| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that Pathfinder has become the legacy of the old guard, and is no longer at all an attractive game for a new audience, unless they are inducted by a Pathfinder-player. Making a game that's exciting for both new and old players is a pretty important evolution, even if it's painful to transition.
I second this.
Besides, as far as I am concerned more personally, I only started playing Pathfinder in 2013, and I always felt like I had arrived later to the show, such as when you start watching a movie from minute 45 or so. I love Pathfinder, but I didn't feel completely at home while playing it. There were a lot of old good stuff that I never got to play, because they became too old in the meantime. Now, I can finally see the story begin, and that will probably push me to buy more products than in the past :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that Pathfinder has become the legacy of the old guard, and is no longer at all an attractive game for a new audience, unless they are inducted by a Pathfinder-player. Making a game that's exciting for both new and old players is a pretty important evolution, even if it's painful to transition.I second this.
Besides, as far as I am concerned more personally, I only started playing Pathfinder in 2013, and I always felt like I had arrived later to the show, such as when you start watching a movie from minute 45 or so. I love Pathfinder, but I didn't feel completely at home while playing it. There were a lot of old good stuff that I never got to play, because they became too old in the meantime. Now, I can finally see the story begin, and that will probably push me to buy more products than in the past :)
Re: new audience: That "unless" applies to the vast majority of D&D players during every edition ever, I'd wager, whethrr the beginning or end of the life cycle. It's not worth much as a criteria for "it's old kill it".
Re: "never got to play": What's stopping you? We just started a RotRL campaign a month ago. Seems to be going fine so far.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
because it was highly necessary
Balancing gameplay for characters above level 10 does seem worthwhile....
But "streamlining" best not take the fun out of the character builds...
5E often produces Gauntlet-style supercharacters with too little distinction & powers that are short on subtlety. I don't want to play Society to have the same character everyone else has- I want to be able to put my own spin on it!
But i've only played 5e under 1 DM so perhaps I lack perspective.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing roleplaying games almost 2 years now. I was introduced to pathfinder with pfs i liked it, but one of the walls i have constantly hit is rules bloat. I recently finished running curse of the crimson throne for a group of 6 veteran pathfinder/roleplay gamers and i learned a lot. But ultimately i still feel like the rules get in their own way when it comes to telling a story. I also recently introduced my entire family to the game and system. I have 6 players in that as well. 8 if my nieces are allowed to stay up and play. And i gotta say, its very hard for me to explain to them what is going on each turn in a way they can understand.
As soon as the playtest is out I'll probably convert that campaign to the new rules. I dont think they will make the experience lackluster. I think they will make it easier for my family, who have never played this style of game ever, to actually enjoy without being so confused by all the rules and verbage that they decide they'd rather not play again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
because it was highly necessaryBalancing gameplay for characters above level 10 does seem worthwhile....
But "streamlining" best not take the fun out of the character builds...
5E often produces Gauntlet-style supercharacters with too little distinction & powers that are short on subtlety. I don't want to play Society to have the same character everyone else has- I want to be able to put my own spin on it!
But i've only played 5e under 1 DM so perhaps I lack perspective.
I've been running society games for 5e for about three years now. I've seen a ton of different characters, and I've never seen two the are alike.
One of the things that helps is because the mechanics are simpler, a lot of people tend to look elsewhere for variability. Character personalities and motivations pop out a lot more in 5e. I've seen two mechanically identical characters at the same table and they couldn't have been more different based on the roleplay and how their actual personhood was designed. That same phenomenon has occurred again and again. The most extreme was three human fighters in the group, two of which were archers, all of them very similar. And yet, none of them were based on the PC's personality and motivations.
I've also done Pathfinder Society games for many years, and that entire time I've only ever seen one person roleplay their character to make them stand out (and it came from someone that I completely didn't expect to see it, as I've seen him many times at a PFS table and he was always really shy). Everyone else used their character sheet and the mechanics to make their character unique.
These lessons have taught me that if you want to make your character unique, you need to think beyond the character sheet.
Your character isn't just a set of numbers and abilities on a piece of paper.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the only reason needed is "they figured they could have a better game in 2021 if they made a new edition compared to if they didn't" as well as "11 years of consistent, solid support is as good a run as any d20 game has had without major revisions".
|
^^^^ Best laugh I've had all day! Thank you!
Quite honestly, 2E causing some people to leave is a feature to me, not a bug.
Well, 2e was played and used beside 1e for a long while back in the day, with little to convert as they was so simular...
Wait, you meant Pathfinder 2e? Sorry, misunderstood there. Forget what I said, nothing to see, carry on...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think an edition change to Pathfinder has more potential problems than other RPGs would have. Mostly because of the history of Pathfinder being that it was in large part the RPG for people unhappy with an edition change. So I'd suspect that Pathfinder players might be more change-adverse than gamers as a whole. (Especially if the change resembles the one to 4th...)
My group has been playing PF since the playtest and I still hear grumbles of "This isn't the way it used to be! Piazo messed it up!" Usually they're wrong, and the rule in question is unchanged from 3.5 and often 3.0 (I often look it up), but there is a lot of skepticism of new things, real and imagined. There's already a lot of grumbling about the new edition with them being worried it's 4th ed all over again. So Paizo needs to do a lot to reassure these customers or risk losing the loyal customers. And I wouldn't count on new players to replace them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I wouldn't count on new players to replace them.
I wouldn't too, to be honest. THose who want a simple, streamlined Fantasy RPG solution already have that in 5E. THose who want more variety, coice and complexity had PF so far. I don't know what PF2 could bring to the table that would attract new players
I would not automatically assume they will not get new or returning players. It could go either way. It too easy for those in rpgs especially with D&D to automatically dismiss or assume it will fail. Simpky because they don't like a rpg.
I neither assume thst it will a success or failure. I rather remain positive than negative.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen a plethora of old names in these threads, people I haven't seen on the forums in years. The old guard will see what Paizo does before they throw themselves out.
I'm an "old guard" myself (been playing since Holmes Basic) and I say bring it on. I scoff at the "I've invested too much in this game" argument because it gets trotted out with every edition, and most of the time I note the person who makes it is often right back in, contributing to the community a year later with the new edition. If I bothered to add up the money I've spent over the years on different d&d editions and other games, I'd probably shake my head in disbelief and wish I were a much smarter man. :-)
Over Half the people saying they'll bail on PF2 will try it out, find out they like it, and quietly buy in. It's the way of the gaming world...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen a plethora of old names in these threads, people I haven't seen on the forums in years. The old guard will see what Paizo does before they throw themselves out.I'm an "old guard" myself (been playing since Holmes Basic) and I say bring it on. I scoff at the "I've invested too much in this game" argument because it gets trotted out with every edition, and most of the time I note the person who makes it is often right back in, contributing to the community a year later with the new edition. If I bothered to add up the money I've spent over the years on different d&d editions and other games, I'd probably shake my head in disbelief and wish I were a much smarter man. :-)
Over Half the people saying they'll bail on PF2 will try it out, find out they like it, and quietly buy in. It's the way of the gaming world...
Yup. I have shelves full of AD&D 2e stuff (particularly Planescape), shelves full of Pathfinder stuff. Every 5e book that has come out. Starfinder, Atomic Highway, VtM, Shadowrun, Dungeon World, FATE, Genysis, several Numenera books, FFG Edge of the Empire, Dragons Conquer America...
Used to have shelves full of 3.0/3.5 stuff, but I sold all those back in the late 00s during a rough period when I was strapped for cash.
Still planning on getting PF2. Hell, I'm going to buy the leather backed playtest book, and probably also the soft cover.
People who say that they're not switching because of how much they've invested into PF1 have either never played another edition or have forgotten their own past.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the investment to me as much as it is about reaching that part of my gaming life where I know what I want from a system/setting combination and what is best for my needs as a gamer/GM in (in this case) heroic fantasy RPGs. There are a lott of different systems I play or played in and for heroic fantasy my group and I settled for 3.5/PF because it is what fits us and our gamestyle best (a little bit more focus on the roleplaying part could not hurt, but that's where the GM, most of the time me, usually comes in...speaking of which, as someone who never really uses downtime rules because I tend to use those phases of the game for interactions, general role play and so forth, the little we know so far about the incorporation of downtime rules as fixed part of the mechanics doesn't look too good to me)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the investment to me as much as it is about reaching that part of my gaming life where I know what I want from a system/setting combination and what is best for my needs as a gamer/GM in (in this case) heroic fantasy RPGs. There are a lott of different systems I play or played in and for heroic fantasy my group and I settled for 3.5/PF because it is what fits us and our gamestyle best (a little bit more focus on the roleplaying part could not hurt, but that's where the GM, most of the time me, usually comes in...speaking of which, as someone who never really uses downtime rules because I tend to use those phases of the game for interactions, general role play and so forth, the little we know so far about the incorporation of downtime rules as fixed part of the mechanics doesn't look too good to me)
Then by all meams keep playing PF1! I know groups who still have an active AD&D 1e and 2e game going. Hell, I played 2e up until 2010.
Spending all your time disparaging the new edition and threating to quit isn't doing anyone any good, however.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I intend to do so, no worries. And I never threatend to quit (what would I quit if there is nothing I can quit on?) But backwards compatibility is a huge factor in purchasing anything new. If it is not possible for me to find use in the coming APs, chances are naturally high I won't buy them. I'm not a collector, I don't buy APs for their value in my collection. I buy them for their value at the gaming table
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got to play in Jason's final Pathfinder 2.0 demo at GaryCon this Saturday. My thoughts are here:
I http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyzu?I-Played-Pathfinder-20-Demo-at-GaryCon#1
@ Hythlodeus - my take away, both from playing Pathfinder 2.0 for about 4 hours, and from discussing it with Jason specifically, is that first edition adventures will absolutely still be usable with 2.0 rules, with just a few stat block swaps here and there. Honestly, I left that table after 4 hours of playing feeling extremely positive about the new version. I really think you have nothing to worry about!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because it was highly necessaryBalancing gameplay for characters above level 10 does seem worthwhile....
But "streamlining" best not take the fun out of the character builds...
5E often produces Gauntlet-style supercharacters with too little distinction & powers that are short on subtlety. I don't want to play Society to have the same character everyone else has- I want to be able to put my own spin on it!
But i've only played 5e under 1 DM so perhaps I lack perspective.
I've been running society games for 5e for about three years now. I've seen a ton of different characters, and I've never seen two the are alike.
One of the things that helps is because the mechanics are simpler, a lot of people tend to look elsewhere for variability. Character personalities and motivations pop out a lot more in 5e. I've seen two mechanically identical characters at the same table and they couldn't have been more different based on the roleplay and how their actual personhood was designed. That same phenomenon has occurred again and again. The most extreme was three human fighters in the group, two of which were archers, all of them very similar. And yet, none of them were based on the PC's personality and motivations.
I've also done Pathfinder Society games for many years, and that entire time I've only ever seen one person roleplay their character to make them stand out (and it came from someone that I completely didn't expect to see it, as I've seen him many times at a PFS table and he was always really shy). Everyone else used their character sheet and the mechanics to make their character unique.
These lessons have taught me that if you want to make your character unique, you need to think beyond the character sheet.
Your character isn't just a set of numbers and abilities on a piece of paper.
I noticed too what you mention here. However, I also noticed that folks in 5E tend to play off their background. Something that doesnt change after level 1. The players tend to never grow up and out of that first level chargen. Hopefully, PF2 can find a middle ground where characters evolve enough mechanically to promote RP without being a mechanical straight jacket.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just something to bear in mind as this cropped up a lot in the 3.5->PF1 transition:
Backwards Compatibility means you can use something from the previous version with minimal conversion in the newer version.
What some people are asking for is Forwards Compatibility, i.e. being able to use newer products in the older system. This is usually more tricky as it involves, for example, stripping Fighters of Bravery and Armour Training to get from PF1 to 3.5.
I know this distinction caused some bad feeling the first time as people thought they were getting Forwards Compatibility when they weren't. I expect it will be easier to convert from PF1 to PF2 than it will be to do the reverse.
This concludes the message from the Department of Unofficial Expectations Management.
I got to play in Jason's final Pathfinder 2.0 demo at GaryCon this Saturday. My thoughts are here:
I http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyzu?I-Played-Pathfinder-20-Demo-at-GaryCon#1
@ Hythlodeus - my take away, both from playing Pathfinder 2.0 for about 4 hours, and from discussing it with Jason specifically, is that first edition adventures will absolutely still be usable with 2.0 rules, with just a few stat block swaps here and there. Honestly, I left that table after 4 hours of playing feeling extremely positive about the new version. I really think you have nothing to worry about!
I guess the next question is, how easy will PF2 adventures be to revert back to PF1?
@ Hythlodeus - my take away, both from playing Pathfinder 2.0 for about 4 hours, and from discussing it with Jason specifically, is that first edition adventures will absolutely still be usable with 2.0 rules
never doubted that, but will PF2 adventures will be usable with PF1 rules? That's what I really want to know.
I'm more concerned with house rules (and custom content), since i have a ton. Converting them to p2 maybe a chore, in which case its not worth it. However, p2‘s success is not going to be effected by my lack of support, i'm humble enough to admit that. And, although the responses to p2 have been varied about 2/3 seem hopeful, so success seems likely.
Just something to bear in mind as this cropped up a lot in the 3.5->PF1 transition:
Backwards Compatibility means you can use something from the previous version with minimal conversion in the newer version.
What some people are asking for is Forwards Compatibility, i.e. being able to use newer products in the older system. This is usually more tricky as it involves, for example, stripping Fighters of Bravery and Armour Training to get from PF1 to 3.5.
I know this distinction caused some bad feeling the first time as people thought they were getting Forwards Compatibility when they weren't. I expect it will be easier to convert from PF1 to PF2 than it will be to do the reverse.
This concludes the message from the Department of Unofficial Expectations Management.
if you are referring to the First time being when it went from 3.5 to PF, I can say PF APs are absolutely playable and compatible with 3.5 rules, you just have to know how to adjust things slightly in order to account for differences such as XP, power levels...etc. Overall, not very hard to do.
If PF2e is as compatible with P1E it will be a synch to convert the APs in 2e to 1e.
And I wouldn't count on new players to replace them.I wouldn't too, to be honest. THose who want a simple, streamlined Fantasy RPG solution already have that in 5E. THose who want more variety, coice and complexity had PF so far. I don't know what PF2 could bring to the table that would attract new players
Might not have to get new players just sell to the existing ones. Its possible sales to 80% of the player base is still more than 1E sales to 100% of the player base.
Its also been noticed on various 5E boards. Some players will come back or play both. I'm a 5E player, will probably buy the 2E PF book, ow much I buy after that depends on various factors (income, players desires, my desires, adventure suppoprt, quality of the game etc)
I don't really want more AP and megaadventures now as I have around 20 of hem I have not actually completed.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it a bit amusing that people basically want 100% compatability with Pathfinder 1.0. My system of choice for D&D-esque games is Swords & Wizardry. Other than picking an appropriate monster replacement, I am perfectly capable of converting on-the fly. And I do this conversion on-the-fly from some radically different systems.....D&D (any edition), Rifts, Paranoia, ...basically anything i can make the basic story fit (and I can make some odd choices fit).
Of course, it's a bit easier to translate to a simpler system. But still, i manage to convert from systems that S&W has no DNA in common with, aside from being an RPG.
good for you
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why did this need a bump? It's four pages deep and the OP's question has been answered multiple times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think an edition change to Pathfinder has more potential problems than other RPGs would have. Mostly because of the history of Pathfinder being that it was in large part the RPG for people unhappy with an edition change. So I'd suspect that Pathfinder players might be more change-adverse than gamers as a whole. (Especially if the change resembles the one to 4th...)
This raises an interesting question. How many current Pathfinder players are players that carried over since 3.5? Has pathfinder "won" new groups of players in these 10 years?
If the answer is "yes"... do they have the same kind of alergy to edition changes?
If the answer is "no"... is that a good hint for Paizo's health? That after 10 years, they have no new players, it's the same group of people who started with them in 2008? Has that number dwindled with time? If so, how much? Do they need a plan if the number is dwindling? Or can they just keep milking those same consumers' wallets forever?
Do this hobby need new players? Or should it be happy with having the same?
Some Pathfinder players I know are too young to have played D&D 3.5 when it was a live game system supported by WotC, so Paizo is attracting new players. I went from D&D 4E to Pathfinder after having mostly skipped over D&D 3.5 (mostly for lack of a gaming group during the 3.5 era).
While it is rare for RPG players to start with Pathfinder, the added wealth of options in Pathfinder vs. the last two editions of D&D should continue to attract players who move the least bit beyond the casual gamer level of interest. It remains to be seen whether Pathfinder sales grow more because of the tuneup to the system than they slip because of the temporary reduction in available options.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who started with AD&D, played a ton of 3.5, and got started with Pathfinder pretty early on, I'm excited for a new edition.
This discussion also reminded me that while I liked the backwards compatibility of Pathfinder, I used 3.5 material once in my pathfinder games and that was for a short lived campaign. Pathfinder holds up on its own as its own game, and did so many things well that it didn't need to rely on 3.5 material to be awesome.
The same is going to happen with 2.0. We will have the ability to convert things over to the new system but more than likely we won't have to. It will be a strong and engaging system that won't need to use 1.0 material to hold up.
You also won't have to buy anything new because you never had to buy anything in the first place. 90% of my sources when I'm looking up rules are online and free to use. The same is probably going to happen with 2.0. The only reason I own the books is because I wanted to throw money at Paizo and help keep them in business, not because I wanted access to rules.
I welcome this as an old guard. Bring it on. You may not like change, but I see every stated reason to do it as a good one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think an edition change to Pathfinder has more potential problems than other RPGs would have. Mostly because of the history of Pathfinder being that it was in large part the RPG for people unhappy with an edition change. So I'd suspect that Pathfinder players might be more change-adverse than gamers as a whole. (Especially if the change resembles the one to 4th...)
This raises an interesting question. How many current Pathfinder players are players that carried over since 3.5? Has pathfinder "won" new groups of players in these 10 years?
If the answer is "yes"... do they have the same kind of alergy to edition changes?
If the answer is "no"... is that a good hint for Paizo's health? That after 10 years, they have no new players, it's the same group of people who started with them in 2008? Has that number dwindled with time? If so, how much? Do they need a plan if the number is dwindling? Or can they just keep milking those same consumers' wallets forever?
Do this hobby need new players? Or should it be happy with having the same?
Sales of the CRB have been remarkably stable over time. Some of those are people rebuking them, but you’d have to guess it shows new people at least dipping their toes in the water.
The player companion line is the one (besides the AP) they tend to keep unaffected when things push their schedule around. That would suggest to me there is a significant pool of players currently playing (or currently buying, anyhow).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He’s a wise man, that TOZ. Not just because he has a cryptic sounding name, either.
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 reasonI 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.
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
...Have you really exhausted all of the existing adventures and modules? I've been playing pathfinder for 4 or 5 years and have yet to finish a single AP from book 1 to book 6, much less all of them. If you have managed to play that much pathfinder.... well, good on you, I wish I could do that. I would posit there aren't enough players like you to keep Paizo afloat though. And for those that have, there's a wealth of 3.0 content, 3rd party content, or just plain homebrew to
Also, the Glass Cannon podcast features Jason Bulhman converting Crypt of the Everflame to 2.0 on the fly. One imagines it can't be that hard to convert new 2.0 adventures to 1.0, but I could be wrong there.
It seems like errata'ing the old content has rarely been a popular solution, since it often nerfs various martial options and what not.
I think the only crowd I can really fathom feeling burned here are hardcore PFS folks, who have had to buy products to build their characters and really value having the organized environment to come back for whatever reasons. That's gotta sting a bit.
For everyone who prefers home games, there's a pretty strong argument for making a system that's easier to get new people on board for. Yeah, it might suck if it becomes harder to find PF1 players... But lordy, it's already becoming harder to do that. Lots of my friends have already jumped to 5e or more esoteric systems, and in the last couple years the various meetup.com options seem to have dried up, leaving PFS as the only way to meet new players.
PF2 sounds like it will still provide a lot more choice and flexibility than 5e, despite drawing some features from 5e. So I am curious to see where it winds up.
So from my point of view I keep hearing that Pathfinder needs to be streamlined to allow for ease of teaching new people to play but lets explore that idea. Is Pathfinder to hard for people to learn how to play? I can prove that its not.I doubt it, but I'll give you a fair shake. Let's proceed.
In september I started a new group after not having a Real life group for several years. I took the role of the GM and I admit I have years worth of experience under my belt with 2nd edition D&D, 3.0, 3.5, Exalted 2E, World of darkness 2E (mostly werewolf, mage and changeling splats), Shadowrun 3rd edition, and even some Rifts games.Here's our first problem: it's wrong to assume that all (or even most) new players are going to be introduced to the game via hand-holding from a GM with your incredible level of experience. You can't assume that's the norm. Especially nowadays, as nerdiness gets more and more publicly acceptable, people are livestreaming RPG sessions on popular YouTube channels and newbies are trying out the hobby based on seeing those games or being told by their newbie friends who saw those videos.
HearthStone players who follow Geek & Sundry are seeing Critical Role and deciding to try D&D, video gamers who love the Game Grumps are seeing Dragons in Places and deciding to give it a go, and so on. The playerbase is not just expanding through friends of existing GMs, but through groups of friends who have only heard about TTRPGs secondhand.
How easy is it for THOSE people to learn Pathfinder? Because if your legendary experience is what's necessary to make it go smoothly, then that only proves that Pathfinder IS hard to learn. If Pathfinder were easy to learn, you could have told the same story even if you'd never touched an RPG before.
2 of my new players had no experience at all. 2 others came from other games (1 4E d&d and the other 2E D&D). I taught Carlos, Josh, Andrew, and Darrel how to play the game using the...
I gotta say, Jiggy's post resonates with me here. I think I qualify as a very experienced GM, and a lot of the character building seems to flow from me, in some form or another. Part of that is that I have a decked out hero lab, so it is often much easier for new people to get walked through my hero lab for building and printing their characters. Part of it is that I have the familiarity to advise someone on how to flesh out a concept or avoid trap options. And part of it is that some players just aren't THAT interested in reading guides and researching the thousands of feats and options available.
And game play can be similarly overcomplicated. I got to say, seeing that PF2 is going to utilize the unchained action economy has made me want to actually experiment with the unchained action economy in my current games. It feels like a system that players may have an easier time wrapping their heads around, and that is a good thing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why did this need a bump? It's four pages deep and the OP's question has been answered multiple times.
OP: A thread for discussing why a new version/system pathfinder is being introduced.
This is not a question, but in answer to your statement I can't stand the fact that they are coming out with a new edition and I want to communicate to others (and developers since they have commented on this particular thread) my thoughts and ideas on the issue.
hence the bump.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who started with AD&D, played a ton of 3.5, and got started with Pathfinder pretty early on, I'm excited for a new edition.
Myself, I started with chainmail/blackmoor, played through 3.0-3.5 and hopped on the pathfinder tain after wandering around a bit after 3.5 died... Personally, I NOT excited for the new version of pathfinder. Every blog/podcast/ect seems to bring in a mechanic from 5e and it fills me with unease. It doesn't help the dribbles of info are more fueling my dissatisfaction of it's direction than stoak interest. Sigh... Maybe I should just take a nap until august because so far what I'm seeing isn't making me a happy camper.
As someone who started with AD&D, played a ton of 3.5, and got started with Pathfinder pretty early on, I'm excited for a new edition.Myself, I started with chainmail/blackmoor, played through 3.0-3.5 and hopped on the pathfinder tain after wandering around a bit after 3.5 died... Personally, I NOT excited for the new version of pathfinder. Every blog/podcast/ect seems to bring in a mechanic from 5e and it fills me with unease. It doesn't help the dribbles of info are more fueling my dissatisfaction of it's direction than stoak interest. Sigh... Maybe I should just take a nap until august because so far what I'm seeing isn't making me a happy camper.
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
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who started with AD&D, played a ton of 3.5, and got started with Pathfinder pretty early on, I'm excited for a new edition.
This discussion also reminded me that while I liked the backwards compatibility of Pathfinder, I used 3.5 material once in my pathfinder games and that was for a short lived campaign. Pathfinder holds up on its own as its own game, and did so many things well that it didn't need to rely on 3.5 material to be awesome.
The same is going to happen with 2.0. We will have the ability to convert things over to the new system but more than likely we won't have to. It will be a strong and engaging system that won't need to use 1.0 material to hold up.
You also won't have to buy anything new because you never had to buy anything in the first place. 90% of my sources when I'm looking up rules are online and free to use. The same is probably going to happen with 2.0. The only reason I own the books is because I wanted to throw money at Paizo and help keep them in business, not because I wanted access to rules.
I welcome this as an old guard. Bring it on. You may not like change, but I see every stated reason to do it as a good one.
I'm much less change adverse than the rest of my group. It probably helps that I actually skipped 3rd ed. I played the old Basic Companion etc boxed sets and AD&D 2nd ed, but then ended up doing no real tabletop until I joined my current group when they were playing the pathfinder playtest (someone even abused company resources to print out the whole thing double-sided). I'm mostly thinking about how tough a sale it is going to be to the rest of my group. I'm trying to encourage them to keep an open mind because 3rd was a huge change from previous versions of D&D too, and it was for the better (pre-3rd ed was actually a pretty horrible system full of arbitrary restrictions and non-unified rules). I like a lot of what I see about PF2 (I really dig the new action economy, and the more I see and think about it the more I like it), some I'm not thrilled about (the new dying rules) and some I just don't like (resonance, but it's kind of slowly maybe growing on me, at least if modified). And things like Proficiency I just don't have nearly enough information to make any judgement on at all. I'm really hating the slow drip of information, it's spurring freakouts and rampant speculation.
And similarly we used a decent amount of 3.0 and 3.5 material at first, but since then we have stopped using it because the quality was much less consistent than what Paizo puts out. Hopefully PF2 will be similar in that we won't want to use the old stuff. And we also mostly use the online resources but still have multiple people with subscriptions. Partly because an initial read is usually easier with a hard copy while the online sources are better for looking something up, and partly to support the company.
And there is the point that a game can't exist just by catering to the existing players, new players are essential for growth. I'm just cautioning that they are still a large group that might be skittish about a new edition, and shouldn't be tossed aside like they feel they were by 4th edition. I'm trying to keep my group from rejecting PF2 out of hand (several were inclined to as soon as they heard about the new edition, others as soon as resonance was mentioned). I'm going to try to get them to give the playtest an honest shot and then voice all concerns and problems with it to Paizo, that is what it's for after all, and will let us have a small voice in what is actually in the final release in 2019.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like, though, the parts that are most bothersome are set in stone and input on them isn't going to matter much save for tweaking around the edges, unfortunately. It does seem like there is one specific subset that is being catered to, and hard.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rules, and too many people who play for system-mastery.
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer), and brings new people to the hobby.
Really that's what it boils down to; very few people new to the hobby will cut their teeth on Pathfinder, but give them a 5e book and it's like watching a kid say their first words.
Pathfinder will always have a home on my shelf, but the days of me actually running the game are over. I have no desire to try and put together a group of players who want nothing more to do than to eek out every +1, feat, and archetype possible.
In a nutshell Pathfinder became the exact game it tried not to be; 3.5 D&D with it's rules bloat and unnecessary library of books that add nothing to the game except more rules. Even with the update it'll be hard to pull people away from 5e, especially those who follow the Critical Role show.
But like many others I'm willing to give P2e a shot, if nothing more than to satisfy my curiosity.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a nutshell Pathfinder became the exact game it tried not to be; 3.5 D&D with it's rules bloat and unnecessary library of books that add nothing to the game except more rules.I'm not sure Pathfinder ever tried to avoid becoming this.
I agree. Pathfinder always wanted to be a version of 3.5 with expanding crunch and an increasing library. The idea that the library is unnecessary and "adds nothing to the game except more rules" is highly arguable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a nutshell Pathfinder became the exact game it tried not to be; 3.5 D&D with it's rules bloat and unnecessary library of books that add nothing to the game except more rules.I'm not sure Pathfinder ever tried to avoid becoming this.
Paizo has to make money so I can't blame them, but after awhile it seemed like they were just rehashing material for the sake of calling it a book and selling it. Even still, I bought most of them and now they sit on my shelf not being used in lieu of 5e.
I hope P2e is a success, in fact I've pre-ordered everything that you can pre-order in print. But at this point I think 5e is just a much better game, and it's super easy to find people who want to play thanks to the numerous streaming shows available.
Basically, Paizo is going to have to bring their "A-game" to the table; not only do they have to win over the old-heads who still play Pathfinder/3.5/3.75, but somehow convince NEW players to come join the fun too. Either one is an immense challenge unto itself, let alone trying to do both with one product.
It looks like, though, the parts that are most bothersome are set in stone and input on them isn't going to matter much save for tweaking around the edges, unfortunately. It does seem like there is one specific subset that is being catered to, and hard.
I'm not sure, but if they're set in stone it seems like a horrible way to go into a playtest. It defeats the point. "We'll listen to feedback and tweak accordingly, unless it's something we just want to do anyway in which case you can pound sand." That's not a good mindset. As I've said in another thread, "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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like, though, the parts that are most bothersome are set in stone and input on them isn't going to matter much save for tweaking around the edges, unfortunately. It does seem like there is one specific subset that is being catered to, and hard.I'm not sure, but if they're set in stone it seems like a horrible way to go into a playtest. It defeats the point. "We'll listen to feedback and tweak accordingly, unless it's something we just want to do anyway in which case you can pound sand." That's not a good mindset. As I've said in another thread, "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.
The playtest is gonna be too short for it to have have substantial impact. It's pretty much just looking for minor tweaks to what they have already set in stone.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rules, and too many people who play for system-mastery.
Maybe for you: I enjoy more books.
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer), and brings new people to the hobby.
Yep a game changer and NOT in a good way IMO. I can be invisible, flank, the foe can be blind, I have higher ground and the dude glows in the dark and I have the exact same advantage as some guy cast a spell... and then it ALL goes away if it starts to rain and I get a single disadvantage as it somehow negates all the advantages I collected... :P
Really that's what it boils down to; very few people new to the hobby will cut their teeth on Pathfinder, but give them a 5e book and it's like watching a kid say their first words.
Maybe if that first word is swearing like a pirates parrot...
Pathfinder will always have a home on my shelf, but the days of me actually running the game are over. I have no desire to try and put together a group of players who want nothing more to do than to eek out every +1, feat, and archetype possible.
I have the exact same thought about 5e: I wouldn't want to run a game for those that aren't interested a game that offers more than a binary option for bonuses [advantage].