So what is the consensus on PF2e?

Balac

Registered User
Validated User
#1
The playtest for PF2e never got much discussion on the more general rpg places I follow but I understand the playtest has now ended. So, what is the general takeaway from it, essentially PF1e with a new coat of paint, something streamlined enough to challange 5e or something else entirely?
 

VoidDrifter

Registered User
Validated User
#2
From my experience, the consensus is that it's an amalgamation of the absolute worst parts of original Pathfinder, 4th edition and 5th edition, so it pleases absolutely nobody.
 

Balac

Registered User
Validated User
#3
From my experience, the consensus is that it's an amalgamation of the absolute worst parts of original Pathfinder, 4th edition and 5th edition, so it pleases absolutely nobody.
Well..damn. Not even a PF fan but I'm sorry to hear that. Any good analysis you've seen that would spell out for me what went wrong?
 

Alter_Boy

Post Anything
Validated User
#4
The 12/21 Paizo stream previewed a few of the changes, some of which mentioned that Resonance would be gone, and Proficiency bonuses would be changed majorly (bigger bonuses for Expert/Master/Legendary, bigger penalty for being untrained). https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42evx?Top-5-things-to-expect-for-the-final-edition

I understand that they faced a lot of issues with people not liking Resonance or getting +1 per level to all skill checks. But when they spent so much time talking up the problems not having them would cause, and then being nonchalant about removing them, makes me wonder what happened to the design philosophies they started out with.
 

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
#5
To some extent, pathfinder's playtests are 90% marketing, 10% testing, IMHO, but that 10% can still cause enough changes that it's really impossible to say just what we're getting with PF2.0 until it's in our hands. My take on the playtest is that it was presenting fixes to symptoms and not core problems, possibly because those core problems weren't seen as problems, or because those issues are so fundamental to the system that addressing them risked massive backlash (and lack of backwards compatibility with PF1.0) and so rendered them offlimits, while bandaid patches to treat/"treat" symptoms were allowable.
 

ezekiel

Follower of the Way
Validated User
#6
The overall reaction I've seen has been in the neutral-to-negative range, leaning more to neutral. But that's a bad place to be, because people who are "meh" about a product don't buy it. Particularly in a field as crowded as TTRPGs. They'll get a smattering of business via organized play stuff, but that won't mimic the success of PF1e.

I kinda wonder if the final product isn't going to change a lot more than they're implying it will. Super disappointed about dropping literally all bonuses to Untrained stuff. I see that as a serious flaw. I could get behind level/2 or something, but maybe that's too much 4e. I dunno.
 

Lord Shark

Varoonik!
Validated User
#7
I do believe they've succeeded in narrowing the power gap between casters and martials, but it's still wider than I'd like. I mean, it's 2019; besides 4E we've had Path of War, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Spheres of Power/Might, and a bunch of other fantasy heartbreakers. It's not like there is a shortage of models of how to make martial characters more fun and capable while retaining the d20 chassis. But the designers were clearly afraid of doing anything that might be denounced as too "extreme" or (gasp!) "video-gamey."

That said, it still looks more interesting to me than 5E, but I definitely wouldn't go by me. I will be taking a look at the finished product, but I'm not holding out hope that my Pathfinder-playing group will adopt it.
 

Silvercat Moonpaw

Quadruped Transhuman
Validated User
#8
The overall reaction I've seen has been in the neutral-to-negative range, leaning more to neutral. But that's a bad place to be, because people who are "meh" about a product don't buy it. Particularly in a field as crowded as TTRPGs. They'll get a smattering of business via organized play stuff, but that won't mimic the success of PF1e.
And then maybe factor in the SRD. (Unless they aren't going to do that for 2e.) I know Paizo only got my 1e money for a few things with nice art and then I bought exclusively 3rd-party because why pay for mechanics I was dubious about when they were available for free?
 

Eric_Diaz

Registered User
Validated User
#9
Hard to find a consensus, I'd say.

"So, what is the general takeaway from it, essentially PF1e with a new coat of paint, something streamlined enough to challange 5e or something else entirely? "

More like something else entirely. It is different enough from PF and 5e to alienate everybody, IMO. I would bet it will win some PF players (which might be enough to make some cash) but not so much, and I cannot fathom leaving 5e (that is probably not my favorite edition of 5e at this point - this would be a house-ruled B/X) for PF 2.

I would still bet it is a better game than PF 1, but I'm not a great fan of PF 1.
 

Eric_Diaz

Registered User
Validated User
#10
To elaborate: it has some new rules, some better martial/caster balance and a more interesting action economy from what I've seem; probably more significant feats too. But it is still PF - there is still loads of options (many at level 1), rules bloat, plenty of space to add new classes/feats/etc.
 
Top Bottom