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

[Pex]

The so called design goals are clear to me. They want everyone to be able to make an interesting decision on character build every time they level. Instead of the designers telling players what their character can do, players get to choose the abilities they have from a given set based on class. Players are to feel like they are making progress as they level in terms of game mechanics because the character is always increasing in power. You're going from zero to superhero, and you're not really starting at zero.

They also want to clear up game jargon. There will still be labels for things but not as many as before and maybe more intuitive.

Given the opportunity, they're also testing changes in abilities to conform to the new jargon and power level.

[Scowling Dragon]

The foregoing aside, Paizo has clearly stated numerous times that they want to reduce barriers to entry for new players by reducing the complexity of the game, while continuing to provide the depth, richness, and character design choices available in Pathfinder 1.0.

So which one is more important? Which should take priority. So far Id say they failed at both in fun and interesting ways.

[Rhedyn]

They also want to clear up game jargon. There will still be labels for things but not as many as before and maybe more intuitive.

They need to work on this.

[Rynjin]

The so called design goals are clear to me. They want everyone to be able to make an interesting decision on character build every time they level. Instead of the designers telling players what their character can do, players get to choose the abilities they have from a given set based on class. Players are to feel like they are making progress as they level in terms of game mechanics because the character is always increasing in power. You're going from zero to superhero, and you're not really starting at zero.

They also want to clear up game jargon. There will still be labels for things but not as many as before and maybe more intuitive.

Given the opportunity, they're also testing changes in abilities to conform to the new jargon and power level.

The design intent is clear, but the choices made to get them there are baffling. More Timmy options for classes, so new players can take horrendous traps at every level now. The terminology is less intuitive (Traits? Descriptor was a far more intuitive word), and requires the memorization of certain symbols in addition to just the names of the action type. Lowered power across the board, with even fewer interesting game changing options from classes.

The whole thing is just frustrating.

[Rhedyn]

The whole thing is just frustrating.

If the design goal was to frustrate me into a level apathy that I previous did not know of, then Paizo are sublime experts at their craft and should be commended for the sheer elegance by which they can subtly torment a psyche.

EDIT: Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.

[OgresAreCute]

If the design goal was to frustrate me into a level apathy that I previous did not know of, then Paizo are sublime experts at their craft and should be commended for the sheer elegance by which they can subtly torment a psyche.

EDIT: Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.

I really love shapeshifting, so I got pretty excited when I saw PF actually made a dedicated 1-20 shapeshifter class. Didn't last long, to say it like that.

[Rynjin]

If the design goal was to frustrate me into a level apathy that I previous did not know of, then Paizo are sublime experts at their craft and should be commended for the sheer elegance by which they can subtly torment a psyche.

EDIT: Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.

I was initially pretty optimistic about the whole thing, and had a lot of nice things to say at the start of my impressions thread on their site, because the basic (and I mean MOST BASIC) chassis of the system sounds good. I really like the idea of the revised action economy, the proficiency system COULD be great with a bit of work, and a whole host of other things (like conglomerating redundant spells like Hold Person/Animal/Fey/Monster into just "Paralyze" that can be upcast into those different spells) show promise. I even like the basic idea of all classes having their own Rogue Talent-esque features that make up a good chunk of their progression, and seemingly unpopularly I like the new attribute generation system resulting in more balanced statlines.

But the more I read, the more I started to get dragged down by the details of HOW these things were implemented and Paizo's usual seeming inability to take feedback. That coupled with the astounding aura of apathy from even their hardcore fans (this was already the slowest moving playtest for Paizo I've ever participated in, even BEFORE they decided their site was going to be down for maintenance for two weeks in the middle of it) and my inability to muster up either the energy or the players to run a playtest game (I floated the idea with my usual group but the idea of replacing my usual Saturday game with a PF2 playtest was basiclaly treated as a joke by all but one guy) has me feeling down about the game

[Kish]

Jesus, is this really the level of discourse that's acceptable here?

There's a report button in the lower lefthand corner of every post.

[NamelessNPC]

Generell: There seems to be an error in the "Purchase Gear" section. With the sums presented for this adventure, you can´t even outfit anyone relying on heavy armor.

The Manticore battle depends on prior skill use. We came equipped for the whole outdoor stuff, including non-magical healing, so we had no particular problems traversing the mountain and reaching the peak. The Manticore was actually quite simple, as it is too slow to maneuver out of effective ranged weapon and spell range, so it was a pretty straight-forward battle.

I found both "big" elementals to be really tough. The smaller ones were more of a nuisance.
My DM seems to think monsters are op.

[Florian]

Jesus, is this really the level of discourse that's acceptable here?

Sometimes, there's no way to avoid that.

Look, for PF1, you could simply grab one of the APs, fine-comb it for the mechanical elements and get a very good picture about how the game is intended to be played, which, frankly, is far different from what people on this particular board talk about how the game should be played.

Same with PF2, grab the playtest mini campaign and actually look at how the character mechanics are supposed to interact with how the game is intended to be played. In addition, take a close look at what the exact scenario prerequisites and feedback questions are, so you can actually glean a look at the underlying intentions.

I see much theory talk, but only very few talk about the module and how the rules should be used, which is interesting, because there's a shift happening there, more over to group skills and such, which makes the whole yada-yadda about being able to "contribute" into nonsense.

I found both "big" elementals to be really tough. The smaller ones were more of a nuisance.
My DM seems to think monsters are op.

You mean the Lesser Fire/Water Elemental? Yeah, elementals are surprisingly good, compared to the PF1 version. But it was also good to see how "weakness" now works, adding blanked damage bonus.

[Milo v3]

After playing the first part of Doomsday Dawn, most of the group is a fan of the new action economy, but one of the other players and I both are neutral on it simply because we played classes that are effectively banned from using the new action economy which was disappointing.

[Alexvrahr]

... they decided their site was going to be down for maintenance for two weeks in the middle of it

Despite the 'Scheduled Maintenance' screen I'm pretty sure this is a screwup rather than a decision. It's the reason I'm here, I post as avr there usually. My long-disused account of that name on this forum has an unknown password and is attached to a dead email account.

PF2 as it currently stands is a terribly dull and unattractive game, but with the low amount of positive feedback they were getting before their forums went down something is sure to change. If nothing else the number of TPKs reported really is too high for a working game.

Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.

Paizo is allergic to ever admitting they were wrong. It's why the kineticist's so hard to work out - rather than rewrite it to make it clearer, they just kept adding more epicycles. That said the adaptive shifter archetype is a decent fix to the shifter base class in my opinion. It must have slipped through while the higher-ups were distracted by designing their new edition.

[Ironeyes]

They put up a temporary page where you can download the playtest and latest updates. I'd post the link but my post count isn't high enough:

paizo dot com / download / surveys

[EldritchWeaver]

They put up a temporary page where you can download the playtest and latest updates. I'd post the link but my post count isn't high enough:

paizo dot com / download / surveys

Reposting for convenience: http://paizo.com/download/surveys

[Rhedyn]

Paizo is allergic to ever admitting they were wrong. It's why the kineticist's so hard to work out - rather than rewrite it to make it clearer, they just kept adding more epicycles. That said the adaptive shifter archetype is a decent fix to the shifter base class in my opinion. It must have slipped through while the higher-ups were distracted by designing their new edition.

Aside from being overly complex/hard-to-learn, the kineticist is actually a cool class that is fun to play, nearly to the same levels as the 3.5 warlock.

Adaptive shifter is closer to being a "good class" but the wildshape duration is too short. It's complete nonsense that Shifter's have to get a worse version of wildshape than a druid. Unacceptable.

[dascarletm]

requires the memorization of certain symbols in addition to just the names of the action type.

This I am curious about. There are only a couple symbols and I found them really intuitive. The number of sideways chevrons indicates how many actions, and if it isn't filled in it is free. The only other symbol is reaction.

[Slithery D]

Even though the Paizo forums are down, the link to the playtest was updated with errata yesterday. Version 1.1 includes changes to the dying rules, fixes to counterspelling/spell identification, added some familiar abilities, got rid of resonance for a Bag of Holding, and much more.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Yeah, I found them fairly intuitive. The free action less so, but useful for the intended purpose.

One thing I do really like about the playtest rules are the multiclassing/archetypes. You have to admit it's a lot more elegant than losing core class features to multiclassing. A fighter can easily pick up wizard spells at the cost of some fighter feats, and it works out the same for clerics and other classes. Having something to effectively combine abilities would be perfect.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by ComaVision
On topic: I find it crazy that the Paizo site is still down.

I was just about to post about this. What’s going on with their site? It’s been nearly a week now.

[ComaVision]

I found both "big" elementals to be really tough. The smaller ones were more of a nuisance.
My DM seems to think monsters are op.

That makes sense. The big elementals are Level APL+1 and the minor ones are Level APL-1.

PF2 as it currently stands is a terribly dull and unattractive game, but with the low amount of positive feedback they were getting before their forums went down something is sure to change. If nothing else the number of TPKs reported really is too high for a working game.

I think the quite high attack bonuses (+6 for Level 0 enemies) coupled with up to 3 attacks a round and auto-confirm crits just allows for damage to spike up like crazy. I think I had a couple rounds in Scenario 1 where the first group of goblins all did 3 bow attacks. Lo and behold, 12 attacks a round yields some "deadly" crits. Before the site went down (again) I saw Mark Seifter mentioning that they apparently messed up some of the math and it will be corrected. I'm not sure if that counts Level 0 creatures, or some other range of creatures.

Even though the Paizo forums are down, the link to the playtest was updated with errata yesterday. Version 1.1 includes changes to the dying rules, fixes to counterspelling/spell identification, added some familiar abilities, got rid of resonance for a Bag of Holding, and much more.

Thank you! I had read that they were coming out with new death rules and I was really hoping to get them before I DM scenario 2.

[Slithery D]

Thank you! I had read that they were coming out with new death rules and I was really hoping to get them before I DM scenario 2.

Glad to be of service! It looks like they basically made it so that any HP healing wakes you up and removes the dying condition, but at the (minimal) price of making you slow for 1 round at a level equal to your previous dying condition. Whack a mole is back, but often without enough actions to let you pick up your stuff and standup (let alone move or attack) before they put you back down.

[137beth]

They released an update to the playtest.

[Rhedyn]

I was just about to post about this. What’s going on with their site? It’s been nearly a week now.

My guess, it was to cut down on the feedback...

[Calthropstu]

Sometimes, there's no way to avoid that.

You can always avoid it if you're the one starting it.


That aside, I am not averse to trying out the playtest but will pay attention here and elsewhere in order to guage whether it's worth investing the time in.

[Morty]

I was initially pretty optimistic about the whole thing, and had a lot of nice things to say at the start of my impressions thread on their site, because the basic (and I mean MOST BASIC) chassis of the system sounds good. I really like the idea of the revised action economy, the proficiency system COULD be great with a bit of work, and a whole host of other things (like conglomerating redundant spells like Hold Person/Animal/Fey/Monster into just "Paralyze" that can be upcast into those different spells) show promise. I even like the basic idea of all classes having their own Rogue Talent-esque features that make up a good chunk of their progression, and seemingly unpopularly I like the new attribute generation system resulting in more balanced statlines.

But the more I read, the more I started to get dragged down by the details of HOW these things were implemented and Paizo's usual seeming inability to take feedback. That coupled with the astounding aura of apathy from even their hardcore fans (this was already the slowest moving playtest for Paizo I've ever participated in, even BEFORE they decided their site was going to be down for maintenance for two weeks in the middle of it) and my inability to muster up either the energy or the players to run a playtest game (I floated the idea with my usual group but the idea of replacing my usual Saturday game with a PF2 playtest was basiclaly treated as a joke by all but one guy) has me feeling down about the game

That's more or less my impression. Many of the things they're trying to do aren't bad, but the ways they're going about them are either awkward or just overly cautious. Streamlining all the selectable class features into feats is a good idea in a general sense, but the end result is a list of feats that inherits PF1 feats' fiddliness and unevenness. And in many cases you can only pick from a given set of feats once, unless you want to sacrifice a higher-level pick. Skill feats are a very good idea that is once again bogged in minutiae. Non-spellcasting classes need more abilities they don't need to spend feats on.

[137beth]

Paizo.com is back up, for at least a few minutes until it crashes again.

[Rynjin]

Despite the 'Scheduled Maintenance' screen I'm pretty sure this is a screwup rather than a decision.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. They made the decision years ago to use outdated infrastructure and under-invest in their tech, and now it's biting them in the ass.

[Slithery D]

Paizo.com is back up, for at least a few minutes until it crashes again.

And so it begins, uh, happens for the fourth time this week.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well to be fair so did WOTC site crash.

I mean maybe Paizo should have taken their website down two weeks in advance to ensure something like that didn't happen but thats not the point of a playtest. Its to function as marketting.

[Ironeyes]

My guess, it was to cut down on the feedback...

I don't think so. If it was just the forums I might be inclined to agree, but I'm pretty sure their storefront was down as well. Doesn't make much business sense to lose out on sales just to avoid negative feedback.