficult, that much I can give you.

I don't want tight maths. I want characters to be able to be extremely good at things or bad at them compared to other people their level if they choose to be. Bounded accuracy is a large part of why I can't stand 5e. I do not want to bring it's cousin to PF. While a difference of 4 may make sense at lower levels when numbers are smaller, if a difference of at least 10 isn't possible by high levels then I'm walking.

And PF2 may support the modes of APs, Modules and whatnot as much as it wants but I'm not interested in those. My two favorite games right now are one where we have no fighty people but a whole variety of sneaks and approach everything like Oceans 11 and a game where we've had 4 combats over the last 2 levels but tons of unusual puzzles, problem solving and negotiation What combat encounters do exist are incredibly lethal and horrific so the party goes out of our way to avoid them. In the second game our solution to our current problem involves casting reduce person on a person and stuffing them in a bag of holding with some air crystals. Our previous solution to a problem involved summoning earth elementals and ordering them to grapple us. I don't care about whether PF2 supports modules. I care whether it can support unusual game styles and problem solving styles. So far I haven't seen Paizo changing anything to allow us to break out of the tight maths and expectations they have for characters to make something weird and creative. I wanted a sandbox and they've given me a playpen.