The Main Problem of PF2


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

37 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that the main problem with PF2 is that they want to change as much as possible. But sadly that's the wrong way. A good new edition simply removes all the mistakes and weak spots of the previous one but retains the overall feel of it.

If this rules stay as they are, Pathfinder will loose a lot of players.

It would really have been better if Starfinder had been used as basis for PF2 instead of creating a completely new set of rules with really no connection to the previous edition.

What was so bad with the original skill system that it had to be replaced with a level-based one?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, the revolutionary approach has not gone down so well in the past.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

They did say a few months ago that they were trying out the most extreme versions of the rules changes that they were considering, so it is likely that they can and will walk back many of them. But which ones? That is where we need to speak up.


23 people marked this as a favorite.

But they are still trying to do it... :(

Good new editions were AD&D 2e and Pathfinder 1e, because both editions were not revolutionary but evolutionary. They only changed those things that simply did not work in AD&D and D&D v.3.5.

I have played RPGs for a very long time and know many RPGs which still use the original rules through all their editions. Thy only changed those things which simply did not work correctly anymore. And I have also witnessed how revolutionary new rules destroyed an RPG. And I really fear that this will happen to Pathfinder if they continue to adhere to the false believe that a new edition must be completely different than its predecessor.

Silver Crusade

36 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yes, the revolutionary approach has not gone down so well in the past.

That's true, 3.0/3.5 was a total disaster after it was so different from 2e. No wonder WotC shelved them so quickly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yes, the revolutionary approach has not gone down so well in the past.
That's true, 3.0/3.5 was a total disaster after it was so different from 2e. No wonder WotC shelved them so quickly.

Not really, 3rd Ed was an extension of latter day 2nd Ed (Players Option, etc), I am of course speaking about another edition, but you knew that.


30 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I would have been more receptive to an evolutionary change - more Unchained Style - over a revolutionary one that we are looking at now.

A system that retained enough elements so that 10 years of previously purchased products would still be easily usable. But with enough crunch to clean up problem points from PF1. That’s not the case here, I’m afraid.

What I see playing out now on the Paizo boards is exactly what I saw on Wizards Boards when WotC released the dumpster fire that was 4e. Right down to the boosters and detractors, the tone of the posts, underlying bitterness and hope, etc. The seeds of an edition war have been sown, really.

And barring some changes, I foresee a similar end - another company very familiar and skilled with publishing PF1 stuff will take that ball and run with it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

And I fear that you are correct.

Silver Crusade

23 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yes, the revolutionary approach has not gone down so well in the past.
That's true, 3.0/3.5 was a total disaster after it was so different from 2e. No wonder WotC shelved them so quickly.
Not really, 3rd Ed was an extension of latter day 2nd Ed (Players Option, etc), I am of course speaking about another edition, but you knew that.

It was no extension at all.

3rd blew up the entire paradigm.

The game shifted from "roll d20 and the DM will tell you what you just did" to "the game has a codified skill system which tells you DCs and all Mister Cavern can do is give you some minor bonus or penalty".

The game went from "Magic items are rare, powerful and handed out by GM" to "Crafting is a thing, yo".

Optimization went from fiddly adjustments to Divine Metamagic + Nightsticks + Persistent Spell.

A whole new (and still ongoing) war broke out before the "GM control" camp which yearns for the GM-side control of the game back from 0e/1e/2e times and the player agency enthusiasts, who embraced the downplayed role of GM in 3e/3.5e.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dracovar wrote:

I think I would have been more receptive to an evolutionary change - more Unchained Style - over a revolutionary one that we are looking at now.

A system that retained enough elements so that 10 years of previously purchased products would still be easily usable. But with enough crunch to clean up problem points from PF1. That’s not the case here, I’m afraid.

What I see playing out now on the Paizo boards is exactly what I saw on Wizards Boards when WotC released the dumpster fire that was 4e. Right down to the boosters and detractors, the tone of the posts, underlying bitterness and hope, etc. The seeds of an edition war have been sown, really.

And barring some changes, I foresee a similar end - another company very familiar and skilled with publishing PF1 stuff will take that ball and run with it.

For me it's the same as PF Beta, with all those armchair business experts predicting that Paizo will go bankrupt and some snappy new company will take their assets over after PF bombs. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yes, the revolutionary approach has not gone down so well in the past.
That's true, 3.0/3.5 was a total disaster after it was so different from 2e. No wonder WotC shelved them so quickly.
Not really, 3rd Ed was an extension of latter day 2nd Ed (Players Option, etc), I am of course speaking about another edition, but you knew that.

It was no extension at all.

3rd blew up the entire paradigm.

Again, not so much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like people are severely overestimating the amount of change in the rules.

A lot of the "changes" are a fresh (albeit very confusing, initially) coat of paint on the old rules. Even the fancy new action economy approximates the old action economy very well (while target buffing martial characters, even). I feel like --on a larger scale -- the two significant changes are really proficiency and class feature acquisition/progression rates, and everything else is a shuffle or tweak of what we already had. They really are trying to approximate the behavior of the old system while removing some pain points, imo, even if it doesn't look that way at first.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracovar wrote:

...

A system that retained enough elements so that 10 years of previously purchased products would still be easily usable. But with enough crunch to clean up problem points from PF1. That’s not the case here, I’m afraid. ...

That's the issue. I suspect that re-releasing maps as "bigger x" versions, and a couple of new classes every 6 months isn't giving them enough income anymore. They need to re-release the entire system, and force players to re-purchase all the books again.

Note:

This will continue to happen, every x years, for the rest of time. At some point, you just have to step back, say "I'm happy with system X" and keep playing that.

I stuck with 3.5 for a while, before PF1. I now own a lot of PF1, and I can play that for a few years, till something worth learning / buying comes out again.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Witch of Miracles wrote:
...I feel like --on a larger scale -- the two significant changes are really proficiency and class feature acquisition/progression rates, ...

And these two things are the main problem. The proficiency system completely changes the feel of the game. It removes the flexibility of the old skill system and leads to really weird effects.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Dracovar wrote:

I think I would have been more receptive to an evolutionary change - more Unchained Style - over a revolutionary one that we are looking at now.

A system that retained enough elements so that 10 years of previously purchased products would still be easily usable. But with enough crunch to clean up problem points from PF1. That’s not the case here, I’m afraid.

What I see playing out now on the Paizo boards is exactly what I saw on Wizards Boards when WotC released the dumpster fire that was 4e. Right down to the boosters and detractors, the tone of the posts, underlying bitterness and hope, etc. The seeds of an edition war have been sown, really.

And barring some changes, I foresee a similar end - another company very familiar and skilled with publishing PF1 stuff will take that ball and run with it.

For me it's the same as PF Beta, with all those armchair business experts predicting that Paizo will go bankrupt and some snappy new company will take their assets over after PF bombs. :)

YMMV - Paizo took the risk of offering up an alternative product to a dissatisfied WotC customer base that hated the 4E offering. A product that offered a more familiar gaming experience. They lucked out and captured a large gaming demographic, and thrived as a result. Timing is everything.

Now, they are playing the role of WotC and offering up the unfamiliar - and I suspect a similar result awaits for them as for 4E. If I’m so inclined to ditch the 3.75 paradigm (if you will) then all contenders are going to be up for consideration, the most notable being 5E. I’m not so inclined to ditch PF1 - that dog still has a lot of hunt left in it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
...I feel like --on a larger scale -- the two significant changes are really proficiency and class feature acquisition/progression rates, ...
And these two things are the main problem. The proficiency system completely changes the feel of the game. It removes the flexibility of the old skill system and leads to really weird effects.

I'm not so sure that the strangeness is from the proficiency so much as it it the +level to all skills system. Flesh out the old skill unlock system and give it to everybody, and they are pretty similar. I do think it needs changes though.

For example, I had a high level character known to sometimes tell bad jokes, despite their natural charm. Now with +level to all checks, they would be incapable of telling anything other than a really good joke! its a little jarring. I would like to see some kind of change. Something like making skills more granular, or at least avoiding automatic +level to everything for things the character has no right to be good at.

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dracovar wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Dracovar wrote:

I think I would have been more receptive to an evolutionary change - more Unchained Style - over a revolutionary one that we are looking at now.

A system that retained enough elements so that 10 years of previously purchased products would still be easily usable. But with enough crunch to clean up problem points from PF1. That’s not the case here, I’m afraid.

What I see playing out now on the Paizo boards is exactly what I saw on Wizards Boards when WotC released the dumpster fire that was 4e. Right down to the boosters and detractors, the tone of the posts, underlying bitterness and hope, etc. The seeds of an edition war have been sown, really.

And barring some changes, I foresee a similar end - another company very familiar and skilled with publishing PF1 stuff will take that ball and run with it.

For me it's the same as PF Beta, with all those armchair business experts predicting that Paizo will go bankrupt and some snappy new company will take their assets over after PF bombs. :)

YMMV - Paizo took the risk of offering up an alternative product to a dissatisfied WotC customer base that hated the 4E offering. A product that offered a more familiar gaming experience. They lucked out and captured a large gaming demographic, and thrived as a result. Timing is everything.

Now, they are playing the role of WotC and offering up the unfamiliar - and I suspect a similar result awaits for them as for 4E. If I’m so inclined to ditch the 3.75 paradigm (if you will) then all contenders are going to be up for consideration, the most notable being 5E. I’m not so inclined to ditch PF1 - that dog still has a lot of hunt left in it.

You missed the part where WotC offered PF players an unfamiliar 5e and took them away from Paizo in droves. I mean, 5e is far cry from PF, yet it ate Paizo's market share for breakfast.

So, Paizo is now left with a rapidly shrinking base of PF1 players. They won't get new ones. WotC has a sleeker, more accessible product with beholders, Drizzt and Critical Role. Were I to be a new player and choose between PF and 5e? 5e it is, no contest.

Faced with that, your choices are either to watch the PF1 Titanic sink slowly and your "super loyal, will stick with Paizo no matter what" players ultimately going away because their group switched to 5e, or trying something else entirely. I'm no business analyst, but I'd rather go with leaping into the unknown than watching the Titanic sink.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

New Combat system looks good
I don't mind bringing down DCs and roll bonuses to make things more manageable
New XP system isn't bad either
Resonance system is an interesting idea but it needs changes.

Personally I think the Major problem I have with it is the classes.

In theory Class Feats are a good idea but the execution of the classes frankly looks bad. What should have been cool things for each class, turned into "If you want to do X you have to play Class Y" which is one of the most hated parts of 4E.
Really they should have been looking at Rogue Genius' line of Talented Classes material.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

You missed the part where WotC offered PF players an unfamiliar 5e and took them away from Paizo in droves. I mean, 5e is far cry from PF, yet it ate Paizo's market share for breakfast.

So, Paizo is now left with a rapidly shrinking base of PF1 players. They won't get new ones. WotC has a sleeker, more accessible product with beholders, Drizzt and Critical Role. Were I to be a new player and choose between PF and 5e? 5e it is, no contest.

Faced with that, your choices are either to watch the PF1 Titanic sink slowly and your "super loyal, will stick with Paizo no matter what" players ultimately going away because their group switched to 5e, or trying something else entirely. I'm no business analyst, but I'd rather go with leaping into the unknown than watching the Titanic sink.

Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It really doesn't feel all that different to me, in all honesty.

It's just that a lot of the math and language is different, but that's just an acclimatization thing.

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Beast Weener wrote:


Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?

Brutally speaking, it's only the shrinking PF1 base that cares about where WotC touched them in 2008. New players don't even know something like 4e existed.

Dark Archive

Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
...I feel like --on a larger scale -- the two significant changes are really proficiency and class feature acquisition/progression rates, ...
And these two things are the main problem. The proficiency system completely changes the feel of the game. It removes the flexibility of the old skill system and leads to really weird effects.

I get the flexibily argument, but I'm intrigued, what weird effects are we talking about, exactly. Knowing what to specifically look for will help. What have you seen showing up in play in character creation?


Gorbacz wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:


Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?

Brutally speaking, it's only the shrinking PF1 base that cares about where WotC touched them in 2008. New players don't even know something like 4e existed.

Don't think that's brutal, just honest. Accurate, too, but it is what paid for the house. To go back though, if you lose that base completely and you can't differentiate sufficiently from 5e to get new players that leaves you with...who? I dunno. It's not like our armchair market research is founded in hard numbers. How much of the base really care about X over Y. I guess that's why they're spending a year on this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to say two things, to off set the depressed mood here. 1, a lot of it does still feel like Pathfinder. And a lot of things are easier to explain to new people than they were in PF1. The new Action System being a great example.

And secondly, Paizo said that some of these changes are experimental, just for the playtest. They still have a whole year till they are planning to release a core book. Somethings are unlikely to change, but a lot of this is not set in stone yet. The purpose of this playtest, and these forums is meant to be "Hey, this feels off" and then hopefully they address that. I am not saying don't express yourself, but I get really bummed when something new comes out and the existing fanbase starts a pool on how long it is till the publisher goes broke. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

Dark Archive

Tithron wrote:
... I get really bummed when something new comes out and the existing fanbase starts a pool on how long it is till the publisher goes broke. ...

I suppose you have a point. After all, gambling is not mentioned a single time in the playtest.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Beast Weener wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:


Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?

Brutally speaking, it's only the shrinking PF1 base that cares about where WotC touched them in 2008. New players don't even know something like 4e existed.
Don't think that's brutal, just honest. Accurate, too, but it is what paid for the house. To go back though, if you lose that base completely and you can't differentiate sufficiently from 5e to get new players that leaves you with...who? I dunno. It's not like our armchair market research is founded in hard numbers. How much of the base really care about X over Y. I guess that's why they're spending a year on this.

Well, I have the advantage of working with The Industry on occasions and I am aware, in a very general sense, just how far ahead did 5E overtake PF1. While the actual bite taken off PF1 wasn't quite fatal, the almost total domination in attracting new players is deadly in a long run.

The question "how to capture new people ahead of 5e" is a very good question and I'm curious how Paizo will handle it, but I sincerely doubt that "let's give them a tweaked iteration of 3.75" is anywhere close to a solution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

They did say a few months ago that they were trying out the most extreme versions of the rules changes that they were considering, so it is likely that they can and will walk back many of them. But which ones? That is where we need to speak up.

Thank you for pointing this out. I needed the reminder

This is playtest after all, it's not the final product. It would be weird if we were just playtesting minor changes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to know how many people are commenting before playing a couple sessions with the Playtest material? I'm reserving any such thing until after at least the first 3 sessions with my group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Translucent Wolf wrote:
Tithron wrote:
... I get really bummed when something new comes out and the existing fanbase starts a pool on how long it is till the publisher goes broke. ...
I suppose you have a point. After all, gambling is not mentioned a single time in the playtest.

and if it was, I'd be afraid it would take a feat to do instead of just being able to gamble, like pickpocketing.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


The question "how to capture new people ahead of 5e" is a very good question and I'm curious how Paizo will handle it, but I sincerely doubt that "let's give them a tweaked iteration of 3.75" is anywhere close to a solution.

I'm not sure 'giving them an inferior version of what they already have in 5E' is a solution either and the cost of losing the 3.x players is extremly high too.

between what I wished PF2 would be and what PF2, at least the playtest, turned out to be, there must be some kind of middle ground that makes the most sense for both PF1 and 5E players, recognizable as PF but video gamey enough for the younger crowd.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TimFrie wrote:
I'd like to know how many people are commenting before playing a couple sessions with the Playtest material? I'm reserving any such thing until after at least the first 3 sessions with my group.

See, this would be true if building a character based on my understanding of the game to see how it plays didn't rely on me having at least a baseline understanding of the game and on what choices I may want to make.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Beast Weener wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:


Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?

Brutally speaking, it's only the shrinking PF1 base that cares about where WotC touched them in 2008. New players don't even know something like 4e existed.
Don't think that's brutal, just honest. Accurate, too, but it is what paid for the house. To go back though, if you lose that base completely and you can't differentiate sufficiently from 5e to get new players that leaves you with...who? I dunno. It's not like our armchair market research is founded in hard numbers. How much of the base really care about X over Y. I guess that's why they're spending a year on this.

I think you guys bring up good points. I certainly agree with you Gorbacz in the shrinking base. In the last 36 hours, I've seen so much hate that it seriously just makes me not even want to care about playing anymore. Like at all period despite how much this game has done for me on a personal level. But all the hate I've seen centers around the few core things: customization that's been built over 10 years, a system that's been in place for almost 20 years, and a fear of absolute complete change with no allowance of possible difference. 4e was a great first step to bring in new people. The rules were a lot easier to follow, the mechanics were smoother, and it was something that could be enjoyed. But it was horribly executed because it took a lot of the ability to customize out to make something really unique. As a player, you were basically at the mercy of WotC to create something for you that could really enjoy. As a DM, you were at the mercy of your creativity because now you had to pull everything out your rear to make it seem like it wasn't an MMO on paper. Idea great, execution absolutely horrid. 5e seemed to aim a fix to all of that by allowing for more customization, but that's also a downfall that I've witnessed.

Seeing the media exposure that 5e had certainly brought in a new player base. And this was a player base that hadn't been exposed to a system that was already 10 years in place. Early on some had been told the horridness of 4e and how it was so horrible and how it did so much horribleness to your no-no parts, but the only people I see talk about that now are the guys who haven't played anything but the 3/3.5/PF system. Paizo can't compete in the market if it only caters to ONE and only ONE kind of player. So they have to play with the extremes to see what's going to work and what's not going to work. If you can get past the hate fueled rage that people are having, you can see that the detail and differentiation you're talking about Beast. It's not clear cut, but you can see that there is that desire. But to really get anywhere, they've got to put those extremes out to really do so. Does it have similarities of 4e? Yeah, there are some. But not everything about 4e was so horrible that anything related to it must be burned so badly that anyone who liked a concept needed to be shot in the head. And there has to be things that are being done differently in systems like 5e. But it's a matter of how can we take that and be more effective with it.

I'm very glad that we've got time to see these extremes and give our input because it's very obvious that this isn't the full rule set that's set in stone. There's a lot of contradiction shown in development path in this book. I'm excited to see how this develops even in the stuff that shouldn't have been explored.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
KyleS wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:


Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?

Brutally speaking, it's only the shrinking PF1 base that cares about where WotC touched them in 2008. New players don't even know something like 4e existed.
Don't think that's brutal, just honest. Accurate, too, but it is what paid for the house. To go back though, if you lose that base completely and you can't differentiate sufficiently from 5e to get new players that leaves you with...who? I dunno. It's not like our armchair market research is founded in hard numbers. How much of the base really care about X over Y. I guess that's why they're spending a year on this.
I think you guys bring up good points. ...

It's funny, I was just thinking of titling a clickbait post with "How Paizo's PF2 misses its mark". I pretty much agree with what you're saying Gorbacz. The issue is that PF2e was advertised as a system that let us keep all of the options from PF1, but provided a simpler core of a system with less overhead for newbies. That second part is *crucial* if Paizo wants to get back any market share. Yet after a read-through of the Core Rules... I'm left thinking that PF2 is actually harder to pick up than PF1, and that's *really bad* IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:


Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?

Brutally speaking, it's only the shrinking PF1 base that cares about where WotC touched them in 2008. New players don't even know something like 4e existed.
Don't think that's brutal, just honest. Accurate, too, but it is what paid for the house. To go back though, if you lose that base completely and you can't differentiate sufficiently from 5e to get new players that leaves you with...who? I dunno. It's not like our armchair market research is founded in hard numbers. How much of the base really care about X over Y. I guess that's why they're spending a year on this.

Well, I have the advantage of working with The Industry on occasions and I am aware, in a very general sense, just how far ahead did 5E overtake PF1. While the actual bite taken off PF1 wasn't quite fatal, the almost total domination in attracting new players is deadly in a long run.

The question "how to capture new people ahead of 5e" is a very good question and I'm curious how Paizo will handle it, but I sincerely doubt that "let's give them a tweaked iteration of 3.75" is anywhere close to a solution.

And you wouldn’t say that 5e helped substantially grow the market as much or more than consolidating players under its storefront? I mean, that is the common nerdmedia narrative. But yeah, would agree that a slightly rounded 3.x is unlikely to be the path forward. Hmmm. So, just to be clear, you don’t believe that FAQ statement that Paizo doesn’t “need” to do this?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks like, basically, a 'feat' every level. But you don't actually have an entire character till several levels in.

*Shrug*

If that's what the kids want, and they'll pay for it, let 'em have it.

I think Shadowrun and Cyberpunk in general are going to be the next big thing in 2019. See you guys for PF3.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Translucent Wolf wrote:
Looks like, basically, a 'feat' every level. But you don't actually have an entire character till several levels in.

You absolutely have an entire character at 1st level. Characters are more than just numbers.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Translucent Wolf wrote:
Looks like, basically, a 'feat' every level. But you don't actually have an entire character till several levels in.
You absolutely have an entire character at 1st level. Characters are more than just numbers.

Yeah, they're also a composite of their experiences and abilities, which are getting neutered and redistributed over an entire character's career.

Dark Archive

Shadowrun being "big" thing ever again? Seriously, world would end by time someone actually can play the game and remember all the rules <_<

Seriously though, I hate type of cynicality that is complaining about things devs have stated opposite of already. Like, "They are just gonna find excuse to sell old material new" well they already said they won't release new version of campaign setting materials because flavor part from 1e materials still works. Heck they never realized new absalom or korvosa book in 1e after 3.5 versions.

Also, playtest is supposed to test more radical changes that they dialback from if they aren't liked. Apparently that is what PF Beta did as well. But for some reason everyone is assuming playtest version will be identical to release version and based on that stop playing game forever apparently :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dracovar wrote:
Now, they are playing the role of WotC and offering up the unfamiliar - and I suspect a similar result awaits for them as for 4E. If I’m so inclined to ditch the 3.75 paradigm (if you will) then all contenders are going to be up for consideration, the most notable being 5E. I’m not so inclined to ditch PF1 - that dog still has a lot of hunt left in it.

Yeah, pretty much. I got at least six years worth of AP's I really want to run and basically all the hardcover splatbooks (and I'll probably get the last ones soonish now). After that my group and I can decide if we want to run the ten years of AP's I've passed over so far. By then, a new paradigm will have emerged. And there's always Starfinder to look at... I wouldn't mind homebrewing something for that some day.

So, yeah. It's very different than the 3.5 to 4E turnover, at least for me. I got tons of materials to use to entertain my players and an edition I really like to do so.

So, yeah. The devs have to convince me that change editions. So far I'm not convinced that I am gaining anything from doing so.


23 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KyleS wrote:
If you can get past the hate fueled rage that people are having

Can we please get beyond that bit of hyperbole and talk about people on the other side with a modicum of realism? Yes, people are complaining. Aside from a very few outliers, I have so far seen disappointed people and confused people and, yes, angry people. But "hate fueled rage" is akin to me calling people who like the new system "Paizo lapdogs who will lap up anything thrown at them", i.e. inflaming hyperbole and non-truths. That will only result in deleted posts and very bad feelings.


magnuskn wrote:
KyleS wrote:
If you can get past the hate fueled rage that people are having
Can we please get beyond that bit of hyperbole and talk about people on the other side with a modicum of realism? Yes, people are complaining. Aside from a very few outliers, I have so far seen disappointed people and confused people and, yes, angry people. But "hate fueled rage" is akin to me calling people who like the new system "Paizo lapdogs who will lap up anything thrown at them", i.e. inflaming hyperbole and non-truths. That will only result in deleted posts and very bad feelings.

Ooooh, you must've missed yesterday. Holy crap the first few hours were straight horrendous. I've seen better conversations and discussion today, immensely better discussions, but there are still people posting as if we have the final rule set that will be forever set in stone. After yesterday's conversations going around, I was seriously starting to debate if I even wanted to partake in this because of all the toxicity going around. I do not envy the people having to delete posts and threads right now.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KyleS wrote:
Ooooh, you must've missed yesterday. Holy crap the first few hours were straight horrendous. I've seen better conversations and discussion today, immensely better discussions, but there are still people posting as if we have the final rule set that will be forever set in stone. After yesterday's conversations going around, I was seriously starting to debate if I even wanted to partake in this because of all the toxicity going around. I do not envy the people having to delete posts and threads right now.

Actually I was totally here and looked at as much threads as possible. And I got one of the nicest guys (no sarcasm here, no sirree) of the boards telling me that he is looking forward to throwing a party the day I walk away from the boards. Guess which side he was on, not the one which had an initially negative reaction to the playtest.

I also said something nasty to someone else and I regret that. But that was after I already got heated up by getting that really s+&%ty response to what I perceived to be valid and factual criticisms of the game.

Dark Archive

There is definitely people being overly defensive, but I'm still confused how you see majority of complaints having been reasonable ._. Like, maybe it's just because I've been reading too many of the threads, but there has been lot of vitriol, even swearing, hyperbole, "Paizo are liars" "Paizo doesn't care about us" etc type of comments going on. Or maybe the few individual ones are just sticking in my mind best so it feels worse than it actually is. Still, considering that Vic made sticky thread on how to give polite feedback, I feel like I'm not wrong about there having been lot of vitriol.

But yeah, its definitely uncalled for to attack people for having negative feelings about the game just as it would be other way around. And there are few threads where everyone has managed to stay reasonable, Deadmanwalking's thread is one of those I haven't seen anyone being hyperbolic.

(on side note, staying with 1e is definitely valid option. Heck, I'm not going to convert 1e APs into 2e, I'm planning to run eventually all of them in 1e)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, if the new edition actually results in...you know...ANYONE playing Pathfinder locally, I will be thrilled. I can't speak for other folks, but in my part of Wisconsin Pathfinder has for all intents and purposes been completely supplanted by 5E.

I like the options, adventures, and world support, but they are basically just collectibles for me at this point...


magnuskn wrote:
KyleS wrote:
Ooooh, you must've missed yesterday. Holy crap the first few hours were straight horrendous. I've seen better conversations and discussion today, immensely better discussions, but there are still people posting as if we have the final rule set that will be forever set in stone. After yesterday's conversations going around, I was seriously starting to debate if I even wanted to partake in this because of all the toxicity going around. I do not envy the people having to delete posts and threads right now.

Actually I was totally here and looked at as much threads as possible. And I got one of the nicest guys (no sarcasm here, no sirree) of the boards telling me that he is looking forward to throwing a party the day I walk away from the boards. Guess which side he was on, not the one which had an initially negative reaction to the playtest.

I also said something nasty to someone else and I regret that. But that was after I already got heated up by getting that really s!&*ty response to what I perceived to be valid and factual criticisms of the game.

I saw the complete opposite. I did see the people who only saw positive and refused to see any shortcomings. But I saw way more hatred. I saw people being attacked for being only positive for saying there was something they like even if there were aspects they didn't like. Yesterday seemed as if you didn't hate every single part of it and condemned it to death, you automatically thought the Paizo staff are infallible gods. But I can see that this is pointless to you.

Dark Archive

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually didn't see people being attacked for being positive, I only saw positive people attacking negative people. Like I agree that I think I saw more vitriolic people than calm people, but I didn't see that happening


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:

There is definitely people being overly defensive, but I'm still confused how you see majority of complaints having been reasonable ._. Like, maybe it's just because I've been reading too many of the threads, but there has been lot of vitriol, even swearing, hyperbole, "Paizo are liars" "Paizo doesn't care about us" etc type of comments going on. Or maybe the few individual ones are just sticking in my mind best so it feels worse than it actually is. Still, considering that Vic made sticky thread on how to give polite feedback, I feel like I'm not wrong about there having been lot of vitriol.

But yeah, its definitely uncalled for to attack people for having negative feelings about the game just as it would be other way around. And there are few threads where everyone has managed to stay reasonable, Deadmanwalking's thread is one of those I haven't seen anyone being hyperbolic.

Yeah, maybe we can all cool down now after we got over our first impressions and do worthwhile feedback. I'm still working through the document (RL obligations and a blistering heatwave in Germany have so far limited the amount of material I've really gone through... not to mention the obtuse "refer to section 200 pages ahead!" writing style), so I'll probably still discover things I heavily disagree with. But hopefully also stuff I really like.

CorvusMask wrote:
(on side note, staying with 1e is definitely valid option. Heck, I'm not going to convert 1e APs into 2e, I'm planning to run eventually all of them in 1e)

Yeah, at this point I almost 100% surely will run the old AP's I still want to do in the old system, instead of converting them to PF2E. We'll see what happens when in six years I run out of AP's I really, really want to run. Still got 10 years of material I am more "eh, maybe" about after that. ^^


Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:

A good new edition simply removes all the mistakes and weak spots of the previous one but retains the overall feel of it.

What is your opinion about 3rd edition, compared to Ad&d 2nd edition?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

You know, if the new edition actually results in...you know...ANYONE playing Pathfinder locally, I will be thrilled. I can't speak for other folks, but in my part of Wisconsin Pathfinder has for all intents and purposes been completely supplanted by 5E.

I like the options, adventures, and world support, but they are basically just collectibles for me at this point...

I haven't seen a game of 5e played in almost a year,in any of my FLGS (there are about 12 of them) I can see where it may sell more books, its newer,but they are also a lot more expensive. But actually see it played anywhere? hell I bought the books (terrible investment IMO,$150 for three poorly made, awful art), they are still collecting dust. It doesn't really matter if D&D is making more money so long as PAIZO is still profitable and making money, its good to go. The one thing I do know is popularity for any type of game is pretty much locality driven. I am pretty certain pokemon and yugioh are popular too, but I have never seen them played. MTG I see all the time. warhammer 40k is supposed to be the super popular game, but other than our GW, noone around here plays it *unless its at home*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Locality might affect popularity and screw personal bias. But world wide, comparing 5e to PF is like comparing Nike and Anta. Actually, much more than that, because Nike does not have three times as much sales as all other sneaker companies COMBINED and 5e does.

Right now, PF is being outsold not just by 5e, but by Starfinder as well. The long term view of current situation is not good. We might agree or disagree with how the edition is made, if it is good or bad, if proficiencies work or not, etc. But the business decision to make a new edition is sound. It has a risk, yes, like every other business decision. But it is sound nonetheless.

1 to 50 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / The Main Problem of PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.