I think it will. The fact is PF1e is going way, its soon to be a dead system. And yes, some folks will stick to it, we have some tiny number who re still 3.5 or never left AD&D 1e. But once the core drop s PF 1e is dead system.
It my take a while, but many folks will switch over, the hope is it will also bring back some folks and bring in new people. They will lose some, but all the doom and gloom is normal.
Full Bleed wrote:
I have not as I left PF before that book came out. Its neat if you're gonna act like they are meat points, but I like the other way and sy you are not wounded until you hit 0
I hear that. If my GMing style wasn't so ridiculously laid back and laissez faire [within the context of my houserules that make the system work very well for me under those conditions] I'd never touch anything over level 12.
Above 12 IMO, the system breaks hard, its just too much work. I have ran as high as 25 before, but its just to complex, too fiddly.
Just asked if you had. My cleric lost a hand due to that chart, good times.
This to me is why HP's will never be injury. Have you tried 5e's lingering wound option?
So no injury at all into you hit 0
Except they almost never are. You don't fight worse with 1/4th HP than at Full. You re still just as good at everything at 1 HP as t 100 HP, except it takes 1 Hp to take you out.
Been ages since I played PF so no clue how lava is, but the game just does not treat them as being hurt in almost all cases until you hit 0.
I fear a lot more of these topics are going to pop up with Golarion being tied tighter to PF2.
The only way this stops isA: they remove the paladin totally
B: They allow paladins of any AL and more than single code
Option B actually fits Golarion better anyhow as they have jumped though hoops to both bend the "LG only" as far as they can and keep making work around that simply could be a non-LG paladin.
Really how often do you see this stuff about 5e paladins?
Everyone at our tables loves advantage/disadvntage. It smooths play, makes it faster and makes players try epic stuff they would not dare to in 3.x. Such as flinging ones self off ceiling to try and impale dragon, you can only kind see, 40 feet below in the water. In 3.x you would need 3 or more buffs, and magic items and then everyone at the table yelling other buffs you forgot, to have tiny, tiny Chance. With A/D, you have a chance ( totally nailed that dragon btw). IMO, PF 2 could do far, far worse.
It could be misleading, but here is the issue. They re losing sales, their player base is shrinking and will keep doing so. They are not getting enough new folks and have lost many 3.x folks, such as myself.
All game systems age, 10 years is well past time most companies would have made a new edition, its 18 years old at this point. And we all know it shows its age.
Sure, they re gonna lose folks with PF2, but if they do not change, those die hards will be ll they have and they re too large a company to live off that.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Dude, in PF a paladin is tier 4 class, out of 5. Its bottom rung of power gaming, on power gamer worth the name is looking to powergame freaking paladin.
Now I was asked what could make one fall, and really if your belief is powering you, not much can make you fall. People do some, evil, evil things and still think they are the "good guys" and are doing the right thing. This is why, to me paladins need a god.
And the Oathbreaker Oath from 5e is not "free", you have thrown away everything you are to get it. You can be redeemed,but its there for those who throw away their very self image, but want to cling to paladin hood.
5e has many Oaths,each and every one has a code. There is no need to be LG, so being an Oathbreaker is big deal. Its a bigger deal than falling over n Alignment argument or moment of weakness, because you tossed away your Oath, you broke it , not by mistake, not over an Argument over AL which no two people even agree on, but a clear cut, well lid out oath you tossed to the ground and walked all over.
You see "power gaming" where I see fantastic Roleplying.
FR was the same way, Paladins serve a god. Not sure bout which other settings, but it always made sense to me.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
And so, the equivalence fallacy.
A code and alignment are not the same, not even close. The code can be done by wide range of alignments and, as has been explained to you, is clear cut. Its not open for two people to disagree on what it might mean. Because two people will ever agree on how a set AL should act.
The code is not the same as LG. Mny AL's can pull that code off NG, LN, TN, CG,heck LE could likely pull the code off.
And it has been explained to you a dozen times over why "You can just house rule it" does not work as a defense or argument.
You invoked D&D. It is a paladin, says so in the PHB, so you're incorrect claiming it is not. Once you bring D&D into the argument, you brought in 5E and its non-LG paladins.
No, it won't be Houseruled back in many games, You are making the same kinda claims made about taking away human only. We see how well that held up. Or how often its houseruled in 5e, not every often by the look of things because guess what? Non-LG Devotion paladins keep to the classic code.
You have yet to show a single reason why it should stay LG only. D&D has shown that is not needed and removing it not only brings more paladins to the table, it kills one of the oldest game killing arguments in the game. Heck, people no longer fear paladins in the party as its no longer a game killer.
Prft, a single edition of game is not even a tradition, you are building it off D&D, you have invoked it a number of times. D&D says you are wrong, and has proven it.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Nope, I have never seen anyone claim this, ever.
One has little to do with the other. You are making a false equivalency claim here
Again paladin is LG in PF, a 5th paladin is NOT a pathfinder paladin AT ALL. In PF keeping paladin LG and with its code is quite reasonable, it is how it works and how many expect it to work, as been seem in the previous pool thread.
You choose to invoked D&D and that is a D&D paladin, which puts lie to many claims you make. You can stick by the classic code and be non-LG or have a non-classic code and guess what, you're still a paladin.
Also, pointing that people houserule this a lot is meaningless, it will also be houseruled back a lot even if removed, i already even know what my houserule number 1 will be if paizo changes this.
No, its not pointless, this was one reason the race restriction got removed. Because like AL, it was house ruled all the time.
Also, they were restricted to humans
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
What I dont get is if Pallys dont need alignment, then why do they need codes?
The codes IMO re a core part of the paladin, they are an oath, a knightly code of their order. This is not the same as an AL. And there should be many codes and many orders. Paizo has done this with its gods paladins, all the while trying to tip-toe round a silly limit
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Yet, its pretty much paladin but made cartoony evil
Paladins in D&D are not limited to LG. You may choose to play a LG paladin if you wish, but its not required. Paladins re not champions of n alignment, they are holy warriors and that has always been the core of the class
A non-LG paladin is still a paladin, good, evil or in between. No need for new class. D&D puts lie to your claim non LG paladins re not paladins.
No, its just a stupid restriction, like the Human only was a stupid restriction and Druids having to be TN only was stupid restriction. This has been on of the most common house rules since the creation of the class. D&D has proved you can be non- LG and still be a pure up classic paladin, but thats simply not the only way to play a paladin.
WB's Arrowverse has done the same thing as the MCU and id doing dmned well in its nitch. The fact DC's movies can't is a management issue, not a flaw in the product they failed to emulate. DC simply did suck job of copying and did it wrong.
I m not saying for Paizo to copy 5e, but you can bet they are watching it. And one thing 5e has over PF is ease of use, its easy to teach and pick up. 3.x is not and never has been.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
You can do CE paladins now. Funny how you can have any AL paladins in 5e, yet the world did not end and the game runs fine. Your first comment is pretty much the reason given for not allowing non-LG paladins "we don't want them, shut up" even though its likely the most common house rules in D&D history.
For your personal taste this is fine to ignore facts, but as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doing s it is dominating big time.
Your husband is spot on here. 5e does have an SRD by the way, but WOTC only made one of each 3rd level option open. Which is bummer, but does not make it unplayable.
Other side of the coin man, complexity does not mean better either. If it would run as easy and simple as 5e, with pathfinders flare for options, it would be a winner. To many people confuse options with more rules and rules blot and PF they often re one and the same. But they need not be.
To be honest, My group has had far more fun, and far more roleplying, since the switch to 5e and the need to no longer master a super crunchy system with 47 conditions and 38 modifiers dominated game play.
PF could be less crunchy then PF 1 , but easily more than 5e. But IMO if they stick with complex just to be complex, they miss the lesson of 5e
Well, then you must love derailing your game every 5 minutes to explain to him how the rules work and making sure he understands how his character works while everyone else at the table sits there bored too.
It depends on the game. In 5e, it takes seconds, with PF it derailed whole game when one player did not worship the rules set like holy write
Doktor Weasel wrote:
"This new system is worse than the old one, go back and tweak that instead of this new thing." is a valid response to changes. I just have to hope that Paizo is as open-minded as they're expecting us to be. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've been good in the past.
This is unreasonable and not gonna happen after 2 years of in house development.
That would be 4 actions however, I don't see stuff being allowed at a discount as that is screaming spell abuse.
Both cost 2 actions to use. You get 3 actions per round. So no unless you can build up over 2 rounds or something.
Personally, I would be happier if they took some of the better ideas from 5e. The ones they are seeming to take, they are making them more complex for no reason IMO.
I am not saying make it a 5e clone, but 5e did a lot of things right IMO
This is more what I meant. the caster/ non-caster issue is its own set of issues that needs addressed. I do not however see PF doing this.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Because those two are unrelated issues.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I agree not perfect, but IMO the oath system is damned near perfect. So easy to plug new ones in and puts lie to the Idea paladin must be LG s Devotion is pure up the classic code.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The 5e paladin is simply great and the oath system is nice. The Devotion oath is classic, but no longer LG only. While the other oaths re fun and bring new flavors to the class