2E undermines what drove Pathfinder in the first place.


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

I would recommend staying around to wait until playtest first at least in order to gauge what is actual reaction to the 2e.

I mean, to be honest, lot of reactions right now are about whether you in general like or hate change :P Lot of complaints people are saying in advance are either "Change something I dislike" or "You changed it, you ruined everything!" type stuff. And we don't even know what the playtest is like for sure, so who knows what the final overall reaction to 2e will be like. I doubt it will wow everyone though, but still wouldn't put all eggs in 1e basket.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh no doubt.

But I know that my entire purpose for picking PF Classic is essentially "all my stuff is here" and, unless PF2 is as freely compatible with PF Classic as Classic was with 3.5 which I severely doubt, I have next to zero reason to convert.

So instead of moping or raging about it, I'm making preparations to make the most of the situation.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm yeah, that is probably main reason why I plan to run rest of 1e aps with 1e and won't convert them to 2e when its released.

Anyhoo, I do have to say that I find this thread bit bizarre in general:

Pathfinder didn't come to exist because they moved from 3.5 to 4e, it was because 4e was radically different game from 3.5. 4e was basically tactical battle game with less mechanics for roleplaying situations. Calling move from 1e to 2e being same thing as move from 3.5 to 4e is premature before you actually see the mechanics for 2e. And no, them trying to make game less convoluted and more beginner friendly doesn't count, User Friendliness is a good thing and we have no proof of them making things too simplistic as of yet.

Shadow Lodge

Not an unreasonable conclusion.

Again I can only speak for myself, but from what the sparse comments from Paizo staff have suggested, Starfinder and Unchained were both sort of "stepping stones" toward PF2 and testing grounds for some of the ideas they may have used to begin work on the PF2 chassis.

This is - beyond the "all my stuff" angle - the main reason for me of why I'm leaning so strongly toward PF2 probably not being The Game For Me, as I did not care for most of what Unchained had to offer (yes, including the Summoner - I and my group had no problems whatsoever with the original Summoner mechanics or design) and while I love the sci-fi aesthetic I did not care for the mechanical aspects of Starfinder.

As such it seems only logical to expect that these are indicators of where Paizo is looking to move as a company, and as it's clearly in a direction I don't particularly care for,I don't think my reaction to the PF2 announcement is at all out of place or proportion.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with being skeptical of 2e if both unchained and starfinder are unappealing to you, I was talking about reactions akin to "2e is betrayal to concept of Pathfinder"

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
Samy wrote:
There's really no making 2e palatable to me (in the short term) because my thing is the breadth of options. Unless playtest feedback can get us 30+ races, 20+ classes, 200+ traits, 50+ archetypes in the CRB...yeah, not happening.
Fun fact: 1E didn't have 30+ races when it kicked off.

While true, unless you were in PFS - which wasn't around at the time - or a highly restrictive group of "PF Only" players, you still in theory could have used all the races and such from 3.5. That's what my group did.

Shadow Lodge

CorvusMask wrote:
Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with being skeptical of 2e if both unchained and starfinder are unappealing to you, I was talking about reactions akin to "2e is betrayal to concept of Pathfinder"

Oh yeah. On that we are in agreement.


Its fascinating stuff... but I will say that this simultaneously represents a massive opportunity for Paizo to breathe life into the game and reap the financial rewards but also a massive risk in that if they don't take onboard feedback, they could end up with a 4e esque disaster!


I want to be able to sympathize with folks that are strongly opposed to a 2e. However, it's hard for me to do so because I feel like the opposition is tied to one of two things.

1. Investment in books
2. Hatred of change, specifically reworking things.

I don't know of any hobby that doesn't require an ongoing investment to partake in it for as long as you choose to do so.

I also don't know of any GM that runs a long term game and is good at it that doesn't rework his or her own writing regularly

I just don't get it. I mean, I own every 1e, 2e, 3e rules book, every 4e product period and I started to do that with PF1 (but stopped playing it) when an edition changes, it doesn't make me upset. I just get another bookcase.

If someone can explain to me why folks complain about this stuff (aside from not making enough money to spend on books in the first place, then complaining about making their own bad decisions..) let me know.


doc roc wrote:
Its fascinating stuff... but I will say that this simultaneously represents a massive opportunity for Paizo to breathe life into the game and reap the financial rewards but also a massive risk in that if they don't take onboard feedback, they could end up with a 4e esque disaster!

I feel like I hear a lot of "Or it'll end up just like 4e" talk without a lot of examination as to why it struggled like it did. Sure something like "it was unfamiliar and your existing base didn't like that" is valid, but I'm pretty sure "making fighters better" or "getting rid of gnomes" was not causally linked to 4e's problems. Honestly a big part of what went wrong was that 4e simply wasn't very well supported, and I don't know if Paizo still plans to publish a Player Companion and an Adventure Path chapter every month but that's one thing I'm not worried about.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Boots wrote:

I want to be able to sympathize with folks that are strongly opposed to a 2e. However, it's hard for me to do so because I feel like the opposition is tied to one of two things.

1. Investment in books
2. Hatred of change, specifically reworking things.

I don't know of any hobby that doesn't require an ongoing investment to partake in it for as long as you choose to do so.

I also don't know of any GM that runs a long term game and is good at it that doesn't rework his or her own writing regularly

I just don't get it. I mean, I own every 1e, 2e, 3e rules book, every 4e product period and I started to do that with PF1 (but stopped playing it) when an edition changes, it doesn't make me upset. I just get another bookcase.

If someone can explain to me why folks complain about this stuff (aside from not making enough money to spend on books in the first place, then complaining about making their own bad decisions..) let me know.

For me at least, I've never gone through with a full edition change. 3.5 was my first tabletop RPG, and PF let me keep using all the 3.5 stuff I've gathered over the years. I only own 4e books because a friend bought them for me so we could try the system, which we abandoned after a meager three play sessions and never looked back.

So this perspective doesn't really reflect my experiences because I never had a previous edition to leave behind until now.

A lot of the complaints center on having spent all that money on books for a system no longer being supported and they fear that means their opportunities to make use of those expenditures will come to an end as people cease playing the older system in favor of the new. Also something I personally don't have to worry over as no one in my group seems interested in leaving PF Classic.


PossibleCabbage wrote:


I feel like I hear a lot of "Or it'll end up just like 4e" talk without a lot of examination as to why it struggled like it did. Sure something like "it was unfamiliar and your existing base didn't like that" is valid, but I'm pretty sure "making fighters better" or "getting rid of gnomes" was not causally linked to 4e's problems. Honestly a big part of what went wrong was that 4e simply wasn't very well supported, and I don't know if Paizo still plans to publish a Player Companion and an Adventure Path chapter every month but that's one thing I'm not worried about.

Its a tightrope situation....

A big part of what makes PF attractive to RPG heads is its customisability but that runs inversely to accessibility for newbs.

5e is popular at the mo largely due to its accessibility.... can this continue? Who knows....

4e wobbled too far to one side and went for too much simplication and blandness..... consequently it ended up on the pavement below!!


Kobold Boots wrote:

I want to be able to sympathize with folks that are strongly opposed to a 2e. However, it's hard for me to do so because I feel like the opposition is tied to one of two things.

1. Investment in books
2. Hatred of change, specifically reworking things.

I don't know of any hobby that doesn't require an ongoing investment to partake in it for as long as you choose to do so.

I also don't know of any GM that runs a long term game and is good at it that doesn't rework his or her own writing regularly

I just don't get it. I mean, I own every 1e, 2e, 3e rules book, every 4e product period and I started to do that with PF1 (but stopped playing it) when an edition changes, it doesn't make me upset. I just get another bookcase.

If someone can explain to me why folks complain about this stuff (aside from not making enough money to spend on books in the first place, then complaining about making their own bad decisions..) let me know.

Hell, playing RPGs is a great hobby for little to no ongoing investment for as long as you want to do so. Collecting RPGs is not.

It's actually one of the big problems with RPGs as a business model: You really can get years of play for multiple people in nearly any RPG from just the Core rules. Everything else is extra. Sometimes very cool extra, but still extra.

I've played Basic, 1e, 2e, 3.0/3.5, 4e and 5e, along with Pathfinder and a dozen other systems. I know I don't have complete sets of any of them (unless there's one that only had the first book.:) I doubt I've got more than a dozen books for any, except maybe AD&D.

It's just a strange attitude for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I am a member of the community, and I’m good with a new edition.

I'll do you one better.

I am a member of the community and I'm good with a new edition EVEN THOUGH I won't BE MOVING TO IT.

I literally have THOUSANDS of dollars and almost 10 years worth of books and support for the system of my choice and I'm going to stand here and tell other people "NO you cant have this new thing because I still want this other thing?"

Yeah...NOPE.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:


Please be introspective about things you are saying on the messageboard and think about how it comes across.

I really dont think that there's a snowball's chance in any of the NINE HELLS of that happening...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

As a member of the community I have to state that I also very much welcome 2.0 and am very excited for it! that said im also concerned that those who are opposed to change, the "never new edition" crowd, will hamper any real change or progression of the game that is sorely needed. If this ends up simply a lets reorganize the game and clean it up a bit exercise after all is said and done then in my opinion this will all have failed and be absolutely the money grab that some believe it to be. It needs to be bold enough and brave enough to make the changes it needs to make to make it a GOOD game regardless of compatibility or legacy. Now dont get me wrong I am a 3.5 fan and have quite enjoyed Pathfinder as is.. but if your going to change, change. Half measures will kill this game faster than those who are afraid of change.

So far I have been very excited for the changes ive seen proposed and hope that much of it makes its way though the play test. When Starfinder first came out and the changes were announced, I admit, I was skeptical, change is hard but to be honest once I embraced it, I found it to be good system. Now that I see whats proposed in 2.0 however I wish they had been even more bold and brave with the changes in Starfinder. There is some gold yet to be refined in what we have seen so far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
I absolutely agree that Vancian casting needs to die.

People disagreeing with these types of changes are the only reason Pathfinder and its community exists.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Kobold Boots wrote:

I want to be able to sympathize with folks that are strongly opposed to a 2e. However, it's hard for me to do so because I feel like the opposition is tied to one of two things.

1. Investment in books
2. Hatred of change, specifically reworking things.

I don't know of any hobby that doesn't require an ongoing investment to partake in it for as long as you choose to do so.

I also don't know of any GM that runs a long term game and is good at it that doesn't rework his or her own writing regularly

I just don't get it. I mean, I own every 1e, 2e, 3e rules book, every 4e product period and I started to do that with PF1 (but stopped playing it) when an edition changes, it doesn't make me upset. I just get another bookcase.

If someone can explain to me why folks complain about this stuff (aside from not making enough money to spend on books in the first place, then complaining about making their own bad decisions..) let me know.

Hell, playing RPGs is a great hobby for little to no ongoing investment for as long as you want to do so. Collecting RPGs is not.

It's actually one of the big problems with RPGs as a business model: You really can get years of play for multiple people in nearly any RPG from just the Core rules. Everything else is extra. Sometimes very cool extra, but still extra.

I've played Basic, 1e, 2e, 3.0/3.5, 4e and 5e, along with Pathfinder and a dozen other systems. I know I don't have complete sets of any of them (unless there's one that only had the first book.:) I doubt I've got more than a dozen books for any, except maybe AD&D.

It's just a strange attitude for me.

It's only strange because you're coming at it from the opposite perspective.

If you've lived a longer life and gone through all those systems before, the, yeah it makes sense you would be more inclined to roll with yet more changes as the future unfolds.

I on the other hand am a younger player who has pretty much settled on 3.5/PF Classic as my System Of Choice and never used anything else, and thus the inclination to move to something different us far weaker.

These are of course not absolutes, but something of a pattern I have noticed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing a Long time.

When 2nd ed D&D came out, I played first. Until 3rd came along. It because harder and harder to find players (until it got to the point that it was just me and my wife).

There were thing I loved in 3.x- one of the biggest thing was that each level was just a discreet package of skill, feat, or power choices. A class did not define the character. Now spellusing with multiclassing was borked, but it didn't take much to fix that. As the game has moved on (and further editions come out) that concept has been left further and further behind. Lack of that flexibility is part of why I didn't like 4E (among other things) and why I loved both Archtypes and prestige classes.
By indications it seems PF2.0 will move even further away.

I game not for setting, but for system. If the system is changed too much, then it's not the same system. I have a bad feeling that the changes to PF2.0 will change the system far enough that it isn't the system I like (that I have been playing something like 20 years now).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Find it interesting that the "no longer being supported" concern is being consistently cited by those who have already decided that P2E is not for them.

Surely if, as is insinuated, there is to be the significant cohort of P1E players not making the jump, there will potentially be a decent amount of continued support from 3PP?

On that note would be interested to hear what current 3PP make of the announcement...

Shadow Lodge

As I've stated in this thread and others, I know I'm looking at the impending void of future Paizo-produced contents as an opportunity to throw my hat into the ring, and am pretty sure I am far from the only one.

That said, there are still and likely always will be those GMs who sneer at 3rd party content as if its lesser than 1st party material and/or inherently broken or bad. Sone stigmas never truly fade away....


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Orthos wrote:


It's only strange because you're coming at it from the opposite perspective.

If you've lived a longer life and gone through all those systems before, the, yeah it makes sense you would be more inclined to roll with yet more changes as the future unfolds.

I on the other hand am a younger player who has pretty much settled on 3.5/PF Classic...

I'm 46. I'll be 47 this year.

I've been through ALOT of systems and versions. I started gaming with Red Box Basic and just only bought the 5E core books about two weeks ago. I've played through 3 versions fo Mayfair's DC Heroes, 2 versions of Mekton, 3 versions of HERO SYSTEM/CHAMPIONS, 3 versions of Mutants and Masterminds, at least 4 versions of WARHAMMER 40K (not the RPG but still...), 2 versions of Marvel Super-Heroes and so on and so on.

PF is my primary game of choice for FRP. Because of the rules BUT also the level of support for the game itself is AMAZING.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Black Dow wrote:

Find it interesting that the "no longer being supported" concern is being consistently cited by those who have already decided that P2E is not for them.

Surely if, as is insinuated, there is to be the significant cohort of P1E players not making the jump, there will potentially be a decent amount of continued support from 3PP?

On that note would be interested to hear what current 3PP make of the announcement...

I actually asked that in 3pp subforum, only Jason Nelson and Jon Brazer replied. Legendary will keep making PF1 products at least until PF2 comes out, although how many depends on profit (and they've moved Rage of Wyrms to next spring/summer) and it will influence will they continue to make PF1 when PF2 comes out, while Jon Brazer said that races product is last non-adventure PF1 product.

Shadow Lodge

ShinHakkaider wrote:
Orthos wrote:


It's only strange because you're coming at it from the opposite perspective.

If you've lived a longer life and gone through all those systems before, the, yeah it makes sense you would be more inclined to roll with yet more changes as the future unfolds.

I on the other hand am a younger player who has pretty much settled on 3.5/PF Classic...

I'm 46. I'll be 47 this year.

I've been through ALOT of systems and versions. I started gaming with Red Box Basic and just only bought the 5E core books about two weeks ago. I've played through 3 versions fo Mayfair's DC Heroes, 2 versions of Mekton, 3 versions of HERO SYSTEM/CHAMPIONS, 3 versions of Mutants and Masterminds, at least 4 versions of WARHAMMER 40K (not the RPG but still...), 2 versions of Marvel Super-Heroes and so on and so on.

PF is my primary game of choice for FRP. Because of the rules BUT also the level of support for the game itself is AMAZING.

Like I said. Not absolutes, just a trend.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vexies wrote:
As a member of the community I have to state that I also very much welcome 2.0 and am very excited for it! that said im also concerned that those who are opposed to change, the "never new edition" crowd, will hamper any real change or progression of the game that is sorely needed.

Don't worry....since we are throwing the age card around, I'm 54....started with the original in the mid 70's.I've been through this change of editions a number of times....I'm just not willing to again.

It's very likely that the new game will be just the kind of simplified streamlined two dimensional game your looking for.

Those of us who don't like what is likely going to happen (as I said, I've been to this rodeo before) won't ruin you fun ;)

But we have every right to be upset about it :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest...it feels like a lot of 3PP moved onto 5E. Seems like Kobold Press is supporting that system far more to Pathfinder, at least last time I followed thing.

That in and of itself suggests that moving onto a new edition was a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

To be honest...it feels like a lot of 3PP moved onto 5E. Seems like Kobold Press is supporting that system far more to Pathfinder, at least last time I followed thing.

3pp want money and they go where money is.


Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Boots wrote:

I want to be able to sympathize with folks that are strongly opposed to a 2e. However, it's hard for me to do so because I feel like the opposition is tied to one of two things.

1. Investment in books
2. Hatred of change, specifically reworking things.

I don't know of any hobby that doesn't require an ongoing investment to partake in it for as long as you choose to do so.

I also don't know of any GM that runs a long term game and is good at it that doesn't rework his or her own writing regularly

I just don't get it. I mean, I own every 1e, 2e, 3e rules book, every 4e product period and I started to do that with PF1 (but stopped playing it) when an edition changes, it doesn't make me upset. I just get another bookcase.

If someone can explain to me why folks complain about this stuff (aside from not making enough money to spend on books in the first place, then complaining about making their own bad decisions..) let me know.

Hell, playing RPGs is a great hobby for little to no ongoing investment for as long as you want to do so. Collecting RPGs is not.

It's actually one of the big problems with RPGs as a business model: You really can get years of play for multiple people in nearly any RPG from just the Core rules. Everything else is extra. Sometimes very cool extra, but still extra.

I've played Basic, 1e, 2e, 3.0/3.5, 4e and 5e, along with Pathfinder and a dozen other systems. I know I don't have complete sets of any of them (unless there's one that only had the first book.:) I doubt I've got more than a dozen books for any, except maybe AD&D.

It's just a strange attitude for me.

It's only strange because you're coming at it from the opposite perspective.

If you've lived a longer life and gone through all those systems before, the, yeah it makes sense you would be more inclined to roll with yet more changes as the future unfolds.

I on the other hand am a younger player who has pretty much settled on 3.5/PF Classic as my System Of Choice and never used anything else, and thus the inclination to move to something different us far weaker.

These are of course not absolutes, but something of a pattern I have noticed.

I was really thinking more of the "ongoing investment" and "library of books" thing than actual resistance to change.

I've never really had a "System of Choice" - different tools for different ends. To some extent AD&D back in the early days, but even then I grabbed Champions early on because "Hey you can roleplay superheroes" was cool.

I never was the kind of completist Kobold Boots was talking about. I never found a huge investment in books necessary to enjoy an RPG over the long haul. That may be partly because I started playing back in AD&D when there was less of an emphasis on a constant supply of new rulebooks - less of a build game.
But I also started checking out other systems and other genres pretty early in that period to. For most of that time, through various groups we've been roughly alternating games, some version of D&D/PF then something out of that family (CoC,Amber,Champions,Feng Shui,One Ring, many others that got tried and didn't stick).

Some people seem to focus on one system and go all out on it: building up huge libraries and needing a constant supply of new material and new options to keep up their interest. Others don't. I've always found that in pretty much any system, a handful of books were enough to spark interest for multiple campaigns.

I don't think that's a difference tied to age or how long you've been gaming. Just a different approach and one that's always seemed odd to me, since I first ran across the idea.


JRutterbush wrote:

I absolutely agree that Vancian casting needs to die. At the very least, give us Arcanist style casting. The thing that's got me most excited about PF2 is that they won't be anchored to archaic D&Disms that hold the system back (D&Disms that even D&D has managed to shed in its later editions), and Vancian magic was one of the biggest I was hoping to see go away.

I really hope we can convince them to scrap that before the playtest is over.

I would greatly prefer arcanist replace both wizard and sorcerer. Not only is the split is the exact opposite of modular, but it was explicitly cooked up to justify the high page count consumer by arcane spells in the 3E PHB. Even if one wished to keep the division, it would be better implemented as an archetype.

In fact, I think they could go along way toward modularization and efficient use of page count by re-examining old assumptions with archetypes in mind, but that may look too much like "taking stuff away."

My $.02.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:
Vexies wrote:
As a member of the community I have to state that I also very much welcome 2.0 and am very excited for it! that said im also concerned that those who are opposed to change, the "never new edition" crowd, will hamper any real change or progression of the game that is sorely needed.

It's very likely that the new game will be just the kind of simplified streamlined two dimensional game your looking for.

I just feel like mentioning that "simplified and streamlined" don't necessarily mean "2 dimensional". There are a lot of ways to take complex ideas and functions and "hide the math" behind system conventions so that it's possible to have and enjoy the same level of depth without having a lot of the system mastery and game knowledge gates that currently exist as barriers to new players.

I've been playing and GMing a lot recently with groups that include one or more brand new players, and it's really opened my eyes to just how big the hurdles can be, even for really savvy and capable individuals, so accessibility has become more and more appealing to me as my community has grown.

Anecdotally, I was recently producing new classes for a 3pp Pathfinder Kickstarter called City of Seven Seraphs, and one of the most popular things I added were classes that used a very complex subsystem based on 3.5 Magic of Incarnum that used design and presentation conventions that kept the same flexibility and customization as earlier entries using the same subsystem, but which were much easier for new players to grasp and play. In most cases these classes ended up being simplified and actually offering more points of customization than previous entries.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I play P1e for the APs. That's it. I enjoy the game, but I'm strongly in the camp of thinking that not nearly enough was changed switching from 3.5. When 4e came out, I was really ready for a new edition, and was honestly super upset with Paizo for not supporting it.

Liberty's Edge

I'm personally all in favour of a Pathfinder 2E. I was hoping they'd get around to it years earlier, to be honest. I think being 3.5 compatible was one of the worst things in Pathfinder from a design perspective, though I'm sure it helped ease the market into buying the new system.

I like the Paizo design team, I think they can do great things, but I also think 3rd ed. / 3.5 is not worth shackling their game to, and I am excited to see what they can do with their own ideas.

I can see if you really love 3.5 that you might be annoyed by a 2E announcement, but 3.5 and Pathfinder 1.0 will still exist once 2E ships.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Have arcanist replace wizard if you like, but please let me keep my sorcerer.

Dark Archive

I'm in my early twenties. Just pointing that out since I would have thought younger folks are more easily outraged by stuff like this <_<

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I've never really had a "System of Choice" - different tools for different ends. To some extent AD&D back in the early days, but even then I grabbed Champions early on because "Hey you can roleplay superheroes" was cool.

<snip>

Some people seem to focus on one system and go all out on it: building up huge libraries and needing a constant supply of new material and new options to keep up their interest. Others don't. I've always found that in pretty much any system, a handful of books were enough to spark interest for multiple campaigns.

I don't think that's a difference tied to age or how long you've been gaming. Just a different approach and one that's always seemed odd to me, since I first ran across the idea.

Yeah that makes sense. I am definitely in the opposite group from you - I don't have the time, mental "space", or inclination to learn a new system, so it's All PF All The Way for me. Also my group barely manages our scheduled once a week gaming sessions, we would definitely not have time for adding something using a different system unless we dropped our current game.

So PF Classic ending = either abandon ship and start wrapping my brain around a new system, or stick with the old system I know and deal with the loss of first-party support.


CorvusMask wrote:
I'm in my early twenties. Just pointing that out since I can't seem to understand why folks over then years older than me are this outraged by this <_<

LOL....it's the investment of time that causes people to be upset..

You just have not been alive long enough to be invested in much ;)

(NOTE: That is what you call sarcasm)

Shadow Lodge

CorvusMask wrote:
I'm in my early twenties. Just pointing that out since I would have thought younger folks are more easily outraged by stuff like this <_<

Nearing 33 here. Started gaming in the early 2000s.

Shadow Lodge

nighttree wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm in my early twenties. Just pointing that out since I can't seem to understand why folks over then years older than me are this outraged by this <_<
LOL....it's the investment of time that causes people to be upset..

And money, don't forget that ;)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm in my early twenties. Just pointing that out since I can't seem to understand why folks over then years older than me are this outraged by this <_<

LOL....it's the investment of time that causes people to be upset..

You just have not been alive long enough to be invested in much ;)

(NOTE: That is what you call sarcasm)

Dagnabbit, ye managed to reply before I figured out edit that brought up what I meant better xD

I'm under general impression that older folks are supposed to be wise and calm while young folk are hasty and easily angry about stuff.

(I'm too young to understand sarcasm? :D)


PF has long been ready to evolve into a new game of its own.

Paizo has a huge opportunity here to distinguish PF with Quadratic Wizards Quadratic Fighters, but it looks like they favor the 5E angle.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's just safer to mark sarcasm directly like that than to hope someone on the internet will properly intuit it. Don't take it personally =)


I'm 26 years old.

I remember my Dad introduced me to AD&D when I was 8. I played that for good amount of years. Then when my dad got too busy with work, I went to the local shop which had D&D groups playing 3.5. I played that for a few years. Then Pathfinder was a thing with its original beta. Yet here I am today, still playing pathfinder and sometimes 5e with friends.

I never felt beholden or tied down to an edition, but I do enjoy them regardless even if it does change.

Just my 2 copper on the matter.


To clarify I never meant no support. I'm not sure if we will see another Paizo. With the same resources and staff. 3 PP will continue. I could very well be wrong and someone will.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
nighttree wrote:
Vexies wrote:
As a member of the community I have to state that I also very much welcome 2.0 and am very excited for it! that said im also concerned that those who are opposed to change, the "never new edition" crowd, will hamper any real change or progression of the game that is sorely needed.

It's very likely that the new game will be just the kind of simplified streamlined two dimensional game your looking for.

I just feel like mentioning that "simplified and streamlined" don't necessarily mean "2 dimensional". There are a lot of ways to take complex ideas and functions and "hide the math" behind system conventions so that it's possible to have and enjoy the same level of depth without having a lot of the system mastery and game knowledge gates that currently exist as barriers to new players.

I've been playing and GMing a lot recently with groups that include one or more brand new players, and it's really opened my eyes to just how big the hurdles can be, even for really savvy and capable individuals, so accessibility has become more and more appealing to me as my community has grown.

Anecdotally, I was recently producing new classes for a 3pp Pathfinder Kickstarter called City of Seven Seraphs, and one of the most popular things I added were classes that used a very complex subsystem based on 3.5 Magic of Incarnum that used design and presentation conventions that kept the same flexibility and customization as earlier entries using the same subsystem, but which were much easier for new players to grasp and play. In most cases these classes ended up being simplified and actually offering more points of customization than previous entries.

I can't agree more. I personally am very much in favor of rich deep systems that have a lot of options and complexity but I also understand and recognize the need for accessibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Have arcanist replace wizard if you like, but please let me keep my sorcerer.

This. All the this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Mhoram wrote:


I game not for setting, but for system. If the system is changed too much, then it's not the same system. I have a bad feeling that the changes to PF2.0 will change the system far enough that it isn't the system I like (that I have been playing something like 20 years now).

The more I see of this sort of reaction, the more I wonder whether I'm an outlier in ways I hadn't even realised; because nothing about PF2.0 so far sounds like it's going to need any more work from me to make fit my preferences than PF1.0 on an ongoing basis.

Silver Crusade

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Kain Dragonhand wrote:

Do you play video games?

Would you be happy if we stayed with the Xbox original instead of the Xbox One?
Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?
You probably don't want to see the walls of text I can still generate at the drop of a hat about how Civilization III is an infinitely better game than Civ IV or V.

One example of one game.

What you're saying is the equivalent of

"You probably don't want to see the walls of text that I can still generate at the drop of a hat about how x feat in 3.5 is a infinitely better feat than pathfinder's version"

I was referring to the advancement of the system as a whole, not a product of said system.


thejeff wrote:
Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Boots wrote:

I want to be able to sympathize with folks that are strongly opposed to a 2e. However, it's hard for me to do so because I feel like the opposition is tied to one of two things.

1. Investment in books
2. Hatred of change, specifically reworking things.

I don't know of any hobby that doesn't require an ongoing investment to partake in it for as long as you choose to do so.

I also don't know of any GM that runs a long term game and is good at it that doesn't rework his or her own writing regularly

I just don't get it. I mean, I own every 1e, 2e, 3e rules book, every 4e product period and I started to do that with PF1 (but stopped playing it) when an edition changes, it doesn't make me upset. I just get another bookcase.

If someone can explain to me why folks complain about this stuff (aside from not making enough money to spend on books in the first place, then complaining about making their own bad decisions..) let me know.

Hell, playing RPGs is a great hobby for little to no ongoing investment for as long as you want to do so. Collecting RPGs is not.

It's actually one of the big problems with RPGs as a business model: You really can get years of play for multiple people in nearly any RPG from just the Core rules. Everything else is extra. Sometimes very cool extra, but still extra.

I've played Basic, 1e, 2e, 3.0/3.5, 4e and 5e, along with Pathfinder and a dozen other systems. I know I don't have complete sets of any of them (unless there's one that only had the first book.:) I doubt I've got more than a dozen books for any, except maybe AD&D.

It's just a strange attitude for me.

It's only strange because you're coming at it from the opposite perspective.

If you've lived a longer life and gone through all those systems before, the, yeah it makes sense you would be more inclined to roll with yet more changes as the future unfolds.

I on the other hand am a younger player who has pretty much

...

Thanks Jeff and Orthos

Appreciate the perspective. I suppose I'm less venomous overall as I've made a personal choice to only regularly play the latest versions of things based on how the market works.

Still, when I was 19ish 1e converted to 2e and I didn't think anything of it. I just bought new stuff from Waldenbooks and that was the end of it. Maybe it's because I've spent a lot of time GMing in stores with randoms and built large groups.. dunno.

Silver Crusade

Orthos wrote:
Kain Dragonhand wrote:

Do you play video games?

Would you be happy if we stayed with the Xbox original instead of the Xbox One?

Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?

The problem with this argument is that yes, I would have been happy to stick with the SNES forever. Mostly because that's what I play most of anyway. The move to 3d, in hindsight, put video games mostly on a route I've discovered I don't care for as much as those older classic systems and the games produced with (or perhaps by) their limitations.

/off topic

Yeah? Let's say Nintendo stuck with the SNES while their competitors kept advancing things.

What would happen to Nintendo? It would fold.

I love the SNES as much as the next, for it's time in my life it will probably be my most cherished console. That said, games today are far better in many cases. Sure there is a lot more junk out there, but there is also a lot of good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Kain Dragonhand wrote:

Do you play video games?

Would you be happy if we stayed with the Xbox original instead of the Xbox One?

Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?

The problem with this argument is that yes, I would have been happy to stick with the SNES forever. Mostly because that's what I play most of anyway. The move to 3d, in hindsight, put video games mostly on a route I've discovered I don't care for as much as those older classic systems and the games produced with (or perhaps by) their limitations.

/off topic

Yeah? Let's say Nintendo stuck with the SNES while their competitors kept advancing things.

What would happen to Nintendo? It would fold.

I love the SNES as much as the next, for it's time in my life it will probably be my most cherished console. That said, games today are far better in many cases. Sure there is a lot more junk out there, but there is also a lot of good.

And the beautiful thing is that even as Nintendo switched from the SNES to the N64 and the GameCube and the Wii and the Switch, our SNES still works. The cartridges for those consoles? They can still be put into the machine and used to play a game.

There's a thriving retro-gaming market where people sell vintage systems and emulators. If you want to play Super Contra or Super Mario World? You still can. Sure, there are no new games being made for the SNES, but that doesn't mean you can't still play the games you love.

It's going to be the same with PF1. All of the books and PDFs you've purchased? They're still yours. You and your gaming group can still play PF1, even as Paizo goes on after 2019.

And there's nothing wrong with saying "Hey, I'm not buying in to the new edition. I'm happy with the games I've got."

My SNES is still hooked up. Right there next to my XBox One.

Pathfinder will still be on my shelves, right next to my 3.5 books. Right next to M&M 1e. Right next to GURPS 3.0. Right next to my WEG Star Wars, which is next to my d20 Star Wars, which is next to my Fantasy Flight Star Wars. And they'll be right next to M&M 3e and, most likely, Pathfinder 2.0.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

101 to 150 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / 2E undermines what drove Pathfinder in the first place. All Messageboards