DMurnett's page

@Dmurnett: I feel like Paizo has more than earned the benefit of the doubt at this point that they put more thought into this than "it's inconvenient for us". Let's see how the FAQ and whatnot continue to evolve over the coming days and let other people with more direct stakes ask their questions.

I suppose that's fair, I was maybe a bit harsh. Paizo is a company that has a lot of goodwill behind it, and for good reason. Still, it's important that we hold them accountable if they slip up. A company, no matter how historically kind, is not your friend. I care a lot that 1e players (and pre-remaster 2e players I suppose) have the option of properly communally maintaining their game now that Paizo understandably doesn't. I find it understandable that if allowing it on infinite poses a threat to Paizo or is otherwise unsolvably complicated then it's a necessary sacrifice, but if such is the case they haven't been up-front about it. Having only Mark's earlier posts in this thread to go by (most notably the one about how Infinite didn't have that much 1e output anyways), the only conclusion I can come to is that Paizo doesn't care about this, unless they address it in more detail. While I'm very certain that they will, I don't live in the future where they already have, I live in the now where they haven't yet, and (un)fortunately I'm no witchwarper so I'm forced to act in accordance with my current reality.

Now I'm no lawyer (in fact I'm very curious what Ronald will have to say about this, if anything) nor 3rd party publisher (yet) but, candidly, most of this seems like a pretty massive misstep, especially the restriction of OGL content from Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite. As a 2e player this won't affect me that much, but I very much sympathize with the 1e players who still prefer and play their system, and like to publish content for it to keep it alive. I don't see any reason to effectively cut them out of using these official channels to do that. "It's more convenient for Paizo" is not a valid reason to do that. If there is one, which I'm not ruling out given the obtuse nature of law, it hasn't been provided to the community in a clearly digestible or even complex and confusing manner. Please reconsider these changes.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm so confused how you're writing this 5 years on from the release of Pathfinder 2e and the massive success its been.

Massive success? Just that ? We probably don't live on the same planet. From my window I see that PRPG2 sells much less well in stores than D&D 5. Which itself sold less well than PRPG1 in the past. The players and GMs I know who tried the adventure with PRPG2 came back to PRPG1 or switched to D&D 5. I'm already amazed that this system managed to last five years when I see the reviews in magazines and on the internet. Even video games based on PRPG2 rules are very, very far from having the notoriety of a Kingmaker or a Wrath of Rigtheous.

And that makes sense. Before with PRPG1 we had numbers on an adventurers sheet that we added to a d20 and it was quick and simple. Certainly the character sheet could take a long time to establish, but then any beginner could play. With PRPG2 we have words instead of numbers like "Untrained", "Trained", "Expert": we must then ask ourselves, depending on the level of the character, the class, its characteristics, what number this corresponds to before even rolling the dice 20. Too long, too pompous, not flexible enough.

As for classes... what can I say... Take the alchemist for example. Even at D&D5 they understood that an alchemist was not only a chemist but also a steampunk inventor (just look at Leonardo da Vinci and many others). In PRPG2 this class is strangely divided into two: the Alchemist and the Inventor. And where did the alchemist spells go in PRPG2? For example, you want to play a Tinkerer (alchemist) of PRPG1 with the rules of PRPG2, you must already multiclass twice: with an archetype of Inventor and another of Wizard (to recover spells and the possibility of summoning mechanical creatures). Since you have to wait until you have taken two class feats in a selected class before multiclassing again, which are only obtained every two levels (not forgetting the dedication feat), you will not be able to play your...

We can pull numbers straight out of our backside all day if you want (PF1 outsold 5e? It was proven that even it outselling 4e was an urban myth) but the facts remain the following: Some people (I assume like yourself) still like 1e, Pathfinder or Starfinder. Some people (like me) find it scary, outdated, and obtuse, and prefer the feel of 2e which is in my opinion simultaneously streamlined and expressive. For better or for worse and due to forces outside their control, Paizo is pulling the plug on Starfinder 1e, arguably long before its time, in favor of making a new edition. People of the former group are rightfully upset, and people of the latter group are really excited to finally get to play Starfinder. I am really excited to play Starfinder. Besides, it's not like your system is going anywhere, the old books will probably remain up as long as Paizo stays afloat and (especially if you're right that 1e is actually more popular) I can't imagine the third-party scene just suddenly evaporating even with the OGL scare.