![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Orthos |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Meyanda](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9085-Meyanda2_500.jpeg)
That said, games today are far better in many cases.
On this we must disagree.
But the rest of your point is taken, and frankly I'm in exactly the same situation here as I am with video games. I will happily sit here playing SNES games on my Retro console and let the video game industry wander off down its more profitable road that I don't care to follow,content with my old classics and the occasional enthusiasts project rom hack or fan game.
Just like I will sit back and keep playing PF Classic and even enter the 3PP market as a publisher to bring more material to the system while Paizo moves of with whatever PF2 has in store for them.
I don't have enough desire to be the target audience to change my preferences with the shifting of the market. I like what I like and if it's no longer for sale I'll get it used or make my own.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
nighttree |
![Sharroa DiViri, Hellknight](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9281-Sharroa_500.jpeg)
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.
Probably not...otherwise they wouldn't be going this direction.
They went into this knowing that the older die hard fans wouldn't like it, and that they would probably loose them.....This shift will attract a new/different younger community, that can support the company going foreword.
Also keep in mind the reason people are translating terms like "streamline" and "simplified" they way they are, is because we have already done this before :P
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Sadida |
![Lini](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9429-Lini_90.jpeg)
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...
Plus you don't have to worry about servers shutting down for your favorite game when it comes to tabletop games. Otherwise well said.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Volkard Abendroth |
![Cairn Wight](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9238-Wight.jpg)
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.
While all of this is true, Nintendo gets no money from collectors trading games amongst themselves.
With RPGs, things work a little differently. Unlike computers there is no underlying change in how reading, or miniatures, or dice work. I don't get anything from a new edition that I could not already do with an existing edition aside from the underlying rules. If I don't like the changes in the underlying rules, the books I have already purchased continue to function without fresh monetary input.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Night Monarch](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/B2.HeraldOfDesna.jpg)
They went into this knowing that the older die hard fans wouldn't like it, and that they would probably loose them....
some of them, maybe. I also see quite some older die-hard fans applauding for that move.
Apart from that, I agree with the nerve-eater. So far, there has nothing been announced that changes the game so far as not to be recognizable as Pathfinder anymore.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Orthos |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Meyanda](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9085-Meyanda2_500.jpeg)
Orthos wrote:I appreciate the thought with this and am sure they'll give it the ol college try but its an easy thing to say now, harder thing to stick by when it becomes inconvenient.Or in modern media case, Paizo stops hosting the PDFs.
Which, thankfully, they have promised not to do.
Oh no doubt. Backup, backup, backup. Nothing wrong with keeping a copy on Dropbox or Google Drive in case your computer dies and you can't log in on Paizo for some reason.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
nighttree |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Sharroa DiViri, Hellknight](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9281-Sharroa_500.jpeg)
The more I think about this, the more I have to agree with the OP.
Paizo took the reigns (so to speak) of 3.5 when Wizards decided to trash the entire system for a streamlined more "player friendly" version......screwing a lot of their collaborative allies over in the process. Hence 4E.
I'm still in a bit of shock that Paizo "appears" to be doing more or less the same thing (minus the screwing over of collaborative allies).....It was supposed to be about preserving the 3.5 system...
That no longer seems to be a concern....
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Ryan Freire |
![Sajan](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-Sajan_500.jpeg)
The more I think about this, the more I have to agree with the OP.
Paizo took the reigns (so to speak) of 3.5 when Wizards decided to trash the entire system for a streamlined more "player friendly" version......screwing a lot of their collaborative allies over in the process. Hence 4E.I'm still in a bit of shock that Paizo "appears" to be doing more or less the same thing (minus the screwing over of collaborative allies).....It was supposed to be about preserving the 3.5 system...
That no longer seems to be a concern....
I'm not convinced the base skeleton wont still be recognizeable as 3.x
Midnight was a setting/system that was kind of the same way, with massive changes to spells and characters et al and still felt llike 3.0
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
More importantly: this is only a small fraction of people who plays the game. We have no clue what those others are looking for.
I'd wager that a pretty sizeable chunk of people who play the system (perhaps even the majority), won't know a Pathfinder 2.0 is even in the works until very shortly before it's release, or even AFTER it's release.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
It rather depends on how much of a change PF2 is.
If it ends up being a whole new game then yeah the OP would be right
But if it is just another step forward the way Pathfinder was from 3.5, then no. It is simply a continuing evolution of 3.5 D&D 3.8 if you will.
It really depends on how far they change it.
Being too much the same can also drive people away. If there aren't substantial enough changes to make the new edition seem worth buying, people will just see this as an attempt by Paizo to re-sell them the same content that Pathfinder 1.0 was, only with new cover art.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Ryan Freire |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Sajan](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1126-Sajan_500.jpeg)
Kain Dragonhand wrote:Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?So you are saying that the hardware / game system will be better, but the software / adventures will, on the average, be worse.
The PS2 is a bad comparison, to this day it has a better library than the PS4. The PS4 has prettier games but they're generally shorter/not as replayable
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Greylurker |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Wizard](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/35_Arcane.jpg)
Shadow Kosh wrote:The PS2 is a bad comparison, to this day it has a better library than the PS4. The PS4 has prettier games but they're generally shorter/not as replayableKain Dragonhand wrote:Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?So you are saying that the hardware / game system will be better, but the software / adventures will, on the average, be worse.
PS2 was also backward compatible with the PS1 games
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
People wanted a "continued 3.5", for sure, but they also wanted a fixed 3.5. PF1 tried to do both, which is why things are "backwards compatible" but enough things changed that NPCs take quite a bit of work to convert, and a lot of content was outright replaced (e.g. many options from the PHB reprinted in the CRB) or rendered obsolete (e.g. all but the most powerful Prestige Classes).
PF2 could very well be a similar change. I would at least wait for the actual rules to be released before announcing that PF1 content is invalidated/scrapped/etc.
To continue on from my last post, the desire for backwards compatibility is very much a two-edged sword. If you keep the degree of backwards comparability than some posters here want, you run into the exact problem I noted in my last post...it's essentially repackaging Pathfinder 1.0. This will piss people off because it's just reselling them something they already purchased. In addition, the problems that have plagued the Pathfinder system since 8 years before it was even released will STILL plague it.
On the other hand, if you actually try to fix those problems, and make the new edition actually different enough to warrant a purchase, then you WILL lose those customers for whom backwards compatibility is a sticking point.
Regardless of what they do, there will also be some people who stick with Pathfinder 1.0, because it's what they are comfortable with. There will be others who jump ship to another system because the end of Pathfinder 1.0 makes a good jumping off point. They might eventually come back to Pathfinder, but they might not.
There WILL BE customers lost with this edition change. Paizo seems to think that it's worth the gamble to see if they can gain more than they lose. While I'm not a fan of their system, I do wish them luck. They do fairly good adventures, and have a fairly competent setting (assuming you don't mind a rather haphazard j%*saw puzzle of a setting). I've used thier stuff for other systems, and I doubt that Pathfinder 2.0 will change that (although if the early portion of Pathfinder 2.0's life cycle is mostly devoted to conversions of existing Pathfinder 1.0 material, they'll loose my interest long before they bother with anything new).
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
GreyWolfLord wrote:By reducing the buy-in to a new CRB, Paizo automatically makes it easier for a new player buy-in to the game.I...I don't get it. You only need the CBR, everything else is optional. Overwhelmed by all the books? Stick to the CRB. Nobody DEMANDS to use more than that
That's a good theory. But how many threads have wee seen on Paizo's own forums that could be summarized thusly:
Original Poster: My GM is mean. He won't let us use [insert option here].Reply: You should thank him for letting you know this soon that he's a tyrant of a GM and that nobody from your group should ever play with him again. In fact, you should let all other gamers in your area know that he is toxic and nobody should ever game with him again.
It's been more than a handful.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
GM Nitemare wrote:Quick someone startup a 3.85 do what PF did to 4E, call it Grognardfinder or something...I'm just amused by people talking about Old School Pathfinder and Grognards and such.
Pathfinder isn't Old School. Sorry. Nor was 3.0. They're what the grognards in the old school revival were reacting too when they went back and made clones of OD&D and AD&D and Basic.
This. 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder are pretty much the antithesis of the OSR.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
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.
There was more to the system that Paizo liked than just the vancian casting system. In fact, I'd wager that if 4th edition was just 3.5 with Vancian casting replaced with some other alternative, Pathfinder probably never would have been created.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Hythlodeus |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Gambler](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1124-Gamblr_90.jpeg)
Okay, had a game session with my group tonight and told them about the news. their reaction uniformly mirrored my own from last tuesday.
"that's a pretty stupid idea. they have become the new WotC now. we started playing PF, because we love 3.5 - if we would have wanted a simple, streamlined game, we would play 5E. are they that desperate for money? please tell me you won't switch to the new game." etc. etc.
I assured them that of course I wouldn't, but that APs would be written for Untitled Sequel from next year on and not longer for Pathfinder. I also told them about the playtest.
The good thing is, they agreed to participate in the test with me (for the very same reasons I'm interested in doing so) and started talking about character concepts from the PF CRB only they want to build in both PF and the Beta of Untitled Sequel, once the pdf arrives to play the same scenario in both systems. We also talked about writing encounters ans scenes for Untitled Sequel and then pass it along to see how fast that encounter can be converted to Pathfinder and where the problems would be in trying this. I'm sure at least one of them will delve deep into the mechanics, which I refuse to do.
So there we have it: about 120 years of RPG experience combined in one group, ready to playtest with all the best intentions to make this a game worthy of the title Pathfinder
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:This. 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder are pretty much the antithesis of the OSR.GM Nitemare wrote:Quick someone startup a 3.85 do what PF did to 4E, call it Grognardfinder or something...I'm just amused by people talking about Old School Pathfinder and Grognards and such.
Pathfinder isn't Old School. Sorry. Nor was 3.0. They're what the grognards in the old school revival were reacting too when they went back and made clones of OD&D and AD&D and Basic.
It is however kind of the problem with breaking things down as a simplistic old school/new school paradigm. Something new comes along and how does that fit into that simple divide. Is 5th enough like AD&D to be "Old School" or enough like 3.x to be "new school"? Or if it's different enough does it become "new school" and push everything before it into "old school"?
And that doesn't even consider all the systems that aren't versions/clones of D&D.
The real answer is that there are more than 2 schools.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Hythlodeus |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Gambler](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1124-Gamblr_90.jpeg)
it's essentially repackaging Pathfinder 1.0. This will piss people off
People were fine with essentially repackaging 3.5. A lot of us are here exactly because of this. we were excited that Paizo did that. What would piss ME off, however would be a game without easy backwards compatibility, because that would mean I could use none of Paizo's future content.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
Shadow Kosh wrote:thejeff wrote:This. 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder are pretty much the antithesis of the OSR.GM Nitemare wrote:Quick someone startup a 3.85 do what PF did to 4E, call it Grognardfinder or something...I'm just amused by people talking about Old School Pathfinder and Grognards and such.
Pathfinder isn't Old School. Sorry. Nor was 3.0. They're what the grognards in the old school revival were reacting too when they went back and made clones of OD&D and AD&D and Basic.
It is however kind of the problem with breaking things down as a simplistic old school/new school paradigm. Something new comes along and how does that fit into that simple divide. Is 5th enough like AD&D to be "Old School" or enough like 3.x to be "new school"? Or if it's different enough does it become "new school" and push everything before it into "old school"?
And that doesn't even consider all the systems that aren't versions/clones of D&D.
The real answer is that there are more than 2 schools.
Very true. But keeping it simple...
Given the shift back towards less complicated systems, I'd say that both "old-school" and "new-school" are similar, with 3.0/3.5/PF1 occupying the "middle-scool".
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
gustavo iglesias |
![Gearsman](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9085-Gearsman.jpg)
Shadow Kosh wrote:it's essentially repackaging Pathfinder 1.0. This will piss people offPeople were fine with essentially repackaging 3.5. A lot of us are here exactly because of this. we were excited that Paizo did that. What would piss ME off, however would be a game without easy backwards compatibility, because that would mean I could use none of Paizo's future content.
I would not worry too much about it. If there is enough void in the market, Dreamscarred Press or Ronin or whoever will fill it and make a game for 3.P
It's the great adventage of OGL
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Steve Geddes |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Adowyn](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1131-Adowyn_500.jpeg)
What bugs me isn't the new edition in and of itself, but rather that 2nd P seems to be retreading the path 5E is taking in many areas when Paizo could instead have gone in the opposite direction and given us something unique.
Basically they're competing with the beast rather than outmaneuvering it.
Again, nothing they've listed makes it seem like it will play or feel THAT different from 3.x
It’s hard to know without seeing the playtest.
For what it’s worth, Vic Wertz made a post recently explicitly stating that PF2 trying to compete with 5E would be a terrible idea.
I think part of the confusion in the community is because words like “streamlined” can be implemented in a myriad of ways. Likewise, 5E and PF2 both had a design goal “make it easy for new players to get into the game”. That doesn’t imply that PF2 will meet that brief in the same way 5E did (by significantly limiting character building choices to a few, key moments in that PC’s progression).
It’s worth remembering that the people building PF2 enjoy tinkering with character builds and making meaningful choices while doing that. It would be surprising if they decided to take this opportunity and churn out a game where you couldn’t do that.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
bookrat |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Rat](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/packrat.jpg)
kyrt-ryder wrote:What bugs me isn't the new edition in and of itself, but rather that 2nd P seems to be retreading the path 5E is taking in many areas when Paizo could instead have gone in the opposite direction and given us something unique.
Basically they're competing with the beast rather than outmaneuvering it.
Ryan Freire wrote:Again, nothing they've listed makes it seem like it will play or feel THAT different from 3.xIt’s hard to know without seeing the playtest.
For what it’s worth, Vic Wertz made a post recently explicitly stating that PF2 trying to compete with 5E would be a terrible idea.
I think part of the confusion in the community is because words like “streamlined” can be implemented in a myriad of ways. Likewise, 5E and PF2 both had a design goal “make it easy for new players to get into the game”. That doesn’t imply that PF2 will meet that brief in the same way 5E did (by significantly limiting character building choices to a few, key moments in that PC’s progression).
We also have a developer stating that many of the concepts which people are claiming is a copy of 5e was in fact developed before 5e was ever released.
The idea that this is a 5e clone is just flat out false.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
nighttree |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
![Sharroa DiViri, Hellknight](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9281-Sharroa_500.jpeg)
Again, nothing they've listed makes it seem like it will play or feel THAT different from 3.x
Not sure I can agree there....as everything that's been said so far is verbatim what WoTC said at 4E....
So ya....I'm skeptical.
If all of my existing books are usable with little to no adjustment I will gladly adapt to PF2.....if not......I'm not interested.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
doomman47 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Just because this game is played with dice, pen, and paper does not mean it can't change and evolve.
Also, one of the great things about the current system and volume of stuff contained within it? It will still be playable 10, 20, 30 years from now if you choose to do so.
exept unlike with consoles which generally actually get better with table top games there's the risk of going from what would currently be a ps3 back to Nintendo virtual boy
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Acererak](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Acererak.jpg)
If all of my existing books are usable with little to no adjustment I will gladly adapt to PF2.....if not......I'm not interested.
If they maintain compatibility at that level, why bother buying Pathfinder 2.0 at all? Just use pathfinder 1.0 rulebooks to run Pathfinder 2.0 adventures.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
nighttree |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Sharroa DiViri, Hellknight](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9281-Sharroa_500.jpeg)
kyrt-ryder wrote:What bugs me isn't the new edition in and of itself, but rather that 2nd P seems to be retreading the path 5E is taking in many areas when Paizo could instead have gone in the opposite direction and given us something unique.
Basically they're competing with the beast rather than outmaneuvering it.
Ryan Freire wrote:Again, nothing they've listed makes it seem like it will play or feel THAT different from 3.xIt’s hard to know without seeing the playtest.
For what it’s worth, Vic Wertz made a post recently explicitly stating that PF2 trying to compete with 5E would be a terrible idea.
I think part of the confusion in the community is because words like “streamlined” can be implemented in a myriad of ways. Likewise, 5E and PF2 both had a design goal “make it easy for new players to get into the game”. That doesn’t imply that PF2 will meet that brief in the same way 5E did (by significantly limiting character building choices to a few, key moments in that PC’s progression).
It’s worth remembering that the people building PF2 enjoy tinkering with character builds and making meaningful choices while doing that. It would be surprising if they decided to take this opportunity and churn out a game where you couldn’t do that.
Correct.
Until the playtest is released....we are just guessing at how extreme the differences will be, and if they are acceptable to each of our individual tables. I know I am not interested in any major changes. I like the system as is (and no that's not open to debate so don't bother).
That said I'm not anxious for the changes....but will look at them when they appear.....and proceed accordingly.....
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
nighttree |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Sharroa DiViri, Hellknight](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9281-Sharroa_500.jpeg)
nighttree wrote:If all of my existing books are usable with little to no adjustment I will gladly adapt to PF2.....if not......I'm not interested.If they maintain compatibility at that level, why bother buying Pathfinder 2.0 at all? Just use pathfinder 1.0 rulebooks to run Pathfinder 2.0 adventures.
Nicely made point ;)
And exactly what I will do :P![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Hythlodeus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Gambler](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO1124-Gamblr_90.jpeg)
nighttree wrote:If all of my existing books are usable with little to no adjustment I will gladly adapt to PF2.....if not......I'm not interested.If they maintain compatibility at that level, why bother buying Pathfinder 2.0 at all? Just use pathfinder 1.0 rulebooks to run Pathfinder 2.0 adventures.
that's the goal. if we can achieve that, without to much work, that's great
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Vexies |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Goblin](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Pathfinder1_02b.jpg)
Orthos wrote:I appreciate the thought with this and am sure they'll give it the ol college try but its an easy thing to say now, harder thing to stick by when it becomes inconvenient.Or in modern media case, Paizo stops hosting the PDFs.
Which, thankfully, they have promised not to do.
It's basically free money for them for the cost of maintaining a server.. which they have to do anyway for new product. I can't imagine why they would deny you the chance to give them money when it costs them next to nothing to do so. They can keep all of 1E available on PDF for pennies so you have no fear of that going away.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Greylurker |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Wizard](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/35_Arcane.jpg)
If all of my existing books are usable with little to no adjustment I will gladly adapt to PF2.....if not......I'm not interested.
I know how you feel. I have a lot of good 3pp stuff (including some that hasn't even arrived yet from kickstarters)so telling me PF2 is coming in a year might as well be telling me those book are only useable for a year and I haven't even got my hands on some of them.
It is my hope that PF2 is close enough that I can still use them.
Even so I'm expecting I'm going to have to work at it to make them fit. It's very much a Square peg in Round Holes sort of thing. But if you shave down the corners and get a hammer you can make it fit.
So That is what I am hoping for.
that PF2 is a Good Game worth upgrading too, and that it's Close enough that I don't have to give up my older books.
A 3.5 to Pathfinder level jump I can deal with, even a slightly larger jump than that is still workable to me.
A whole new game that I don't recognize...not for me