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

[skaddix]

Yeah Pathfinder had traps but when you had the sheer number of options that Pathfinder gave you well even if the percentage of good to bad was the same in terms of absolute numbers you had more then enough good options such that everyone doesn't have to revert to the same or limited choice options.

[Faily]

I mean... it is a playtest. Not the final release. Its likely that the playtest doesn't have all of the material included.

That excuse doesn't hold up for everything though.

Can we expect to have things like Path of War, Psionics, etc? No, because this is a Corebook issue that's being discussed and the heart of the game.

Can we complain that we are unhappy with what we're seeing so far? Yes.



Honestly, Paizo should've gone with Open Playtest *at least* last year since they're aiming for a 2019 release, which will mean they probably are aiming for GenCon (it is the be all-deadline for all things gaming, especially if it's located in the US. Had they been European-based or international, they might've aimed for Essen Spiel).

A 2019 release means we're probably not going to see HUGE sweeping changes from what we currently have, because 2018 is in its final quarter, and if they want enough printed stuff for a GenCon release next year, things will be going to printers at the very latest early summer 2019.

[Storyteller_Arc]

Yeah Pathfinder had traps but when you had the sheer number of options that Pathfinder gave you well even if the percentage of good to bad was the same in terms of absolute numbers you had more then enough good options such that everyone doesn't have to revert to the same or limited choice options.

Is that Pathfinder's Core handbook your talking about, or Pathfinder as it is now?

Can we expect to have things like Path of War, Psionics, etc? No, because this is a Corebook issue that's being discussed and the heart of the game.

Uh... Path of War and Psionics are non-offical material. 3rd Party Products released by Dreamscarred Press. That's not exactly a good example.

Can we complain that we are unhappy with what we're seeing so far? Yes.

Agreed. construct feedback is best through.

A 2019 release means we're probably not going to see HUGE sweeping changes from what we currently have, because 2018 is in its final quarter, and if they want enough printed stuff for a GenCon release next year, things will be going to printers at the very latest early summer 2019.

Definie 'HUGE sweepnig changes', because a redoing of pretty much all of the maths to make it less unoptimized friendly is probably a significant sweeping change.

[BWR]

I wouldn't call myself a 'long-term' poster on Paizo. Simply that I've been keeping an eye on the Playtest and their general discussion.

And I have yet to see a single time of censorship and double standards. Posts are deleted solely due to the inflammatory and insulting languages, with threads being locked only when they have spiralled away from the discussion point that was originally raised up in the first place.

So you think that someone saying in a choice between 5e and P2 they'd choose 5e is inflammatory and insulting and should be deleted?
Because that happened to one of my posts. No inflammatory language, no insulting other posters, just me saying I like P2 less than another D&D edition which I also don't want to play, and listing the reasons why.

The censorship is a thing.



Anyone else noted that the anti-P2 crowd tends to attack issues with the game and design philosophy and certain pro-P2 people attack people who dislike it? There were at least two threads and a couple in-thread posts over at Paizo that were basically "wah wah people are mean when they dislike P2, they should just STFU and GTFO"

[BWR]

Definie 'HUGE sweepnig changes', because a redoing of pretty much all of the maths to make it less unoptimized friendly is probably a significant sweeping change.

*sigh*

Like I told you last time you brought this up, this isn't a sweeping change, it's tweaking. Introducing the +1/level and all the math that went into it is a sweeping change. Resonance is a sweeping change. The mutilation of magic is a sweeping change. Fiddling with a few numbers is not.

[Rhedyn]

Is that Pathfinder's Core handbook your talking about, or Pathfinder as it is now?

PF2e isn't replacing the PF core rule book like how PF was trying to replace the Player's Handbook.

Pathfinder started off with 3.5 compatibility, which it still technically has. PF1 stuff just doesn't plug into PF2e.

[Beckett]

What they failed to realize is if every option is a trash option, instead of those options being considered good, people just won't play the game.

To be fair, PF1 purposefully made a lot of trash options to give to NPCs and opponents to burn up Feats and stuff. I'm not a huge fan of this design style, but that was their claim for much of the poor options.

Uh... Path of War and Psionics are non-offical material. 3rd Party Products released by Dreamscarred Press. That's not exactly a good example.

Technically, PF is a 3rd Party Product.

PF2e isn't replacing the PF core rule book like how PF was trying to replace the Player's Handbook.

Pathfinder started off with 3.5 compatibility, which it still technically has. PF1 stuff just doesn't plug into PF2e.

I walked away from Paizo because of their politics and the general social climate being not so great, but last I heard, like 10 years of PFS is going in the trash, and will not be playable or supported as soon as PF2 hits.

<Edit, in retrospect, I think I misread your post, thinking you meant PF2 is not removing PF1 from play.>

[The Random NPC]

They aren't locking threads where people are talking about what they don't like about the system. they are locking threads where there is no more discussion to have about the opening point. X person or Y group is leaving, and there is no more to discuss about that.

They want to keep feedback constructive, and discussion strong. Allowing threads to get bogged down makes it harder for them to understand the feedback and suggestions being given

When the people leave, do they list why they're leaving? I guess there doesn't need to be much discussion on that, but personally, I'd do a bit to debate whether the reason is one worth addressing.

[BWR]

When the people leave, do they list why they're leaving? I guess there doesn't need to be much discussion on that, but personally, I'd do a bit to debate whether the reason is one worth addressing.

They do, often in great detail. Then you get the usual mix of the pro-side complaining how the group didn't understand the brilliance of the new system, that it's only a playtest and the final product isn't going to look anything like the PT ('so why bother with a PT in any case?' is a question that escapes them), that it really is much simpler and better in every way, and they like it.
And the anti-side generally agrees with the OP, and argues against the pro side's claims because they don't like it.
To be fair, most of the arguments between the factions aren't saying anything new at this point, they're just retreading old ground. When a change comes along there is a slight uptick in posting, in which the basic positions of the various posters are reiterated, because the changes don't really do much for the underlying issues. Most of the anti crowd have dropped out of the discussion now because it is obvious Paizo isn't going to give us the game we want. I only hang around out of some perverse, vain hope that it's all a horrible mistake and they'll actually publish something I want.

[Storyteller_Arc]

So you think that someone saying in a choice between 5e and P2 they'd choose 5e is inflammatory and insulting and should be deleted?

Nope. Nothing wrong with preferring 5th Edition over Pathfinder 2E.

And nobody, not even Paizo, is punishing you for it. Because there isn't any censorship going on here.

Anyone else noted that the anti-P2 crowd tends to attack issues with the game and design philosophy and certain pro-P2 people attack people who dislike it? There were at least two threads and a couple in-thread posts over at Paizo that were basically "wah wah people are mean when they dislike P2, they should just STFU and GTFO"

splitting it between the 'anti-P2 crowd' and the 'pro-P2 crowd' is incredibly binary and fails to properly capture the differences going on here. We have people who are incredibly anti-P2. Some hate the fact that Paizo is releasing another edition at all, refuse to accept it as anything more than a money grab and don't care about its design philosophy. We have people who dislike the game and its design but refuse to acknowledge the steps that Paizo have gone through during the playtest to actually improve the game and listen to feedback (which feels like is the majority of people here). We have people who are more reasonable about being anti-P2, and have a lot of objections to its game and design philosophy, but willing to admit and give kudos about the changes to improve the game.

Then we have people who are more neutral about the game, weighing up its pros and cons, is willing to wait and see how it ends up when finally released. We have people who are mildly pro-P2, that like the game and want to support Paizo, but are admittedly concerned about a lot of choices that they've made. We have people who are firmly pro-P2, very happy about the changes that have been made, willing to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its flaws, and willing to discuss said flaws as well... and then we have the zealots who hate the fact that people hate P2 at all.

Really, its a huge range of people.

*sigh*

Like I told you last time you brought this up, this isn't a sweeping change, it's tweaking. Introducing the +1/level and all the math that went into it is a sweeping change. Resonance is a sweeping change. The mutilation of magic is a sweeping change. Fiddling with a few numbers is not.

So, introducing +1/Level and all that math that went into it is a sweeping change.

But, tweaking every single number in the game is not a sweeping change?

... Buddy, I think your definition of a sweeping change is flawed.

PF2e isn't replacing the PF core rule book like how PF was trying to replace the Player's Handbook.

Pathfinder started off with 3.5 compatibility, which it still technically has. PF1 stuff just doesn't plug into PF2e.

That's a cop-out and you know it.

If you want to talk about all of the choices that Pathfinder had compared to Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Compare the PF Core Rule Book, alone, with the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Rule Book, alone.

Otherwise, it is unfair and completely bias.

Technically, PF is a 3rd Party Product.

... How do you figure that one out?

'so why bother with a PT in any case?' is a question that escapes them

In order to test various different extremes in the systems that the game developers themselves are quite delighted by, but are unsure whenever or not the broader player community would enjoy.

Resonance being a prime example.

[BWR]

Nope. Nothing wrong with preferring 5th Edition over Pathfinder 2E.

And nobody, not even Paizo, is punishing you for it. Because there isn't any censorship going on here.

My post about preferring 5e over P2 was deleted. How is that not censorship?

splitting it between the 'anti-P2 crowd' and the 'pro-P2 crowd' is incredibly binary and fails to properly capture the differences going on here. We have people who are incredibly anti-P2. Some hate the fact that Paizo is releasing another edition at all, refuse to accept it as anything more than a money grab and don't care about its design philosophy. We have people who dislike the game and its design but refuse to acknowledge the steps that Paizo have gone through during the playtest to actually improve the game and listen to feedback (which feels like is the majority of people here). We have people who are more reasonable about being anti-P2, and have a lot of objections to its game and design philosophy, but willing to admit and give kudos about the changes to improve the game.

Then we have people who are more neutral about the game, weighing up its pros and cons, is willing to wait and see how it ends up when finally released. We have people who are mildly pro-P2, that like the game and want to support Paizo, but are admittedly concerned about a lot of choices that they've made. We have people who are firmly pro-P2, very happy about the changes that have been made, willing to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its flaws, and willing to discuss said flaws as well... and then we have the zealots who hate the fact that people hate P2 at all.

Really, its a huge range of people.

To an extent, but there is a distinct difference between the 'we don't like the basics of the system' crowd and the degrees of 'like the basics but disagree on the details' crowds.
And I have yet to see the former attacking the latter for liking it, while I have seen some of the latter attack any critics.

So, introducing +1/Level and all that math that went into it is a sweeping change.

But, tweaking every single number in the game is not a sweeping change?

... Buddy, I think your definition of a sweeping change is flawed.

And I think yours is flawed. Tweaking numbers is working on details, not changing how things work. Changing how things work is a sweeping change. Fiddling with numbers to make it more palatable isn't.

That's a cop-out and you know it.

If you want to talk about all of the choices that Pathfinder had compared to Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Compare the PF Core Rule Book, alone, with the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Rule Book, alone.

Otherwise, it is unfair and completely bias.

Except it isn't. One of the main selling points of P1 was that it was a continuation of 3.5, and that you could plug and play or adapt most anything from 3.5 with a minimal amount of work. P2 is almost entirely incompatible with everything from previous editions.
P1 and P2 are trying to do two different things with the designers pretending they are basically the same. To not acknowledge this is to ignore important arguments against it.

... How do you figure that one out?

It's a third party version of D&D 3.5.

In order to test various different extremes in the systems that the game developers themselves are quite delighted by, but are unsure whenever or not the broader player community would enjoy.

Resonance being a prime example.

If you are going to playtest something, especially with as ridiculously short a window as this one has, they should give us something they could intend to release, not, as they claimed at one point, 'try out some of the more extreme things'.

[Rhedyn]

Let's look at all the options in the PF1 core book: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.red...ampf=undefined

Well dang. That's a lot of options and content that Pathfinder STARTED WITH.

PF2e is starting out like 4e D&D, a core book only. But hey let's look at 4e options: http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_products

Well dang, it's almost like even 4e has more options than PF2e.

See there was a way for PF2e to be an entirely different game and still compete. They needed, in their core book, a race builder, a class builder, a feat builder, and a spell builder (also custom magic item rules like those already in the core book). These subsystems didn't have to be perfectly balanced or allowed in organized play, but their existence would have opened up PF2e enough to be more tolerable to those that already like their current game by at least being able to emulate existing options.

The hard part is such things require competent design and would cut into future book sells. That being obvious is what also increases the perspective value of a system with such things.

[Storyteller_Arc]

My post about preferring 5e over P2 was deleted. How is that not censorship?

A single post does not constitute censorship. Especially as there are other possible reasons. I.E. They don't want such comparisons muddling the discussion about their game.

To an extent, but there is a distinct difference between the 'we don't like the basics of the system' crowd and the degrees of 'like the basics but disagree on the details' crowds.
And I have yet to see the former attacking the latter for liking it, while I have seen some of the latter attack any critics.

There are extremists on both sides, you just need to look for them. One side isn't any worse than the other.

And I think yours is flawed. Tweaking numbers is working on details, not changing how things work. Changing how things work is a sweeping change. Fiddling with numbers to make it more palatable isn't.

+Level is a mathematical change, that impacts how the game functions as a whole. Tweaking a significant amount of numbers in order to make tasks easier to perform and leading less optimization to be able to be consistently successful, is impacts how the game functions as a whole.

There's no real argument to be had here. It's a large, sweeping charge that significantly shifts how the game functions. Just because its maths, doesn't mean its not important.

Let's look at all the options in the PF1 core book: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.red...ampf=undefined

Well dang. That's a lot of options and content that Pathfinder STARTED WITH.

Oh. Wow

Look at all this content and options that D&D 3.5 edition had, it's actually quite amazing that so much was made for it!

Now. Let's have a look at all of the options and content that Pathfinder start with:
Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

... Huh. That's strange. It's almost like Pathfinder only released with a single handbook and has a limited number of options because it was new without any other support products. Fancy that.

One of the main selling points of P1 was that it was a continuation of 3.5, and that you could plug and play or adapt most anything from 3.5 with a minimal amount of work. P2 is almost entirely incompatible with everything from previous editions.
P1 and P2 are trying to do two different things with the designers pretending they are basically the same. To not acknowledge this is to ignore important arguments against it.

Yeah, Pathfinder being the unofficial 3.75 edition meant you could crib from 3.5, sure. But a lot of people don't do that any remain with just Pathfinder by itself. If you're going to compare Pathfinder's options to Pathfinder 2nd Editions options. Then taking 3.5 and waving it around as if it was just an extenstion to Pathfinder that somehow existed before Pathfinder did, it just stupid and ignorant.

If your going to compare the two systems. Actually compare the two systems. Not the only system that Pathfinder was built up from! And where the hell do the designs try to pretend that P1 and P2 are basically the same things?

It's a third party version of D&D 3.5.

... no. The D&D 3.75 term is unoffical. It used D&D 3.5 as a base yes, but its entirely its own game and system. Calling it a 'third part version of D&D 3.5' is techinically and subjectively incorrect.

If you are going to playtest something, especially with as ridiculously short a window as this one has, they should give us something they could intend to release, not, as they claimed at one point, 'try out some of the more extreme things'.

Gee.

Its almost like playtesting is to see how people react to the game and its various systems, so they can get feedback on the game and its various systems and make changes to it in order to make a more successful product.

So yeah. Go ahead. Tell me that they should playtest something that your intending to release without ever playtesting. Go ahead and tell me how good of an idea that is.

See, in my own opinion there was a way for PF2e to be an entirely different game and still compete. They needed, in their core book, a race builder, a class builder, a feat builder, and a spell builder (also custom magic item rules like those already in the core book).

Fixed for you.

[Rhedyn]

I'm not actually arguing with you Storyteller_Arc, I already know that you are a diehard Paizo fan and will agree with anything they do or censor and you won't bother being factual or logical about it.

[Kish]

A single post does not constitute censorship.

Okay, this pulls me in, since it's such an utterly preposterous assertion.

How many posts do they need to censor for you to agree it "constitutes" censorship? Specific numbers, please.

... no. The D&D 3.75 term is unoffical. It used D&D 3.5 as a base yes, but its entirely its own game and system. Calling it a 'third part version of D&D 3.5' is techinically and subjectively incorrect.

OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast,
Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights Reserved.
1. Defnitions: (a) “Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open
Game Content; (b) “Derivative Material” means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations
(including into other computer languages), potation, modifcation, correction, addition, extension, upgrade,
improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed
or adapted; (c) “Distribute” means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit
or otherwise distribute; (d) “Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods,
procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is
an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identifed as Open Game Content by the
Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under
copyright law, but specifcally excludes Product Identity. (e) “Product Identity” means product and product line
names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts, creatures, characters, stories, storylines,
plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses,
formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special
abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos,
symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identifed as Product
identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifcally excludes the Open Game Content; (f )
“Trademark” means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself
or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) “Use”,
“Used” or “Using” means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative
Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the
Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must afx such a notice to
any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except
as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content
distributed using this License.
3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms
of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You
a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the
Open Game Content.
5. Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game
Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufcient rights
to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6. Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to
include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying
or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder’s name to the
COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to
compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each
element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any
Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except
as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered
Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the
ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall
retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identifcation: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the
work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License.
You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content
originally distributed under any version of this License.
10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game
Content You distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name
of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with
respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation
then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and
fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the
termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be
reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
System Reference Document. Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte
Cook, Skip Williams, based on material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Pathfnder RPG Core Rulebook. Copyright 2009, Paizo Publishing, LLC; Author: Jason Bulmahn, based on
material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams.
The Book of Experimental Might. Copyright 2008, Monte J. Cook. All rights reserved.
Tome of Horrors. Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.; Authors: Scott Greene, with Clark Peterson, Erica
Balsley, Kevin Baase, Casey Christofferson, Lance Hawvermale, Travis Hawvermale, Patrick Lawinger, and Bill Webb;
Based on original content from TSR.

Why is that there, do you suppose? (Rhetorical question. If you have an answer, I promise you will accomplish nothing by posting it.)

Pathfinder is to D&D as DSP material is to Pathfinder.

(Ironically, if you'd just said something like, "No, you probably shouldn't expect to have third-party material in Pathfinder core, any more than you find Pathfinder material in 3.5 core," I would have agreed with you.)

[EldritchWeaver]

I happened to talk with a Paizo guy at the Spiel for some time, which included also my concerns about the playtest state. In regards to the PT not resembling the supposed end product, which has been mentioned in this thread, Paizo intended to push the envelope of the design and to see what is possible in regards to evolving the game vs. doing a revolution of the rules (and considering the core of PF is 20 years old, Paizo can't continue with PF1 without going bankrupt). They only published stuff they believed to work at that time, though they did notice partially in internal playtests that some stuff isn't great afterwards (like the Death rules).

The plan is to only fix the stuff during the playtest using DD, which doesn't taint the data too much. Afterwards the bigger changes will be revealed (though I'm not sure in what form or if you can use them in your game). In regards to people leaving the playtest and thus skewing the results, he wasn't overly concerned about that being a big influence (I can't tell if that is correct or not). In any case, my feedback was that PF2e isn't a game I like at this point and he stated that they would keep on improving the game. If they manage to convince me in the end, I don't know. But I'll continue watching the playtest until I do.

[Storyteller_Arc]

I'm not actually arguing with you Storyteller_Arc, I already know that you are a diehard Paizo fan and will agree with anything they do or censor and you won't bother being factual or logical about it.

... Except, I'm not a diehard Paizo fan, at all?

I'm just being factual or logical about things? And asking for facts and logic behind claims such as 'Pathfinder is just 3rd Party D&D', and 'Paizo are hypocritical *******s who censor opinions they don't like and cultivate an echo-chamber of rabid fans that agree with your their every choice'.

Which, no one has presented to me.

If people actually. I dunno. Present evidance and facts to back up their claims. I would be more than happy to agree with them.

But, all I get is people giving me anecdotal evidence and expecting it to treat the most unreliable form of evidence seriously.

Okay, this pulls me in, since it's such an utterly preposterous assertion.

How many posts do they need to censor for you to agree it "constitutes" censorship? Specific numbers, please.

Well, no. I can't give you specific numbers. Its just that censorship isn't a single post being deleted, as that honestly that's the most preposterous assertion of this entire thread.

Censorship is multiple different posts or threads being deleted that all follow the same or similar pattern. A single post being deleted does not constitute as censorship.

It's just common sense.

Why is that there, do you suppose? (Rhetorical question. If you have an answer, I promise you will accomplish nothing by posting it.)

Ah so we are in agreement that its there because Pathfinder is based heavily on D&D 3.5 material then, and acknowledges that through the Open Game licence, but due to the fact it is an independent game system that doesn't require any prior D&D 3.5 material then it cannot be classified as 3rd Party Material then?

Excellent. So glad we are in agreement.

[Rhedyn]

Now you are just tilting at windmills.

[Faily]

So people saying "my posts were deleted from Paizo's forums in discussions about PF2" is not good enough?

Right. I think this just sums up how much of a waste of time it is to engage with this. Time to find out if this forum has an Ignore-function.

[TiaC]

I've seen this sort of discussion happen here before. There will be a stubborn poster who the rest of the thread disagrees with, the thread won't go anywhere, people will start to get frustrated and lost their temper. It often ends with reasonable posters getting banned.¹ So, let's not. I think we can all agree that this conversation is a pointless exercise and we'd all be better off using Ignore.

^{1: See every monk thread ever.}

[Gnaeus]

So, let's not. I think we can all agree that this conversation is a pointless exercise and we'd all be better off using Ignore.

Which is also my favorite description of the PF2 system I have heard to date.

[Kish]

... Except, I'm not a diehard Paizo fan, at all?

I'm just being factual or logical about things? And asking for facts and logic behind claims such as 'Pathfinder is just 3rd Party D&D', and 'Paizo are hypocritical *******s who censor opinions they don't like and cultivate an echo-chamber of rabid fans that agree with your their every choice'.

Which, no one has presented to me.

If people actually. I dunno. Present evidance and facts to back up their claims. I would be more than happy to agree with them.

Observably untrue. Later in this very post, you're declaring "common sense" places a requirement, which you can't or won't nail down but insist is there, on the amount of clear overt censorship before it becomes censorship, and in the name of not acknowledging that Pathfinder is D20-system third-party products, you legislate third-party products out of existence.

And, like Rhedyn and Faily, that's where I stop trying to engage with you.

[Morty]

I happened to talk with a Paizo guy at the Spiel for some time, which included also my concerns about the playtest state. In regards to the PT not resembling the supposed end product, which has been mentioned in this thread, Paizo intended to push the envelope of the design and to see what is possible in regards to evolving the game vs. doing a revolution of the rules (and considering the core of PF is 20 years old, Paizo can't continue with PF1 without going bankrupt). They only published stuff they believed to work at that time, though they did notice partially in internal playtests that some stuff isn't great afterwards (like the Death rules).

The plan is to only fix the stuff during the playtest using DD, which doesn't taint the data too much. Afterwards the bigger changes will be revealed (though I'm not sure in what form or if you can use them in your game). In regards to people leaving the playtest and thus skewing the results, he wasn't overly concerned about that being a big influence (I can't tell if that is correct or not). In any case, my feedback was that PF2e isn't a game I like at this point and he stated that they would keep on improving the game. If they manage to convince me in the end, I don't know. But I'll continue watching the playtest until I do.

When it comes to "pushing the envelope", it feels like they're straddling the fence. Changing enough to annoy the famously change-averse fanbase, but not enough to actually fix things. So we've got new rules with artifacts to make sure they don't stray too far.

[Storyteller_Arc]

Huh.

Well, I guess after I called them out on the fact that they refused to actually act in a reasonable and logical manner, despite the fact that they accuse me of being nothing more than a rabid fanboy who will defend Paizo to the death and that I should act in a more reasonable and logical manner.

Then they would think that the 'reasonable and logical' thing to do is to completely and utterly ignore me and act like they are the individuals acting in a reasonable and logical manner and aren't just nitpicking at my statements in an attempted to create a fight, and failing to provide the evidence to back up the damining claims they are making about Paizo... and pretty much proving to the entire thread that they are acting unreasonably and illogically.

Always funny when idiots defeat themselves.

[DdarkED]

Huh.

Well, I guess after I called them out on the fact that they refused to actually act in a reasonable and logical manner, despite the fact that they accuse me of being nothing more than a rabid fanboy who will defend Paizo to the death and that I should act in a more reasonable and logical manner.

Then they would think that the 'reasonable and logical' thing to do is to completely and utterly ignore me and act like they are the individuals acting in a reasonable and logical manner and aren't just nitpicking at my statements in an attempted to create a fight, and failing to provide the evidence to back up the damining claims they are making about Paizo... and pretty much proving to the entire thread that they are acting unreasonably and illogically.

Always funny when idiots defeat themselves.

You do seem rather illogical. all of your personal experiences are anecdotal yet you site your own often enough then call someone out for posting there anecdotal evidence that is contrary to your own. if you censor 1 thing for any reason you have a record for censorship. the reason is irrelevant.

you also insist your opinion is right and refuse to allow others the same. so far several people disagree that tweaking math is a sweeping change yet you site your opinion that this inst true as your rebuttal. disengaging seems better imho then continuing when neither side of the argument seems swayed.

also calling people idiots is one the worst ways to get your point across.

[TiaC]

Edit: should listen to my own advice.

To put some actual content in this post, the skills that exist in pathfinder would work best in different paradigms. There are skills like Perception, where everyone rolls and it's useful if everyone has a high modifier. There are skills like Stealth, where you might want everyone to roll, as if only one player sneaks, then other players end up sitting around, but if one player is much better than another, it's the low roll that counts. There are skills like Disguise or Disable Device, where there is no benefit gained from two successes, but a cost to failure so generally only the person with the highest mod wants to roll. Some of these want bonuses to be close together, some are fine with them being far apart.Then there are skills like Knowledge, which aren't tied to level in fiction, and can accept wildly divergent bonuses.

+level helps the first two, because they're things that are things that the whole party will be asked to do and are helped by bonuses staying closer together, but creates results that feel unrealistic for the second two, as they tend to be things that people either specialize in or don't do at all and letting bonuses diverge lets specialists feel like specialists.

[Minion #6]

To put the discussion back to actual PF Playtest and not just have it derailed by a single poster, but does anyone else wish they actually went further with the 3 action system? It's already the most universally well received part of the playtest as far as I can tell, but even so. Spells like Magic Missile and Heal are good examples where taking more time to cast gives different spell effects, and I'd rather have seen all (or almost all) spells move to that paradigm. Outside of spellcasting, why not also fold reactions into the same action system? If you intentionally don't take all your actions, you get any leftovers as extra reactions. You can even then put readying into using an action to use something as a reaction. No more reaction starvation, but still a cap on the number you can have based on how many actions you are prepared to give up.

[Faily]

Edit: should listen to my own advice.

To put some actual content in this post, the skills that exist in pathfinder would work best in different paradigms. There are skills like Perception, where everyone rolls and it's useful if everyone has a high modifier. There are skills like Stealth, where you might want everyone to roll, as if only one player sneaks, then other players end up sitting around, but if one player is much better than another, it's the low roll that counts. There are skills like Disguise or Disable Device, where there is no benefit gained from two successes, but a cost to failure so generally only the person with the highest mod wants to roll. Some of these want bonuses to be close together, some are fine with them being far apart.Then there are skills like Knowledge, which aren't tied to level in fiction, and can accept wildly divergent bonuses.

+level helps the first two, because they're things that are things that the whole party will be asked to do and are helped by bonuses staying closer together, but creates results that feel unrealistic for the second two, as they tend to be things that people either specialize in or don't do at all and letting bonuses diverge lets specialists feel like specialists.

I would rather see the system incorporate more ways of doing skill-checks as a group working together or assisting eachother, as I'm not a fan of the +1/level to everything (as I feel it makes no sense that my bookish wizard who has never really done any hard physical excersice to keep getting better at climbing, swimming, or acrobatics - she believes she has magic and companions for that!).

The published campaign I'm currently playing, Zeitgeist, has often featured a design of "if half or more of the party succeed on their Stealth check, everyone succeeds" and I feel it reinforces the idea of the party-members working together. It still means some need to invest in increasing skills such as Stealth of course, but I much rather prefer that each member of the group have their own speciality. And I also do feel that skill points were a great way to diversify and add flavor to certain characters, especially when PF1 did away with double-cost to non-class skills as I could finally give my characters fluff-skills like Perform or Diplomacy or whatever else I felt like without feeling like I was shooting myself in the foot.

Though with +1/level to everything, suddenly the entire party can be a travelling music troupe without really investing anything in it. lol

[stack]

To put the discussion back to actual PF Playtest and not just have it derailed by a single poster, but does anyone else wish they actually went further with the 3 action system? It's already the most universally well received part of the playtest as far as I can tell, but even so. Spells like Magic Missile and Heal are good examples where taking more time to cast gives different spell effects, and I'd rather have seen all (or almost all) spells move to that paradigm. Outside of spellcasting, why not also fold reactions into the same action system? If you intentionally don't take all your actions, you get any leftovers as extra reactions. You can even then put readying into using an action to use something as a reaction. No more reaction starvation, but still a cap on the number you can have based on how many actions you are prepared to give up.

Absolutely. The three action system gives a lot of design space. Of course, given limited spell slots, casting magic missile with anything less than the maximum time is suboptimal outside narrow cases, but the potential is there.

Holding over some amount of actions is also something I've bought about, so you aren't alone on that.

[exelsisxax]

To put the discussion back to actual PF Playtest and not just have it derailed by a single poster, but does anyone else wish they actually went further with the 3 action system? It's already the most universally well received part of the playtest as far as I can tell, but even so. Spells like Magic Missile and Heal are good examples where taking more time to cast gives different spell effects, and I'd rather have seen all (or almost all) spells move to that paradigm. Outside of spellcasting, why not also fold reactions into the same action system? If you intentionally don't take all your actions, you get any leftovers as extra reactions. You can even then put readying into using an action to use something as a reaction. No more reaction starvation, but still a cap on the number you can have based on how many actions you are prepared to give up.

Yeah. I said much the same thing a few pages back. It's a really good idea, corrupted and weakened and all the versatility and customization stripped out.

There should be no multiattack penalty(for most weapons - a few could deserve it in exchange for other advantages), and some weapons should have a multiattack BONUS.

Yes, any unused actions should roll over into reactions, and reactions shouldn't be special actions with extremely narrow usage and availability, but most options should be open to most classes. Reactions should also work like immediate actions so they aren't "use it or lose it": reactions borrow against next turns actions(if you don't have any left over from last turn).

BAM, instantly more balanced, nuanced, and simpler to explain and use.

Then you can go back in and make spells a better fit for the system with more variable effects like heal, hand a lot more action types out for free(and make them not suck like most we've seen so far).