Why a new system (2.0) is being created?


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Main reason is its old, 10 years 18 if you count 3.0 you eventually reach saturation point (everyone who wants PF has it) and new players incoming do not replace the old players leaving.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm.

You're in for luck, goblins will be core.

Which strikes me as a poor decision.

Goblins are loved for being so silly and weak that we can laugh off their evil.

If goblins aren’t evil then Golarion is being changed.

If goblins stay evil then that alters play (evil characters are normal)

And there’ll be a slew of goblin drizzts.

I’ve had great fun playing goblins PCs, as a fun change of pace/style.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a goblin PC in 5E Critical Role podcast. I think she is popule.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There’s a goblin in my Jade Regent game.
Half-Orcs are for the type of player who likes big monstrous characters.
Goblins are for the type of player who likes little monstrous characters.

I can get behind it.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Darius Silverbolt wrote:

10 years out of a rule system is great but when you add the 10 years of additional books and introducing new things to the system over time the creators will be changes they want to make.

Magic items need a re-tooling (Love Starfinder in this aspect)

Gamers hate buying new books all over again. Paizo is oging to keep Pathfinder 1st Edition alive which is amazing in its own right.

Lastly unlike other companies that change systems in 3-4 years, Paizo waited and allowed Pathfinder to mature. The game is ready to for a 2nd edition.

To our Paizo overlords, Let's see whatcha got for us :-)

I am excited to see what they have done for all of us.

Starfinder item tiers is something I don’t enjoy at all.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Why create a new system? Because the system isn't perfect and much could be improved. I think 10 years is a fair enough amount of time for an edition change. It's roughly the gaps between AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 3rd edition. D&D 4th and 5th edition were roughly 5 years after their previous editions if you count 3.5 as an edition.

I'm old guard from redbox, AD&D 2e, 3rd ed, 3.5 and finally pathfinder. I skipped 4th ed and went to pathfinder not because I hate change but because there was too much change in such a short amount of a time. Also it's not like they were good changes either.

I'm really looking forward to pathfinder 2nd edition and I won't complain if I see 3rd edition in 2029. Seriously 10 years is a huge amount of time, it seems really generous to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo originally said a long time ago they hoped for a 10 year cycle.

Its not that change is bad, to much change to soon resulting in a meh product was the problem with 3.5-4E.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Erik, since you are watching here, and you're one of THE bosses, may I interest you in a divergent path of base characters that will promote market share, increase the diversity of the amazing Pathfinder lines, and make PF 2.0 a completely different animal (pun partially intended!) from all OTHER offerings that are out there?

I've already posted this in a couple of threads, but hey, saturation can't hurt, can it?

Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm. Bring in the tengu, the wayang, the nagajii and... *shudder* kitsune..

Show a system that has learned from its mistakes and grows with the setting that it has developed over the years, build a whole new paradigm that fully extols and supports the new system 2.0 in a way that 1.0 sometimes could not.

*tranq-darted* zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Many of the races you list are very popular, and are good candidates for conversion to 2e ancestries, but I'm afraid we're going with the normal gang (plus goblin) for the Core Rulebook.

Your beloved tengu will not be too far behind, but we're keeping the core of our game similar in terms of classes and races, partly because people would literally murder us if we did otherwise.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Tengus/murder(as in murder of crows) I choose to call this a veiled pun!


Erik Mona wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Erik, since you are watching here, and you're one of THE bosses, may I interest you in a divergent path of base characters that will promote market share, increase the diversity of the amazing Pathfinder lines, and make PF 2.0 a completely different animal (pun partially intended!) from all OTHER offerings that are out there?

I've already posted this in a couple of threads, but hey, saturation can't hurt, can it?

Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm. Bring in the tengu, the wayang, the nagajii and... *shudder* kitsune..

Show a system that has learned from its mistakes and grows with the setting that it has developed over the years, build a whole new paradigm that fully extols and supports the new system 2.0 in a way that 1.0 sometimes could not.

*tranq-darted* zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Many of the races you list are very popular, and are good candidates for conversion to 2e ancestries, but I'm afraid we're going with the normal gang (plus goblin) for the Core Rulebook.

Your beloved tengu will not be too far behind, but we're keeping the core of our game similar in terms of classes and races, partly because people would literally murder us if we did otherwise.

Makes a lot of sense, IDK if I would use Goblins myself but they are prominent in your guys work so it makes sense. Not sure what has been going on in Paizo land since 2012 but I remember the Goblins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a refresh every 10 years is a horrible idea on the surface. As to this specific refresh it's too early to tell as we don't know EXACTLY what the refresh is going to be. 4e of that other game for example was very bad but getting rid of THAC0 for example was VERY good.

As for name being the hot new thing, name recognition, freshness I really don't think a new edition is going to solve that. The problem is that Pathfinder came from that other game, even if I listen to Glass Cannon Podcast or livestreamed games that often slip and refer to that other games name instead of Pathfinder (free advertising for your competitor.) The Old Spice joke class was clearly Pathfinder for those of us who can tell but it was reported all over the media as D&D. I never saw one major article headline that referred to it as Pathfinder, that's not going to change with a new edition.

As for how easy it is to learn it's apples to oranges to compare ALL of the published Pathfinder 1e books to just the launch books for 2e. Of course it's easier to learn 1 book compared to many. You don't HAVE to use any of the books in 1e beyond the first though so is 2e less complex than ONLY the 1e Core Rulebook while maintaining or improving the level of customization? If not there's no point. 2e will no doubt build up a large selection of books over time too and you're just throwing out your old books to start the same thing over.

Also if others have pointed out if the goal is to streamline the rules and make them easier for new players at the expense of customization options (again vs. the 1e Core Rulebook) then that's just what 5e did. If people wanted that they'd already be playing 5e.


da_asmodai wrote:

Also if others have pointed out if the goal is to streamline the rules and make them easier for new players at the expense of customization options (again vs. the 1e Core Rulebook) then that's just what 5e did. If people wanted that they'd already be playing 5e.

It is of course perfectly possible that is what people have done, and that a consequence of that is PF sales have fallen badly enough that the options are go to a new edition or have to stop publishing anything because new material isn't making a profit.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
da_asmodai wrote:

Also if others have pointed out if the goal is to streamline the rules and make them easier for new players at the expense of customization options (again vs. the 1e Core Rulebook) then that's just what 5e did. If people wanted that they'd already be playing 5e.

It is of course perfectly possible that is what people have done, and that a consequence of that is PF sales have fallen badly enough that the options are go to a new edition or have to stop publishing anything because new material isn't making a profit.

We already know that Paizo's profits went somewhat stagnant a year after 5e came out. And 5e's market share has been growing non-stop since release. It's been what, nearly four years now? And 5e is still going strong as the top seller in table top rpg gaming.

If Paizo wants to keep their market growing and continue to be a legitimate competitor to D&D, they have to do this. But not only that, it's good for both Paizo and the industry as a whole. It keeps money flowing and new ideas are produced. It keeps the community active and having fun.

This is a good decision no matter how you slice it.

The only way for this to be bad is for the rules to suck - and despite my own personal preferences and issues with PF, Paizo generally does not make bad games. Complex games, yes - but not bad ones. There's a reason they were top of the charts prior to 5e, and even with 5e there's a reason they're just shy of the top. They make a good product.

Scarab Sages

Serisan wrote:

I'm going to draw a comparison here that I think a lot of people won't necessarily agree with, but I can assure you is relevant. I work for a technology company with pretty deep roots. We're currently going through end-of-support procedures for several pieces of software. We have replacements out there that are straight up better in virtually every way - security, ease of use, functionality, interface/UX enhancements, update velocity, etc. - and we have financial incentives for customers to move to the replacement products.

Some won't.

It doesn't matter how much their ROI would improve, how much easier their lives would be, or how it impacts other people at the org. Somewhere in there, a decision maker won't make the move. Some will stick with the product they've been using, even though we won't support it. Usually, the ones who are most resistant to moving tend to be afraid of the change. They tend to be experts in the old software, acting as gatekeepers between their staff and their data. Many of them are terrified that they will become obsolete if the org makes the change.

I see the same behavior trends in some of the posts since this announcement.

I understand and appreciate the concerns that people have about their investment being invalidated. I've got a substantial collection of PDFs, hardcovers, etc. I've got 4 GM stars in PFS and a pile of organized play characters that won't be able to partake in Season 11+ content. My investment is pretty significant, but I realize that a new edition coming out is about an evolution of product vision.

Paizo has outright said, as many have observed in the past, that they are not the same company that created the CRB. Some individuals are still there, but the company has grown and evolved over the intervening decade. The writing quality has gone up on average, ideas are plentiful, and we see regular posts about just how many complaints people have about the system. With sales up over the past year, they're less exposed to risk...

I'm onboard. I'm going to buy all the stuff. At least initially. But if the same mistakes (at least mistakes I personally perceive) are made in the new edition as the old, then I'll be out much more quickly than before. You can check out a couple of my posts in these Playtest threads to find out what I feel the mistakes are and what they can do to fix them.

Sovereign Court

I do not look forward to new monster books and the pain of waiting for your favorite monster to appear as it may not make the cut as a "classic" to be in the 1st book.
Have to wait and see on classes - Occult book just came out who knows how long until they are officially adapted to 2nd edition - I feel bad for the creators who designed them to see there lives cut short :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the stuff we love. Gone. What about all those Hero Lab investments? How much longer will that be supported?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*looks at his 3.5 collection still on the shelf*

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
*looks at his 3.5 collection still on the shelf*

*looks at all editions still on the shelf*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And how many people play it with you?

*Crickets*


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Brother Fen wrote:
What about all those Hero Lab investments? How much longer will that be supported?

My guess is that Hero Lab will take the opportunity to switch to a subscription model with 2.0 like they did with Starfinder.

The data you bought for Pf1.0 "ought to be"* yours to keep, while they will certainly stop offering new datasets and bug fixes at some point. The problem comes if you upgrade systems and vanilla/non-subscription-based Hero Lab is no longer an option to download on your new system to parse all your datasets.

At that point it becomes like all the datasets I bought for eTools from Code Monkey Publishing before WotC yanked their license.

*:
Morally, IMO. I have no idea about the legality of it. That's a question that will have to be asked and answered at Wolf Lair.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:

And how many people play it with you?

*Crickets*

Answering your own apparent "gotcha" question within the same post indicates that you have no wish to actually discuss the issue.

I still play 3.5 and Pathfinder and occasionally even drag out my Birthright books, even if I'm not actually using the 2nd Ed character creation mechanics.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I... I read the FAQ... and got to a particular part... and I'm trying really really hard to not burst out laughing and link a bunch of forum posts on a certain subject...

*twitches and sweats profusely*

Scarab Sages

Jiggy wrote:

I... I read the FAQ... and got to a particular part... and I'm trying really really hard to not burst out laughing and link a bunch of forum posts on a certain subject...

*twitches and sweats profusely*

I'd be curious to know which part that was.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo is making a gamble. They obviously decided that 5e's popularity is not a flash in the pan (which it is) and felt threatened enough that they are willing to give up all the people that are only playing Pathfinder because it is a "living" 3.5.

Which is probably fair. Our own group primarily plays Savage Worlds now. People don't like playing 5e and don't like running Pathfinder.

But the crowd Paizo just gave up would have played and bought 1e Pathfinder on subscription until they died. They couldn't have kept their current staff on such revenue, but they could have always had a team devoted to it. Rather than firing most of their staff, that are taking this gamble.

Most games that went against D&D have died like this. Maybe Paizo will succeed where everyone else has failed. Or they won't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I... I read the FAQ... and got to a particular part... and I'm trying really really hard to not burst out laughing and link a bunch of forum posts on a certain subject...

*twitches and sweats profusely*

I'd be curious to know which part that was.

If I remember correctly, Jiggy took it on themselves to catalogue Caster-Marital disparity, and they're probably pretty happy it got officially acknowledged.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MR. H wrote:
They obviously decided that 5e's popularity is not a flash in the pan (which it is)

How do you figure?


What gets me about the whole " books are invalidated" issue is that it's simply not true. A lack of new edition does not mean automatically that some in the hobby would play a new edition. I'm lucky enough that I could join a D6 Star Wars or FFG Star Wars game in my neck of the woods. I have interest in neither at the moment. If the people playing and running and both subscribed to false invalidation theory no one would be playing imo,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
MR. H wrote:
They obviously decided that 5e's popularity is not a flash in the pan (which it is)
How do you figure?

It's popular right now. That would obviously threaten the previous leader of the market.

It's a flash in the pan because people on out on it relatively fast. All the marketing and new people distract from the bleed off into other systems I see from people who go to 5e. 5e is not something you play forever or should. 5e groups that last just have really good DMs and solid players, the system doesn't help all that much especially at "high" levels (level 7 is game breaking high for 5e and where you should start thinking about how the campaign ends)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

(Posted this in another thread, but I think it’s worth posting here as well)

Here’s my take for what its’ worth ....

As others have said, game systems evolve and new editions come out. It’s just a fact. They have to or they fade away and are replaced by other systems. I respect (and even understand) the desire some folks have that Pathfinder remain the same and never move on to a second edition, but the reality is that a second edition was inevitable.

Will the new edition have some similarities to Starfinder? Probably? Will it show some influences from 5E? Of course! Let’s face it, unlike 4E, 5E has been a massive success and Paizo would frankly be fools if they ignored that and didn’t learn from what 5E did right.u

Here’s the thing (at least for me) ... it simply seems far too early to decide to abandon Paizo simply because a second edition has been announced. This is a good company made up of great, talented, creative people who are clearly passionate about delivering a fantastic new version of the game. Let’s give Paizo a chance first before judging and/or dismissing something before we see it.

It seems to me we should have some faith and maybe even cheer them on, offer plenty of constructive feedback during the playtest and then reserve passing judgement until we actually see the final product. If it’s great, then we all win. If it’s not great, then folks have every right to vote with their dollars.

I guess I’m just saying let’s give Paizo a fair shake and and wait for the final game before we pass judgement. Haven’t they at least earned that? I certainly think so, anyway ...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I... I read the FAQ... and got to a particular part... and I'm trying really really hard to not burst out laughing and link a bunch of forum posts on a certain subject...

*twitches and sweats profusely*

I'd be curious to know which part that was.
If I remember correctly, Jiggy took it on themselves to catalogue Caster-Marital disparity, and they're probably pretty happy it got officially acknowledged.

Credit where credit's due: Kobold Cleaver was the one who did the cataloging work. I've spoken on the subject quite a bit, and wrote a long post trying to help get people past some of the "sticking points" that typically prevented productive discussions about it, but I didn't catalog anything.

But anyway, yes, that's the subject I'm talking about. Pretty much every time the subject came up, there would be people insisting that it didn't exist, and/or was a self-created problem as a result of players being terrible people who don't understand the point of the game and everything would be fine if they just learned the meaning of "team" and so on and so forth.

And yet here we are, with that disparity being explicitly listed as a problem that 2E tries to address. Reminiscing about certain old forum posts just keeps me smiling and laughing. :)

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MR. H wrote:
Zaister wrote:
MR. H wrote:
They obviously decided that 5e's popularity is not a flash in the pan (which it is)
How do you figure?

It's popular right now. That would obviously threaten the previous leader of the market.

It's a flash in the pan because people on out on it relatively fast. All the marketing and new people distract from the bleed off into other systems I see from people who go to 5e. 5e is not something you play forever or should. 5e groups that last just have really good DMs and solid players, the system doesn't help all that much especially at "high" levels (level 7 is game breaking high for 5e and where you should start thinking about how the campaign ends)

Oh, there I thought you have some actual data, like sales or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MR. H wrote:
Zaister wrote:
MR. H wrote:
They obviously decided that 5e's popularity is not a flash in the pan (which it is)
How do you figure?

It's popular right now. That would obviously threaten the previous leader of the market.

It's a flash in the pan because people on out on it relatively fast. All the marketing and new people distract from the bleed off into other systems I see from people who go to 5e. 5e is not something you play forever or should. 5e groups that last just have really good DMs and solid players, the system doesn't help all that much especially at "high" levels (level 7 is game breaking high for 5e and where you should start thinking about how the campaign ends)

Oh, there I thought you have some actual data, like sales or something.

As we know things on forums are only discussed with hard scientific data. Speculation based off what we've seen in our communities is something to ignore since a Journal of any impact factor wouldn't accept it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
And how many people play it with you?

So why aren't you playing?


I'll probably pick up the core rulebook, because I can't resist a new system (unless it's one that rubs me the wrong way right from the start... like D&D 4E, the Michael Bay of gaming systems). I don't really game much anymore anyway. I'll be interested to see what they do with the system, but, like D&D 5E, I probably won't play it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:

And how many people play it with you?

*Crickets*

Answering your own apparent "gotcha" question within the same post indicates that you have no wish to actually discuss the issue.
Quite honestly, 2E causing some people to leave is a feature to me, not a bug.

^^^^ Best laugh I've had all day! Thank you!

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, but it isn't positive and it isn't nice, so I've deleted it.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will reserve judgement for seeing the rules and earliest availability of a GOOD race I can play in PFS right away rather than waiting for a racial/ancestry boon to play.

EDIT: *Shower Insight*: Okay, I'm game.

I'm playing a goblin paladin in the playtest, *BECAUSE* I can't separate Moral from Ancestral values.

Let's do this thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aristophanes wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.

just like PF2 should have been

Just like PF2 is.

Paizo isn't going to send a hit squad around to your houses to seize and burn your old "invalidated" books.

they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead. If a language is not longer actively spoken, if it only exist in scripture of days long gone, how are the newer languages optional? Those languages are called 'dead' for a reason

What kind of new content do you need? Rules or Adventures?

Adventures mostly, since that is where Paizo reigns supreme.

And no, I won't invest weeks of my time converting* 2nd edition APs by myself just to find out that with all the unnecessary 5E/SF changes they made to the game they crippled every chance to get a functional conversion to work

*more like 'rebuilding' as it looks like right now

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I... I read the FAQ... and got to a particular part... and I'm trying really really hard to not burst out laughing and link a bunch of forum posts on a certain subject...

*twitches and sweats profusely*

I'd be curious to know which part that was.
If I remember correctly, Jiggy took it on themselves to catalogue Caster-Marital disparity, and they're probably pretty happy it got officially acknowledged.

Credit where credit's due: Kobold Cleaver was the one who did the cataloging work. I've spoken on the subject quite a bit, and wrote a long post trying to help get people past some of the "sticking points" that typically prevented productive discussions about it, but I didn't catalog anything.

But anyway, yes, that's the subject I'm talking about. Pretty much every time the subject came up, there would be people insisting that it didn't exist, and/or was a self-created problem as a result of players being terrible people who don't understand the point of the game and everything would be fine if they just learned the meaning of "team" and so on and so forth.

And yet here we are, with that disparity being explicitly listed as a problem that 2E tries to address. Reminiscing about certain old forum posts just keeps me smiling and laughing. :)

Ah yes. I'm pretty sure I fell on the side of, "Yes, there is a disparity, but its a feature, not a bug." And, "The disparity isn't as big as some folks try to make it out to be, and a high level melee character can hold their own in high level play." Anecdotally, I got to see this play out twice, with my largely martial rage prophet/battle oracle that I got up to level 19 (yup Jiggy, Bbauzh is level 19 now) and with my grippli ninja that I got to level 20.

That being said, anything that creates more balance across classes but still allows for maximum differentiation (I hated that 4E made everything feel the same, just with a different label.)

So I suppose in the end, I agree that a change to more balance is a good thing. I'm just not sure it was a thing that was in dire need of changing since I had tons of fun up through level 20 with two largely martial characters.

Shadow Lodge

Hythlodeus wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.

just like PF2 should have been

Just like PF2 is.

Paizo isn't going to send a hit squad around to your houses to seize and burn your old "invalidated" books.

they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead. If a language is not longer actively spoken, if it only exist in scripture of days long gone, how are the newer languages optional? Those languages are called 'dead' for a reason

What kind of new content do you need? Rules or Adventures?

Adventures mostly, since that is where Paizo reigns supreme.

And no, I won't invest weeks of my time converting* 2nd edition APs by myself just to find out that with all the unnecessary 5E/SF changes they made to the game they crippled every chance to get a functional conversion to work

*more like 'rebuilding' as it looks like right now

I'll admit I'm luckier than you, in the sense that I'm used to doing this already. Almost every encounter I have to rebuild at least something, or else my players will just steamroll the whole AP. So I'm used to working mostly from scratch.

Anything that can be done to ease this, such as a conversion back to PF Classic guide, would be greatly appreciated regardless, though =)


Orthos wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.

just like PF2 should have been

Just like PF2 is.

Paizo isn't going to send a hit squad around to your houses to seize and burn your old "invalidated" books.

they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead. If a language is not longer actively spoken, if it only exist in scripture of days long gone, how are the newer languages optional? Those languages are called 'dead' for a reason

What kind of new content do you need? Rules or Adventures?

Adventures mostly, since that is where Paizo reigns supreme.

And no, I won't invest weeks of my time converting* 2nd edition APs by myself just to find out that with all the unnecessary 5E/SF changes they made to the game they crippled every chance to get a functional conversion to work

*more like 'rebuilding' as it looks like right now

I'll admit I'm luckier than you, in the sense that I'm used to doing this already. Almost every encounter I have to rebuild at least something, or else my players will just steamroll the whole AP. So I'm used to working mostly from scratch.

Anything that can be done to ease this, such as a conversion back to PF Classic guide, would be greatly appreciated regardless, though =)

Oh, I have to do that too. 6 players, rolled stats, they usually all roll very high. so I will have to rebuild to PF AND on top of that have to raise the difficulty level. And I have a life outside of RPG sessions too that sometimes needs attention.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Why PF2? I'd guess for the following reasons:

One, they are plain running out of stuff to publish for PF1. What is possibly left to add to the game at this point?

But mainly, my guess is their research has identified a market for a new fantasy RPG that's more complex than 5e. The latter may have brought many new people into the hobby, but many of them may start craving more player options, greater mechanical depth, and a rulebook with a firm connection to a setting. Mike Mearls (lead designer of 4e and 5e) seems to think that rules complexity and lore density constitutes 'gatekeeping', which leads me to believe that the niche PF2 seeks to fill will be left unfilled by WotC.

From the other direction, there are a lot of 3e/PF1 players who would like a game that's better streamlined and balanced (especially for high-level play), but without 5e's level of simplification.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
...Mike Mearls (lead designer of 4e and 5e) seems to think that rules complexity and lore density constitutes 'gatekeeping', which leads me to believe that the niche PF2 seeks to fill will be left unfilled by WotC...

I think this is a willfully incorrect interpretation of this post. MM is speaking in response to criticism specifically targeted at a WoTC's first woman hired in some time. Complex rules and lore can be used to gatekeep. Have you ever tried to join any nerd sub-culture or fandom? This is one way people can keep folks they don't like out of our hobby.

Does D&D have complexity? Yes. Does Pathfinder have complexity? Also, yes. Are you going to use that complexity as weapon to bully people out of or away from the game? I hope not. But that flagrant disregard for the context of this post makes me think you are the kind of person who doesn't want anyone but the people who are already playing RPGs to take up the hobby.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Context problem + Twitter = (Context problem)²


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people? There are lots of reasons for a new edition, and they are giving us a ton of lead time, as much as I didnt want to personally see a new edition, I think its fair to say it's time. They have done about as much as they could have with the 3.x ruleset. Its time to break the chains and start fresh. They have given us a literal decade of stories and fun, it boggles my mind that fans would loose faith now. Will pathfinder 2 be perfect? No obviously not, I don't think a perfect roleplaying game exists theres way too much that is subjective in there. But I bet it will be fun, and there will be cool adventures, and great art, and all sorts of fun support products. Which ultimately is what i want from paizo.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
there will be cool adventures, and great art, and all sorts of fun support products.

nothing that warrants a new edition

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people?...

This is the internet, so yes. Obviously. The boards now are but the opening skirmishes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the issue for me... I don't mind a new edition. I object to a change of rules and a change of rules that invalidates an entire collection of books.

Take a look at Call of Cthulhu. The game system is the same as it was when the game was first released back in the early 80's. CoC has a strong following just like D&D and Pathfinder. It shows quite clearly that game doesn't need to change it's system. That has always been the problem with D&D in the last twenty years. Each change of edition since 2nd has invalidated the previous edition when all it needed was an update on the current rules.

As for the collection of books, I'm not prepared to buy a whole new game system - and let's be honest here, that is what PF2 is - when the current rules system is perfectly fine.

Good luck to Paizo in this endeavour but I won't be with them. I shall stick to PF1 as my fantasy game of choice.

51 to 100 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Why a new system (2.0) is being created? All Messageboards