Also, I didn't like the changes to Magic Missle as they were described for the PF2 announcement or demo (can't remember which).
I don't think this has anything to do with 5e and more to do with wanting to fix 3.X. Problem is, a certain segment of the playerbase (and what turned out to be a significant segment in the 2008-2010 era) are actually quite happy with 3.X and want minor revisions to address the most egregious problems. We'll have to wait and see how healthy that segment is in 2018-2020.I don't know how widespread my case was, buy I did change to 4e from the start, because I did feel 3.5 was unwieldy at that point. I thought 4e tried to solve many of the problems in 4e. But after a few years, I realized they got the problems right, but the solutions wrong. I came back to PF, which wasn't as unwieldy back then (did not use any 3.5 stuff, PF had few splat books), and I was playing Paizo APs with 4e rules anyways, because Paizo APs are great
So part of Paizo customer base might be people like me, who did not exactly loved 3.X, but disliked some of 4e solutions to 3.X, and liked APs. I suspect 5e has taken a few if those.
Same here. And I actually even liked some of the 4e changes, but not enough that it didn't grate on me after a while of seeing where it fell flat. 2e, to some degree, seems to be solving (at least a good number of) my problems with both systems, and if it does that, then it's well worth my money. I will say PF2e seems to get the problems right, and the solutions, well, if not right, at least more right than 4e in most cases. And I think that's worth an investment. If it doesn't wind up better than PF1e, then I'll probably go back on it, but that's for the playtest to determine, and as far as I've seen, PF2e is likely to wind up better than 1e.
Same here. And I actually even liked some of the 4e changes, but not enough that it didn't grate on me after a while of seeing where it fell flat. 2e, to some degree, seems to be solving (at least a good number of) my problems with both systems, and if it does that, then it's well worth my money. I will say PF2e seems to get the problems right, and the solutions, well, if not right, at least more right than 4e in most cases. And I think that's worth an investment. If it doesn't wind up better than PF1e, then I'll probably go back on it, but that's for the playtest to determine, and as far as I've seen, PF2e is likely to wind up better than 1e.
I don't think this has anything to do with 5e and more to do with wanting to fix 3.X. Problem is, a certain segment of the playerbase (and what turned out to be a significant segment in the 2008-2010 era) are actually quite happy with 3.X and want minor revisions to address the most egregious problems. We'll have to wait and see how healthy that segment is in 2018-2020.I don't know how widespread my case was, buy I did change to 4e from the start, because I did feel 3.5 was unwieldy at that point. I thought 4e tried to solve many of the problems in 4e. But after a few years, I realized they got the problems right, but the solutions wrong. I came back to PF, which wasn't as unwieldy back then (did not use any 3.5 stuff, PF had few splat books), and I was playing Paizo APs with 4e rules anyways, because Paizo APs are great
So part of Paizo customer base might be people like me, who did not exactly loved 3.X, but disliked some of 4e solutions to 3.X, and liked APs. I suspect 5e has taken a few if those.
It would help to know which problems need to be solved?
Without a leg up into the new system with a reasonable discount, one has to ask when they will kill PF2? Starfinder 1e?Presumably when it no longer makes sense for them to keep producing them (either on commercial grounds or creative ones).
That’s kind of my point. I’ve just bought a few copies of the pact worlds for Starfinder. Once they get here, paizo’s obligation to me is done, isn’t it? None of the money I’m paying them is a “keep Starfinder going beyond ten years” fee. I’m just buying some books.
Why do they owe me a community of players? I mean it’s in both of our interests that they foster a large cohort playing Starfinder - but it’s hardly part of what they are promising me. I’ve bought plenty of games that I couldn’t find players for. That’s not a failure of duty on the part of the publisher.
(Or it doesn’t seem so to me, anyway. I’m struggling to understand the deeper logic behind your view. I understand the problem you face, just not why you think Paizo are obligated to address it, beyond their policies around PDFs, the ongoing OGL support and the continuation of pocket editions).
You're really confused about how ecosystems work -- or another term that might be easier to understand is "community". RPG just don't work without a healthy community. When people buy all this stuff they are depending on that to be able to use the material. If the actions of Paizo, itself, weaken the PF1 community, they have some responsibilty there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're really confused about how ecosystems work -- or another term that might be easier to understand is "community". RPG just don't work without a healthy community. When people buy all this stuff they are depending on that to be able to use the material. If the actions of Paizo, itself, weaken the PF1 community, they have some responsibilty there.Without a leg up into the new system with a reasonable discount, one has to ask when they will kill PF2? Starfinder 1e?Presumably when it no longer makes sense for them to keep producing them (either on commercial grounds or creative ones).
That’s kind of my point. I’ve just bought a few copies of the pact worlds for Starfinder. Once they get here, paizo’s obligation to me is done, isn’t it? None of the money I’m paying them is a “keep Starfinder going beyond ten years” fee. I’m just buying some books.
Why do they owe me a community of players? I mean it’s in both of our interests that they foster a large cohort playing Starfinder - but it’s hardly part of what they are promising me. I’ve bought plenty of games that I couldn’t find players for. That’s not a failure of duty on the part of the publisher.
(Or it doesn’t seem so to me, anyway. I’m struggling to understand the deeper logic behind your view. I understand the problem you face, just not why you think Paizo are obligated to address it, beyond their policies around PDFs, the ongoing OGL support and the continuation of pocket editions).
I’m not confused. You’ve decided what you want and are flailing around looking for arguments to support that view. You’re then criticising any contrary view without bothering to understand them (ironically, often by accusing others of not listening).
There are (obviously) benefits to having a thriving community. Paizo do fantastic work there and will continue to do so. However, they have to balance lots of different factors, not just the ones that matter to you.
Having said that, I was speaking there specifically about contractual obligation and the value of community is irrelevant to this quote you’ve dug up from a few months ago. They don’t OWE me a community of players. It’s obvious that a thriving community helps me and them - it’s just not an obligation they have. I give them money, they give me books. They also provide fantastic ongoing support for as long as it is financially viable.
They have never promised to keep making games beyond what makes sense for them commercially.
Suggesting they do is entitlement, pure and simple.
You're really confused about how ecosystems work -- or another term that might be easier to understand is "community". RPG just don't work without a healthy community. When people buy all this stuff they are depending on that to be able to use the material. If the actions of Paizo, itself, weaken the PF1 community, they have some responsibilty there.Without a leg up into the new system with a reasonable discount, one has to ask when they will kill PF2? Starfinder 1e?Presumably when it no longer makes sense for them to keep producing them (either on commercial grounds or creative ones).
That’s kind of my point. I’ve just bought a few copies of the pact worlds for Starfinder. Once they get here, paizo’s obligation to me is done, isn’t it? None of the money I’m paying them is a “keep Starfinder going beyond ten years” fee. I’m just buying some books.
Why do they owe me a community of players? I mean it’s in both of our interests that they foster a large cohort playing Starfinder - but it’s hardly part of what they are promising me. I’ve bought plenty of games that I couldn’t find players for. That’s not a failure of duty on the part of the publisher.
(Or it doesn’t seem so to me, anyway. I’m struggling to understand the deeper logic behind your view. I understand the problem you face, just not why you think Paizo are obligated to address it, beyond their policies around PDFs, the ongoing OGL support and the continuation of pocket editions).
I’m not confused. You’ve decided what you want and are flailing around looking for arguments to support that view. You’re then criticising any contrary view without bothering to understand them (ironically, often by accusing others of not listening).
There are (obviously) benefits to having a thriving community. Paizo do fantastic work there and will continue to do so. However, they have to balance lots of different factors, not...
How Paizo handles the PF1 community could have an effect how much that community supports PF2. 100% stopping PF1 development hurts that community. Sends the message PF1 is dead. Creates resentment.
Instead, I suggest they reduce PF1 development down to 10% and maintain that level till development on PF3 begins.
PF1 just got to the point where it is the most complete RPG system ever developed. Paizo just came out with new books all the way up to June 2018. Effectively killing PF1 is exactly the wrong message to send.
Past behavior dictates future success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone obviously didn't play through the D&D edition changes.
Someone obviously didn't play through the D&D edition changes.
No, I didn't but I'm aware of what's going on over there. I played AD&D 1e. I know its history.
This is Paizo's opportunity to once again out shine WotC.
When these RPG companies drop and give the appearance of killing current editions so unilaterally and suddenly by sending the message that development has stopped making the product effectively dead, they create a lot of resentment -- and people just leave.
I've been talking to people upset about what's going on with that Star Wars table top game with the ships. New edition came out effectively forcing these people to get all new stuff.
The people I talked to sound like they just quit, instead.
I'm hearing similar talk about RPG. I believe in buying all my material to support, for example, Paizo -- but with this pattern of abandoning the current edition entirely by halting develipment and sending the message the product is dead is encouraging people to get stollen copies of the material online.
I would never do that and recently took action against some who was selling this stuff online (and was able to stop him) -- reported the issue to Paizo and the 3rd party that was helping this guy sell his stuff.
But, RPG companies need to learn how to better preserve good will among their existing customer base.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make everyone happy. period. no way. I've watched the forums I can tell you they can give people exactly what they want and some people are still going to be mad about it. You act like people only stop buying products and quit on an edition change. Reality is everything can make people stop. Like not changing after everyone has been suggesting and begging them to make changes for years. Even when they make the changes people ask for other people complain. Its the nature of the world. You can't make everyone happy. They can get over it and play the new edition, they can continue to play the previous edition, they can burn all the books and come and scream on the internet. If they choose one I can guarantee you other people will still go and do the other as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also consider that Paizo has (and all companies have) access to information that we the community do not have — namely, their sales figures and surveys that they use to listen to their community, and if the majority of the community wants a certain thing, they are obligated to themselves to provide that thing. (See Erik Mona’s quote “...It is our company policy that if you give the people what they want, they will give you money for it.” ) We see things in our own swim lanes — to Paizo, their surveys and overall gathering of data might show “we are unhappy with thing X”. In our experience, thing X is going fine, no need to change, why would they abandon doing what they have done before, if they do this they will lose me and everyone I’ve talked to.”
Meanwhile, Thing X has been slowly causing player-bleed for years, who just don’t respond, leaving the vocal minority supporting it. From our individual perspective, it looks like Paizo is cutting their own throat; from their perspective, they are accumulating hundreds of thousands of data points from over ten years that say, “Thing X is a serious bottleneck that we keep hearing time and time again from players is a big problem.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're really confused about how ecosystems work -- or another term that might be easier to understand is "community". RPG just don't work without a healthy community. When people buy all this stuff they are depending on that to be able to use the material. If the actions of Paizo, itself, weaken the PF1 community, they have some responsibilty there.Without a leg up into the new system with a reasonable discount, one has to ask when they will kill PF2? Starfinder 1e?Presumably when it no longer makes sense for them to keep producing them (either on commercial grounds or creative ones).
That’s kind of my point. I’ve just bought a few copies of the pact worlds for Starfinder. Once they get here, paizo’s obligation to me is done, isn’t it? None of the money I’m paying them is a “keep Starfinder going beyond ten years” fee. I’m just buying some books.
Why do they owe me a community of players? I mean it’s in both of our interests that they foster a large cohort playing Starfinder - but it’s hardly part of what they are promising me. I’ve bought plenty of games that I couldn’t find players for. That’s not a failure of duty on the part of the publisher.
(Or it doesn’t seem so to me, anyway. I’m struggling to understand the deeper logic behind your view. I understand the problem you face, just not why you think Paizo are obligated to address it, beyond their policies around PDFs, the ongoing OGL support and the continuation of pocket editions).
I’m not confused. You’ve decided what you want and are flailing around looking for arguments to support that view. You’re then criticising any contrary view without bothering to understand them (ironically, often by accusing others of not listening).
There are (obviously) benefits to having a thriving community. Paizo do fantastic work there and will continue to do so. However, they have to balance lots of different factors, not...
How Paizo handles the PF1 community could have an effect how much that community supports PF2. 100% stopping PF1 development hurts that community. Sends the message PF1 is dead. Creates resentment.
Instead, I suggest they reduce PF1 development down to 10% and maintain that level till development on PF3 begins.
PF1 just got to the point where it is the most complete RPG system ever developed. Paizo just came out with new books all the way up to June 2018. Effectively killing PF1 is exactly the wrong message to send.
Past behavior dictates future success.
That has nothing to do with the quote you found above about obligation.
Even your strategy doesn’t work. They trickle out PF1 books for as long as you’re happy and then what? If they stop then Mark the Second will declare that he just got into PF1 and has invested so much Paizo owe it to him to keep going...
As I said, you’re just jumping around from thread to thread demanding Paizo give you what you want. You wanting it doesn’t imply they owe it to you.
Of course Paizo would love to keep everyone happy in a perfect world. This isn’t a perfect world though - they have to choose what to publish within a whole bunch of constraints you’re just not considering - the upshot of that is that some of us will not get what we want. That’s life, it’s not a breach of duty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 just got to the point where it is the most complete RPG system ever developed.
This. You're exactly right. It's complete. I might go farther and say it's more than complete. I don't want any more classes or feats or spells or equipment or monsters in P1e. I have books and books and books full. When they announced the playtest, I was strongly considering cancelling the RPG subscription I've had since P1e launched just because I don't need more books of P1e options. The game is complete.
Now, I'm not sold on P2e. Some of the stuff they've announced sounds awesome; some of the stuff I'm not too sure about. But if I decide that, like Starfinder, the game's not for me, there is nothing else Paizo can provide that I need to keep playing 1e for years and years.
Yes, it may well prove harder to find new players familiar with the ruleset as time goes by, but Paizo is already doing more than D&D has done with edition changes over the years for people who want to stick with the old edition. They intend to keep printing CRBs as long as they keep selling. They've committed not only to not pulling the PDFs but keeping them up for sale. They aren't shutting down Society play for the previous edition, again, as long as people want to keep playing it. And they're not changing the setting, so P2e campaign setting books can be used by P1e groups.
But arguing that interest in P1e will continue to grow just because Paizo is releasing P1e Ultimate Skillmonkeys or P1e Public Restrooms of Golarion once a year isn't realistic. It would hurt Paizo by splitting their focus (I've been here through all the "one extra hardcover" years and seen what that does to the rest of their schedule), and I don't believe that even people who intend to continue playing P1e will buy the books. Because, as you say: The. Game. Is. Complete.
While I may have been proven wrong on a couple things, one thing that is certain in relation to my previous statement was that "Combat Maneuvers that Rock" aren't really expanded upon any further than that.
Maybe they changed Combat Maneuvers to be other things (such as the Fighter's Stance and Open/Press abilities/feats), but if Combat Maneuvers were supposed to be a thing expanded upon further as a combat option without some different name or whatever, then I must have missed it (or they simply didn't expand upon it whatsoever).
Granted, I'm sure this will be definitive when the playtest hits, but I'm more curious about what it is that you can do with the Athletics skill (which has been stated to replace the old CMB/CMD system) that you can't do with class feats and such.
Maybe stupid question, but:
Why not use the OGL for 5e as the foundation for PF2?
Or is that already being done?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe stupid question, but:
Why not use the OGL for 5e as the foundation for PF2?
Or is that already being done?
Paizo have explicitly stated that they're not interested in occupying the same "space" as 5E with PF2. Vic Wertz's words were something like "..that would be bad for us, bad for WotC and bad for customers".
There's a lot of speculation about 4E/5E/other system influence on PF2, but I suspect that's a function of how we fans think about it rather than that the PF2 designers have gone looking for ideas directly from other games.
Having said that, I'm sure they all play other games so there's likely to be bleedover in inspiration, if not in direct emulation. Also, 5E and PF2 are both trying to solve similar problems in a sense - so there's likely to be similarities if you look for them.
In terms of tying PF2 to D&D so strongly though, I suspect they'll avoid that course of action like the plague. The changeover from 3.5 to 4E worked out well for Paizo, but I bet it was a very, very stressful and upsetting time to have been working so closely with WotC for such a long time and to then find yourself forcing to respond to the whims of another company's change in direction.
You can't make everyone happy. period. no way. I've watched the forums I can tell you they can give people exactly what they want and some people are still going to be mad about it. You act like people only stop buying products and quit on an edition change. Reality is everything can make people stop. Like not changing after everyone has been suggesting and begging them to make changes for years. Even when they make the changes people ask for other people complain. Its the nature of the world. You can't make everyone happy. They can get over it and play the new edition, they can continue to play the previous edition, they can burn all the books and come and scream on the internet. If they choose one I can guarantee you other people will still go and do the other as well.
Too extreme. Some people I know are getting very frustrated with all the edition changes being made in the RPG and gaming markets in general. They get tired of buying material that is mostly the same as the previous edition. They feel forced to do it so they can play with other people. I think two of my friends have, for example, left the Star Wars table top game for this reason.
When you've been around for a while, it starts to wear you down. Newer gamers might not notice.
But, for example, I just realized that when I stopped playing AD&D 1.0 in the 80s and resumed with PF1 (3.5) in 2012 -- that's almost 30 years between and I only missed D&D 2e, really.
Now, the editions seem to be coming out a lot faster. Usually, this results in throw it out and start over ... fatigue if it happens often enough.
I think moving Pathfinder as far away from WoTCs OGL as possible is the best plan. They can finally use their own OGL, which for third-party publishers will be much the same. They still won't be allowed to reference Paizo's IP. I am far more interested in writing for PF2E than I am in D&D5E, and writing for both would be an exercise in frustration.
Half of the design team was on the 4E design team. I'm sure there is some influence there.Maybe stupid question, but:
Why not use the OGL for 5e as the foundation for PF2?
Or is that already being done?
Paizo have explicitly stated that they're not interested in occupying the same "space" as 5E with PF2. Vic Wertz's words were something like "..that would be bad for us, bad for WotC and bad for customers".
There's a lot of speculation about 4E/5E/other system influence on PF2, but I suspect that's a function of how we fans think about it rather than that the PF2 designers have gone looking for ideas directly from other games.
This is kind of what I mean. In my opinion, what a designer produces when asked to come up with 4E material and what a designer produces when asked to come up with PF2 material is going to depend more on the brief than on that particular designer's preferences.
I suspect we overthink "He did this ten years ago working for WotC, so he'll likely do similar things now working for Paizo". Granted RPG design is something of a black box to those of us outside the industry and I don't have special insight - I just know it's a natural human trait to overvalue the significance of variables we can see and gaming fans are not immune to that.
snip
You do realize all we have to do to see that you're Mark the W & P is roll over your name, right? Not saying that invalidates any of your arguments, but it does kinda seem like a bad faith sort of thing to do. I'd think you just accidentally posted under an alias, but you're clearly acting like a new participant in the conversation.
6. Given what I said in #5, I think the truth of the matter is that Paizo could without a doubt do 5e better than WotC, except some people think they have a big advantage with the D&D name. Still, this might suggest a strategy. Has Paizo considered making 5e material -- or do you already? That's WotC's weakness. No material.
8. So, about #6, if Paizo had something closer to the market currently dominated by 5e, it seems that Paizo could storm it just by shear volume of quality material. Some 5e people on YouTube have been using Paizo APs, like Iron Gods, and modules like Emerald Spire. Make it easier. What if PF2 shared that market via a high level of compatibility?
Barring, well you apparently, I don't think anybody really wants PF2 to go head to head with 5e. One, because it's a very different style of gameplay and setting; two because they'll lose if they try to go head to head with an actually popular edition of D&D (as much as I think Paizo's game is better, name recognition matters); and three because creating material for WoTC's game would strengthen D&D's brand while weakening their own, since that's time and money spent on content that's not for their own game. Sure, they'd make money off it short term, but it would weaken their own main product line.
7. About the name. Pathfinder just doesn't invoke the strong images that Dungeons & Dragons does. There must be some name out there that can invoke an equally strong mental image. The name, itself, should invoke dreams as one drifts asleep.
I actually agree that Pathfinder was a somewhat weak choice of name, but I don't think changing it now is an option. If they change it they would lose a ton of name recognition, and that matters a lot.
Too extreme. Some people I know are getting very frustrated with all the edition changes being made in the RPG and gaming markets in general. They get tired of buying material that is mostly the same as the previous edition. They feel forced to do it so they can play with other people. I think two of my friends have, for example, left the Star Wars table top game for this reason.
When you've been around for a while, it starts to wear you down. Newer gamers might not notice.
But, for example, I just realized that when I stopped playing AD&D 1.0 in the 80s and resumed with PF1 (3.5) in 2012 -- that's almost 30 years between and I only missed D&D 2e, really.
Now, the editions seem to be coming out a lot faster. Usually, this results in throw it out and start over ... fatigue if it happens often enough.
Sure, but what are the companies that create these games supposed to do? Just keep churning out more and more niche content for a system that's already got a metric ton of it? Only publish adventures? Pretty sure that wouldn't work out well. Eventually you have to start over with a clean slate. 10 years is a pretty good run for a game system imo. I'm not thrilled about buying all new books either, but at least I find a lot of their ideas to be very innovative, and a lot of it simply looks like fun to play with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize all we have to do to see that you're Mark the W & P is roll over your name, right? Not saying that invalidates any of your arguments, but it does kinda seem like a bad faith sort of thing to do. I'd think you just accidentally posted under an alias, but you're clearly acting like a new participant in the conversation.
There's no way for it to be an accident. You have to select the alternative aliases from a drop down list in order for them to show up as the author of the post. The default is "Mark the Wise and Powerful", and if you don't want to post using that name, you have to click the dropdown menu and select something else.
The only other post he's made with this alias is another discussion forum post, in which he again supports the points he made with the Mark the W&P alias. I suspect he didn't realize that everyone else can tell they are sockpuppet posts just by mousing over the name.
To emphasise my point, I think PF1 was successful in that it was 3.5e compatible and that PF2's best chance is to be 5e compatible (if WotC has an OGL for that and I think they do).
I think the reality is that it is too risky for Paizo to strike out on its own to create something that is incompatible.
Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players. I love PF1 and 3.5e (in that I effectively play 3.5e when I play PF1 but I have never played D&D 3.5 directly). I'd consider PF2 and 5e. I know at least one PF1 player who has been playing for a long time and he thinks 5e is too simple, so I don't think he will come along.
I have played 5e, but not much. I don't have any of the books. I just used the data pack from Hero Lab to help me build characters.
After looking a 5e materials from WotC, and I'll restate that while sort of considering a purchase, the very first two books I looked at had servere problems where one was not bound correctly and the other had a major printing error, I just don't think I can take WotC seriously. They have a crappy web site and they also don't offer PDFs -- something I've got to have as a GM. A major problem is that PDFs are easy to make and are all over the Internet for both WotC and Paizo materials. I alerted eBay and Paizo to a merchant selling that stuff. So, selling $10 PDFs is a VERY good move on Paizo's part -- I get what I want and Paizo gets a customer who protects its copyrights (and I am honored to do so).
Anyway, I looked over 5e by looking at the books in the book store. Led me to some decisions. One, I just can't create a whole new library at $50 a book. Two, without PDFs, I just don't want to DM 5e. Three, I think I might get tired of their system because it does look too simple and there just aren't enough choices: not enough classes, not enough races, not enough spells, not enough playing materials, not enough books in general, etc.
These are all areas where Paizo is incredibly strong. Play to your strengths. Do what you do well and go 5e compatible! I can't take 5e seriously without Paizo -- and I am very worried that PF2 will only get passing market acceptance unless you do that!
You do realize all we have to do to see that you're Mark the W & P is roll over your name, right? Not saying that invalidates any of your arguments, but it does kinda seem like a bad faith sort of thing to do. I'd think you just accidentally posted under an alias, but you're clearly acting like a new participant in the conversation.There's no way for it to be an accident. You have to select the alternative aliases from a drop down list in order for them to show up as the author of the post. The default is "Mark the Wise and Powerful", and if you don't want to post using that name, you have to click the dropdown menu and select something else.
The only other post he's made with this alias is another discussion forum post, in which he again supports the points he made with the Mark the W&P alias. I suspect he didn't realize that everyone else can tell they are sockpuppet posts just by mousing over the name.
I don't understand. What?
I don't understand. What?You do realize all we have to do to see that you're Mark the W & P is roll over your name, right? Not saying that invalidates any of your arguments, but it does kinda seem like a bad faith sort of thing to do. I'd think you just accidentally posted under an alias, but you're clearly acting like a new participant in the conversation.There's no way for it to be an accident. You have to select the alternative aliases from a drop down list in order for them to show up as the author of the post. The default is "Mark the Wise and Powerful", and if you don't want to post using that name, you have to click the dropdown menu and select something else.
The only other post he's made with this alias is another discussion forum post, in which he again supports the points he made with the Mark the W&P alias. I suspect he didn't realize that everyone else can tell they are sockpuppet posts just by mousing over the name.
In my Account's Postings section, all I see are the postings I've done as Mark the Wise and Powerful. I've been using that alias from the beginning, I think. Can you help me find the posting you think I made using another alias?
In my Account's Postings section, all I see are the postings I've done as Mark the Wise and Powerful. I've been using that alias from the beginning, I think. Can you help me find the posting you think I made using another alias?I don't understand. What?You do realize all we have to do to see that you're Mark the W & P is roll over your name, right? Not saying that invalidates any of your arguments, but it does kinda seem like a bad faith sort of thing to do. I'd think you just accidentally posted under an alias, but you're clearly acting like a new participant in the conversation.There's no way for it to be an accident. You have to select the alternative aliases from a drop down list in order for them to show up as the author of the post. The default is "Mark the Wise and Powerful", and if you don't want to post using that name, you have to click the dropdown menu and select something else.
The only other post he's made with this alias is another discussion forum post, in which he again supports the points he made with the Mark the W&P alias. I suspect he didn't realize that everyone else can tell they are sockpuppet posts just by mousing over the name.
The only alternatives I have are aliases that exist for characters I use with the Pathfinder Society, but I don't show any of those in my list of postings for my account.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To emphasise my point, I think PF1 was successful in that it was 3.5e compatible and that PF2's best chance is to be 5e compatible (if WotC has an OGL for that and I think they do).
I think the reality is that it is too risky for Paizo to strike out on its own to create something that is incompatible.
Totally different situations.
When PF1 came out, it was effectively replacing 3.5 for those who objected to the 4E changes, allowing it to just absorb some market share due to there being no other supplier for 3.5 style material. Also, they were a relatively unknown company at the time.
Now, people who want 5E have it. It's a living and ongoing game which people who prefer 5E to PF1 have already switched to. Switching over to it will only alienate the large section of their client base who prefer PF1 to 5E, and will not draw notable numbers of people away from 5E. Also, Paizo are a pretty big name in the RPG industry and can manage things on their own brand name rather than needing to link themselves to other properties.
Frankly, I think the route they've gone (creating a separate game that leans into some of the differences there are between PF1 and 5E, like a greater number of options and level mattering more) is a really solid business decision, while trying to make a 5E variant would be a terrible one.
|
|
The only alternatives I have are aliases that exist for characters I use with the Pathfinder Society, but I don't show any of those in my list of postings for my account.
Check out this page. Look at the top where it says it's your character. Or hover your mouse over the 'Hendrel' name.
Hendrel is you (or someone else using your account, I suppose). We all know this.
I am just starting to look at PF2, but here are some of my early impressions:
1. Definitely looks innovative.
a. Like the multiple levels of feats.
b. Ancestry offers a lot of options for game expansion.2. Not comfortable with ...
a. The 3 action system -- but I think I might be if a round was expanded to 10 seconds. I just think a 6 second round is too short for that.
b. Changing spells to sometimes use multiple actions, like Magic Missile.3. Might be getting more complex than PF1, which I don't think is you goal for PF2, for the following (so, maybe, step back from this a little):
a. All the ability score adjustments.
b. While I like the multiple levels of feats, they are now listed in 3 separate locations on the character sheet. Maybe, find a way to list them together and indicate from where they come from (ancestry, class, skill).4. I worry that by spending so much time behind closed doors in development (understandably needed to protect yourselves from competition) that it might be too late to make major course corrections. Since the staff has worked so hard on this human nature is that they might be resistant to major or catastrophic changes that might be needed.
5. I've been reviewing the history of D&D and Pathfinder. As an aside, kind of amazing that since I stopped playing AD&D, I had the opportunity to start with 3.5 (or 3.75,if you want) almost 30 years later. Anyway, the further you depart from what I'm familiar with in PF1 (or 3.5e, you might say), the less comfortable I become.
Doubt there's much of a risk of me switching to 5e because I have found the quality of Paizo materials to be so far beyond WotC, that you can probably make me quite uncomfortable in PF2 and I still wouldn't switch (unless the PF1 and PF2 markets fell out).
6. Given what I said in #5, I think the truth of the matter is that Paizo could without a doubt do 5e better than WotC, except some people think they have a big advantage with the D&D name. Still, this might suggest a...
This was actually posted by me. Yes, it was an accident to use one of my Pathfinder Society characters to do this posting. I wrote all of this on my cell phone.
The only alternatives I have are aliases that exist for characters I use with the Pathfinder Society, but I don't show any of those in my list of postings for my account.In my Account's Postings section, all I see are the postings I've done as Mark the Wise and Powerful. I've been using that alias from the beginning, I think. Can you help me find the posting you think I made using another alias?I don't understand. What?You do realize all we have to do to see that you're Mark the W & P is roll over your name, right? Not saying that invalidates any of your arguments, but it does kinda seem like a bad faith sort of thing to do. I'd think you just accidentally posted under an alias, but you're clearly acting like a new participant in the conversation.There's no way for it to be an accident. You have to select the alternative aliases from a drop down list in order for them to show up as the author of the post. The default is "Mark the Wise and Powerful", and if you don't want to post using that name, you have to click the dropdown menu and select something else.
The only other post he's made with this alias is another discussion forum post, in which he again supports the points he made with the Mark the W&P alias. I suspect he didn't realize that everyone else can tell they are sockpuppet posts just by mousing over the name.
Found them. There were two of them. I can't change the alias, but I sent out an acknowledgement. Yes, that was an accident. I write most of these on my phone. Must have changed aliases while I was navigating on my screen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was actually posted by me. Yes, it was an accident to use one of my Pathfinder Society characters to do this posting. I wrote all of this on my cell phone.
Accidents happen. I hope we can all move along with the actual discussion now rather than arguing about this.
In PF1, you could attack three times in a round (eventually). You could cast most spells and move. You could move twice your speed and attack once. You could move four times your speed. One class could cast and attack with a weapon in the same round.
In PF2, you can attack three times in a round (from the start). You can cast most spells and move. You can move twice your speed and attack once. You can move three times your speed. Casters can cast and attack with a weapon in the same round.
There's no need to change it from a nice, neat ten rounds per minute to a cumbersome six rounds per minute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To emphasise my point, I think PF1 was successful in that it was 3.5e compatible and that PF2's best chance is to be 5e compatible (if WotC has an OGL for that and I think they do).
...
I don't know if you've been active at the time D&D4 launched.
Paizo had a history of working with WotC. They did the Dungeon-Magazine and the Dragon-Magazine. They were depending on WotC, the OGL and D&D3.5.
Along came 4th Edition and WotC pulled the license for the Magazines Paizo was producing (and at a rather short period of notice to Paizo and the whole community). WotC also pulled (all?) digital distributions of 3.5 from many (all?) vendors.
Paizo pretty much had no business anymore, from practically one day to the other. They quickly launched the Pathfinder Adventure Path line to replace the Magazines, and from that built the Pathfinder-name and game.
Paizo setting themself up to depend on WotC (in form of 5e compatibility, license, or any other way) again is something I don't see happening.
To emphasise my point, I think PF1 was successful in that it was 3.5e compatible and that PF2's best chance is to be 5e compatible (if WotC has an OGL for that and I think they do).
...I don't know if you've been active at the time D&D4 launched.
Paizo had a history of working with WotC. They did the Dungeon-Magazine and the Dragon-Magazine. They were depending on WotC, the OGL and D&D3.5.
Along came 4th Edition and WotC pulled the license for the Magazines Paizo was producing (and at a rather short period of notice to Paizo and the whole community). WotC also pulled (all?) digital distributions of 3.5 from many (all?) vendors.
Paizo pretty much had no business anymore, from practically one day to the other. They quickly launched the Pathfinder Adventure Path line to replace the Magazines, and from that built the Pathfinder-name and game.Paizo setting themself up to depend on WotC (in form of 5e compatibility, license, or any other way) again is something I don't see happening.
Hm. Interesting. No, I was not active when 4e launched and did not know that history. Well, it's really up to WotC and Paizo to either work together and turn 5e into lightning in a bottle or possibly suffer less than stellar market results. 5e might appear to be successful now, but is it what it could have been without the two working together?
I think they need each other. I think we'll all be better off if they work together.
From what I've seen of the 5e ecosystem, I can totally believe the insanity you're describing coming from WotC.
I'm getting the sense I need to do some research and start blogging on the WotC web site. Makes me cry what TSR has turned into (the company that created D&D and is now owned by WotC).
In PF1, you could attack three times in a round (eventually). You could cast most spells and move. You could move twice your speed and attack once. You could move four times your speed. One class could cast and attack with a weapon in the same round.
In PF2, you can attack three times in a round (from the start). You can cast most spells and move. You can move twice your speed and attack once. You can move three times your speed. Casters can cast and attack with a weapon in the same round.
There's no need to change it from a nice, neat ten rounds per minute to a cumbersome six rounds per minute.
A difference is that in PF2, you can do that in the beginning. You don't need any special class or level of experience.
At 1st level in PF1, the most you can do is attack once and move once, move twice, attack once and don't move, or run at three or four times your movement.
I just can't envision a 1st level character doing 3 actions in 6 seconds. I suggest 10 seconds. Keep in mind that an attack is not a swing, it's a successful blow against your opponent for which a hit needs to be determined as to whether it succeeded in doing damage. That takes time, especially at 1st level.
In PF1, you could attack three times in a round (eventually). You could cast most spells and move. You could move twice your speed and attack once. You could move four times your speed. One class could cast and attack with a weapon in the same round.
In PF2, you can attack three times in a round (from the start). You can cast most spells and move. You can move twice your speed and attack once. You can move three times your speed. Casters can cast and attack with a weapon in the same round.
There's no need to change it from a nice, neat ten rounds per minute to a cumbersome six rounds per minute.
A difference is that in PF2, you can do that in the beginning. You don't need any special class or level of experience.
At 1st level in PF1, the most you can do is attack once and move once, move twice, attack once and don't move, or run at three or four times your movement.
I just can't envision a 1st level character doing 3 actions in 6 seconds. I suggest 10 seconds. Keep in mind that an attack is not a swing, it's a successful blow against your opponent for which a hit needs to be determined as to whether it succeeded in doing damage. That takes time, especially at 1st level.
If we can't change a round to 10 seconds, what about changing PF2 to allow only 2 actions (instead of 3)? So, you could have two attacks, two moves, an attack and a move, or run at three or four times your movement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A difference is that in PF2, you can do that in the beginning. You don't need any special class or level of experience.
At 1st level in PF1, the most you can do is attack once and move once, move twice, attack once and don't move, or run at three or four times your movement.
This is actually quite untrue. TWF alone makes for two attacks, while having three or more natural attacks can result in, well, 3 or more. I can manage 6 natural attacks by 2nd level, actually.
I just can't envision a 1st level character doing 3 actions in 6 seconds. I suggest 10 seconds. Keep in mind that an attack is not a swing, it's a successful blow against your opponent for which a hit needs to be determined as to whether it succeeded in doing damage. That takes time, especially at 1st level.
You can readily find videos online of someone whacking someone else with a sword several times in 6 seconds. Real world people are not high level in Pathfinder terms.
A difference is that in PF2, you can do that in the beginning. You don't need any special class or level of experience.
At 1st level in PF1, the most you can do is attack once and move once, move twice, attack once and don't move, or run at three or four times your movement.
This is actually quite untrue. TWF alone makes for two attacks, while having three or more natural attacks can result in, well, 3 or more. I can manage 6 natural attacks by 2nd level, actually.
I just can't envision a 1st level character doing 3 actions in 6 seconds. I suggest 10 seconds. Keep in mind that an attack is not a swing, it's a successful blow against your opponent for which a hit needs to be determined as to whether it succeeded in doing damage. That takes time, especially at 1st level.You can readily find videos online of someone whacking someone else with a sword several times in 6 seconds. Real world people are not high level in Pathfinder terms.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about natural attacks. Those are different.