| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think backwards compatibility is less important than the style of storytelling facilitated by the game.
One of the big knocks against D&D 4th edition was that it closed off a lot of playstyles and options that people liked from previous editions or shunted them into future supplements. If your favorite character was a gnome illusionist or a half-orc druid, or if your preferred playstyle was light on tactical combat, you couldn't do that stuff using just core books that came out in 2008. While 4th edition was a fine game, I think these factors led to people complaining that it didn't feel like D&D, even though later options allowed a lot of this stuff.
I think if Pathfinder facilitates the same type of adventures that the brand is known for, most people will make the switch. If it suddenly turns out that you can't play Curse of the Crimson Throne or Kingmaker in the new edition, then it becomes problematic.
|
I think backwards compatibility is less important than the style of storytelling facilitated by the game.
One of the big knocks against D&D 4th edition was that it closed off a lot of playstyles and options that people liked from previous editions or shunted them into future supplements.
Which will be the case with PF2, given that Paizo has released something like 40 classes or so over the past 10 years for PF1. People who like playing, for example, a witch; are probably gonna stick with PF1 until Paizo bothers to throw a witch class into PF2.
Which will be the case with PF2, given that Paizo has released something like 40 classes or so over the past 10 years for PF1. People who like playing, for example, a witch; are probably gonna stick with PF1 until Paizo bothers to throw a witch class into PF2.
I figure this means that Paizo is going to step up the timetable on releasing everybody's favorite classes and races/ancestries in PF2 form. It wouldn't be surprising if the first non-CRB, non-DMG, non-Bestiary hardback has like 9 classes in it.
After all it's probably easier to translate a class into PF2 form, keeping the concept, fixing the known issues, etc. than it was to create wholly new classes the first time around.
I believe they have said that every class in PF1 will be remade in PF2, if nothing else just for "ease translating PF1 adventures into PF2" purposes.
Like sure you could build a Wizard that is like a Magus or a Fighter that is like a Swashbuckler, but you still have APs where the big bad is a Magus or a Swashbuckler, so it's best to just have those classes around.
doubt it, personally. a lot of people turned to PF BECAUSE they wanted to play a version of 3.x
If you take that away, why would they stick around? because the art is nice?
That was 10 years ago and the 3.X was being replaced by 4E at the time.
Just give a basic conversion guide for the characters (They did this from AD&D2e to 3e) and some basic guidelines on handling new encounter/loot balance and am ready to rock!
The only reason I don't tun AD&D adventures in Pathfinder is because the whole balance and loot systems (And XP) are completely incompatible.
I believe they have said that every class in PF1 will be remade in PF2, if nothing else just for "ease translating PF1 adventures into PF2" purposes.
Like sure you could build a Wizard that is like a Magus or a Fighter that is like a Swashbuckler, but you still have APs where the big bad is a Magus or a Swashbuckler, so it's best to just have those classes around.
I really hope not. A lot of the classes would be better as archetypes... I'm talking archetypes with the depth of the Skirmisher, not the fiddly little ones that change only two features. There's no reason Samurai or Ninja should be classes. Pieces of the War priest should just be outright absorbed into the cleric and paladin. The witch works just fine as a Wizard archetype.
Some classes like the Magus and so on do merit full class writeups. But a lot of those 40 classes would be better served by being absorbed as options for the real classes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like PF the way it is. I will readily concede numerous quirks and "issues", but I still find it to be the best overall game produced to date.
That said, it is very old (ancient under its own name and downright absurdly old as a 3X engine).
5E has replaced it as king. Doing a simple reshuffle (like AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E) won't shake up the marketplace.
Pushing boundaries makes me nervous for my own selfish desires. But they absolutely need to push some boundaries. Going back to #1 with a solid game that also has the D&D brand slapped across it will be a very hard challenge. But making a new shiny PF2 be a bigger draw than a 10 year old PF1 won't be too hard.
Keeping PF2 popular for three years will require a very solid game though.
And there is plenty of learning that has gone on in the industry of the past ten years. The core of PF is showing its age.
They have the knowledge and experience. There is no reason to expect them to fail. But the challenge is tough. There is no reason to presume they will catch lightning in a bottle again.
If I like it and it sales well enough that they keep producing things for me to buy then I'll be happy. :)
They can do better.
Putting backward compatibility too high on the priority list will weigh them down.
Awesome post by ByronD
In the Bestiary thread, it looks like they are considering a "Big Bestiary" closer to equivalent of B1 and B2. That seems like great move for a game that is less than directly compatible, unlike 3.x->Pathfinder, so direct substitution of P2E monster for P1E monster in AP, module, etc will almost always be easier than "conversion". 2x as many monsters also means even when they don't have your exact monster, there will be something closer especially with a minor Feat substition or element change etc. Who knows what they plan for Bestiarie on rolling basis, but a "Big Bestiary" (B1+B2) will really help product launch IMHO letting them start stronger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think backwards compatibility is less important than the style of storytelling facilitated by the game.
I think this is a very salient point, because the development in recent years has been for systems to not get too much into the way of storytelling and to me PF1 too often feels like a hindrance, because it often feels unintuitive and thus takes decision making away from the GM, which hurts the flow of the game often, in my opinion.
I hope PF2 can both achieve a dynamic, tactical, deep combat system, with meaningful character choices, while still being intuitive enough to make it easier on players, but more importantly on GMs. That seems very difficult to achieve, but I'm confident that Paizo can pull it off.
A system's success also depends very much on how many GMs are willing to run it, because you can't have a game without a GM and as a GM myself, I've always found that there enough players out there, no matter what system we are talking about.
|
I think in the immediate aftermath of PF2 releasing people will play it, then want to go back to PF1 because people want to play oracles and magi and kineticists and hey they've got that one AP they never completed, and oscillate between the two systems until PF2 supports enough of the options that people really want and at that point PF1 is going to be the province of diehards who hate change and the occasional "hey remember..." kinds of games.
Of course, we all know that PF2 will eventually have these classes and as much glut as PF1. Such is the cycle of things.
I figure this means that Paizo is going to step up the timetable on releasing everybody's favorite classes and races/ancestries in PF2 form. It wouldn't be surprising if the first non-CRB, non-DMG, non-Bestiary hardback has like 9 classes in it.
I seriously doubt we'll see some expedited time table. My sense is that for PF2 to be a success, Paizo will have to pace its releases.
I figure this means that Paizo is going to step up the timetable on releasing everybody's favorite classes and races/ancestries in PF2 form. It wouldn't be surprising if the first non-CRB, non-DMG, non-Bestiary hardback has like 9 classes in it.I seriously doubt we'll see some expedited time table. My sense is that for PF2 to be a success, Paizo will have to pace its releases.
Yeah, while I'm in the camp of wanting things sooner rather than later, I'm not sure they'll want to rush so much. Maybe the Gencon 2020 release will be the Really Really Big Book of Classes and bring in a lot if not all of the PF1 classes. But I doubt we'll get them much sooner than that. And it's probably a good thing, they need time to balance and playtest them to avoid balance-breaking or getting something that is just lame. They might be able to bring in one or two classes before then, but not a lot.
My guess is Witch might be already fairly well developed because of their mention of almost including the Witch in core instead of the Alchemist. Although this could have been in the concept stages and therefor still bare-bones.
Some of the races will likely get covered in the first bestiary, at least with basic stats to allow them to be playable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are looking past another major factor when comparing edition changes. This may go a little GNS theory (mostly as descriptors). I state "this is" and "that is" as fact, but it is opinion.
3.x was gamist/sim. The rules in a lot of ways were trying to simulate the world (aside from things like the commoner rail gun). A number of rules were there to reinforce "this is the way the world works, regardless of PC or game". There were very game elements too. But by and large (with ability to adjust for odd rules) you could very much go with "the rules are the physics of the world" and it wasn't too wonky (aside from corner cases). Having PCs, NPCs and Monsters basically build the same way was an aspect of that. AD&D (1st and 2nd) were fairly similar.
4E went full on gamist, and pretty much ignored the Sim aspects. Everything was about balance in combat, daily balance, what was fun (but not real in the game world). 1 monster could be build as a solo, a challenge and a minion - same creature but different rules depending on where the PCs were in their level journey. A difficult door was always PC bonus +10, but that referred to different doors a basic wood door for lower level, and a magically barred portcullis for higher level - but because the DC chart didn't make that distinction clear it was read by many as "same DC for same door". There were states "roles" to fill, which didn't make sense from an in world perspective to many. Personally I think this shift in approach is why a lot of people said "This doesn't feel like D&D" - different assumptions in approach.
5th went back to older approach with "natural language" and how the built the rules.
For 2nd ed pathfinder to succeed, it needs to FEEL like old Pathfinder. There may be a different structure to classes, but if the class feat structure means that when it is played at the table it feels the same, the specifics won't matter as much. The new action economy could feel similar, just different specifics. Hit points and armor class remain.
Two of the complaints I see are that NPCs/Monsters are not built with same system (which I mentioned early) because that breaks the sim view people have "same race, scores but they are built different - they should be the same"; the other being Resonance - I remember someone commenting that "so what changed in the fiction to explain this because old PF didn't do it that way" again - rules support a world approach rather than a game approach.
Personally I think PF2 will feel close enough to D&D/PF1 that it won't be an issue for me. Whether it does for others will decide if it succeeds.
Here is my thought. When D&D 3.x came out there was very little competition - sure there were a few games - Palladium, I.C.E, and a few other smaller companies. When D&D 3.5 went to 4e, Paizo found a niche where people were not happy with the changes in 4e and through the OGL were successfully able capture the D&D 3.x player base and run with it.
Now we have several contenders - D&D 5e being the big one, but there are several universal games - such as Savage Worlds and FATE which have offered the ability to play a slightly different game and are moving forward capturing that part of the market. What Paizo is not able to do is to fill void in a game system (3.x), since that void does not currently exist. Instead they are going to have to rely on their own game design, not an upgrade to one that was already in place.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[...]
For 2nd ed pathfinder to succeed, it needs to FEEL like old Pathfinder. There may be a different structure to classes, but if the class feat structure means that when it is played at the table it feels the same, the specifics won't matter as much. The new action economy could feel similar, just different specifics. Hit points and armor class remain.Two of the complaints I see are that NPCs/Monsters are not built with same system (which I mentioned early) because that breaks the sim view people have "same race, scores but they are built different - they should be the same"; the other being Resonance - I remember someone commenting that "so what changed in the fiction to explain this because old PF didn't do it that way" again - rules support a world approach rather than a game approach.
Personally I think PF2 will feel close enough to D&D/PF1 that it won't be an issue for me. Whether it does for others will decide if it succeeds.
I agree. And really, the resonance doesn't change the feel of the game... because really, who were incorporating their Belts of Giant Strength into the description of their characters? When did a character in the novels described as wearing 13 magic item, healing with 20 uses of a healing wand? Actually... Hell, novel characters don't even usually buy new swords. In the lore, Harks always have his brother's axe. So yeah, I feel like PF2 will actually help a lot for characters to fit more in the lore of the game. And that's what I like with Pathfinder, the lore. :3
Two of the complaints I see are that NPCs/Monsters are not built with same system (which I mentioned early) because that breaks the sim view people have "same race, scores but they are built different - they should be the same"; the other being Resonance - I remember someone commenting that "so what changed in the fiction to explain this because old PF didn't do it that way" again - rules support a world approach rather than a game approach.
Bringing in quick built rules for NPC and monsters is probably the sole reason I might give GMing in PF again a try, because otherwise preparing custom encounters is just a hassle. I also don't understand the people, who are vehemently against this because I'm sure you would be still able to build your encounters the old way (although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that).
As for Resonance, I'm actually not opposed to that idea, I just hope the developers add some fitting flavour to go along with it. The precedent is already established to some degree, as 'Use Magic Device' is tied to Charisma.
Bringing in quick built rules for NPC and monsters is probably the sole reason I might give GMing in PF again a try, because otherwise preparing custom encounters is just a hassle. I also don't understand the people, who are vehemently against this because I'm sure you would be still able to build your encounters the old way (although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that).
As for Resonance, I'm actually not opposed to that idea, I just hope the developers add some fitting flavour to go along with it. The precedent is already established to some degree, as 'Use Magic Device' is tied to Charisma.
I agree. And really, the resonance doesn't change the feel of the game... because really, who were incorporating their Belts of Giant Strength into the description of their characters? When did a character in the novels described as wearing 13 magic item, healing with 20 uses of a healing wand? Actually... Hell, novel characters don't even usually buy new swords. In the lore, Harks always have his brother's axe. So yeah, I feel like PF2 will actually help a lot for characters to fit more in the lore of the game. And that's what I like with Pathfinder, the lore. :3
I agree with both of you. I'm personally really excided about PF2.