| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever the reader wants.
|
I personally want 2e to be «true to PF» in the sense that it allows us to live through the same kind of interesting stories with the same kind of interesting characters as before, and the the system helps us achieve that better or easier than before.
I'm not the least bit worried about parts of PF2 (including its presentation and formating) are reminiscent of 4e or 5e. That's not what PF is about. The main reason PF is better than D&D is the quality, richness, and depth of their adventure paths, and that's largely independent of the game mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True to pathfinder is anything and everything from pathfinder. Except for those things. Those are dumb and not true to pathfinder.
Pretty much this.
Paizo's definition appears to be: Everything we include in the new edition. Everything not included in the new edition was never true to Pathfinder but was instead old D&D legacy baggage that made the game worse despite the fact we potentially got as many players as we did by including that which we are now deeming bad.
True to Pathfinder at this point appears to be a marketing word.
I'm not the least bit worried about parts of PF2 (including its presentation and formating) are reminiscent of 4e or 5e. That's not what PF is about. The main reason PF is better than D&D is the quality, richness, and depth of their adventure paths, and that's largely independent of the game mechanics.
So you'd be okay with the 5e SRD reprinted with Pathfinder thrown onto the cover and then Paizo continued to support it via splatbooks and adventures?
True to pathfinder is anything and everything from pathfinder. Except for those things. Those are dumb and not true to pathfinder.Pretty much this.
Paizo's definition appears to be: Everything we include in the new edition. Everything not included in the new edition was never true to Pathfinder but was instead old D&D legacy baggage that made the game worse despite the fact we potentially got as many players as we did by including that which we are now deeming bad.
True to Pathfinder at this point appears to be a marketing word.
I'm not the least bit worried about parts of PF2 (including its presentation and formating) are reminiscent of 4e or 5e. That's not what PF is about. The main reason PF is better than D&D is the quality, richness, and depth of their adventure paths, and that's largely independent of the game mechanics.So you'd be okay with the 5e SRD reprinted with Pathfinder thrown onto the cover and then Paizo continued to support it via splatbooks and adventures?
5E could use some fixes and actual organized play legal splat content...
|
|
So you'd be okay with the 5e SRD reprinted with Pathfinder thrown onto the cover and then Paizo continued to support it via splatbooks and adventures?
No; 5e feels to shallow to me, at least from what I've seen (and experienced in my single 5e session so far). I does not seem to allow the breadth and depth of characters that I've come to expect from a Pathfinder game world. I wouldn't mind a Pathfinder edition based off of it like PF1 was based off of 3.5, though. A lot of the complexity of PF1 was added to the 3.5 chassis after all — just think of all the new classes... something similar could in principle be done for 5e.
I do think PF2's 3-action initiative round system and the choice-rich character building and leveling system we've seen so far is promising to be far superior to 5e, though.
True to Pathfinder at this point appears to be a marketing word.
Pretty much this
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone know what the above means?
I take it to mean that although the details might be different, it gives a similar experience at the table - that playing it feels the same.
I think with PF2 that every little fiddly bit is potentially up for change - but overall they want to preserve the feel that one gets sitting down to play PF1. So they may change the mechanics (as well as the name) of ancestries, they may alter the way experience points work, feats are going to be gained very differently, magic may work very differently, etcetera, etcetera...
Each individual shift is probably not going to stop the game feeling like “PF1 with a tweak” - I think “staying true to Pathfinder” indicates that they are also going to be looking at where the overall system ends up with reference to the playing experience of PF1, rather than purely focussing on each individual change.
|
|
Terquem, I'm talking about the mechanical depth of the crunch side of a character. No matter how interesting your backstory is; if the character's action in combat start to feel «samey» very quickly and don't differ much from your last character, that makes for a shallow gaming experience, given how large a fraction of session time is typically spent on combat.
Pathfinder is based on the 3.5 edition of D&D. Staying true to that ruleset means feats remain important, some races get a penalty to ability scores, and lots and lots of OPTIONS. 3.5 and PF1 both ended up with a massive amount of supplements, adventure paths, classes, archetypes, variants, equipment, spells, and monsters. My collection of 3.5 and Pathfinder material together stands over three feet tall when stacked on the floor. That's more options than I will EVER be able to make available to or throw at my players. And that's a good thing, because I'll always have something different and unexpected on hand.
If PF2 ends up with only four or five published books and a handful of optional pdfs available the way D&D 5E has, I'm going to be very disappointed in Paizo.
Only three feet?
Anyway, whatever PF2 means, I doubt 'not publishing content' is on the agenda.
Only three feet?
I'll see that 3' and raise it another 3-6' [depends if we include 3.0 material].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Snark aside, to me the true spirit of Pathfinder feels like a lot of flavorful and mechanically interesting character customization options, a great organized play program, and a frankly absurd amount of wonderful content and support from some of the best writers and designers in the business.