Financial risk for Paizo with 2nd Edition?


General Discussion

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

May it's just me but most feedback I see from the playtest is negative. I know that ppl tend to post more if they are unhappy about it, but the negative feedback seems overwhelming at the moment. Does this constitute a financial risk to Paizo? I mean if they bring out this new edition and many ppl don't buy it because the don't like it, won't that be a serious problem for Paizo? And if yes, doesn't that mean that they will listen very closely to what the community has to say, to prevent that?

Kind regards

Ala

Silver Crusade

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm pretty sure that forum hecklers and enthusiasts aren't the primary source of feedback considered.

It's the surveys that will count the most, because if you've filled them it means you've actually played the game and didn't just come to cheer your favourite company or take revenge for that permaban on your previous account 5 years ago.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Any new edition is a finacial risk. Just like with D&D 4E, things don't always work out - even for the top brand.

If PF 2E fails to sell enough because people don't like it, well, there's always the opportunity PF 3E to go "back to its roots" like D&D 5E (kinda) did. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's definitely a financial risk. I love Paizo, and I hope they exceed their sales targets when it finally launches. In the mean time, I am going to give harsh criticism with all of my love. Don't dwell on the risk, they're fully aware of what might be at stake, just focus on giving good feedback.


It's obviously a risk, but with the success of 5e as a somewhat viable alternative to Pathfinder, I think Paizo was likely forced into the position where they innovate or stand a high chance of hemorrhaging players until their business is no longer valuable.

Granted, I think they've decided to go "high risk, high reward" here, making major changes in hopes of attracting a much larger base. It remains to be seen if that will work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will say that as I read the rulebook and create a character that 2nd edition is definitely growing on me.

I had a substantial amount of real estate on the fence as the blogs were released but as I've delved into things in the last week I've been slowly climbing down.

Don't get me wrong, I love Pathfinder Classic, but I'm more than willing to also support the next edition.

Of course, I still have to actually play it. :-)


Here's the thing: playtesting means little revenue. If their long term forecasts indicate PF1 will peter out in the future, it is better to make a change while they still have $ in the bank (unless they get a sugar daddy like Hasbro).

Like WotC, I think they will focus on survey results more than forum posts to determine whether something is popular. Paizo will probably keep track of forum posts if they need to figure out why something isn't popular, so critiques are still good, but if literally everyone on the forums hated something and the surveys showed it was popular, they would follow the survey.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We are the vocal minority in this situation. We'll impact the reception of the system by newcomers who've read our posts before they've read the rules themselves. Which in turn will taint the survey results somewhat; and not necessarially in our favor either.
I've refused to discuss any of my negative opinions with my playtest group (and they don't visit these forums). I really want to present their honest feedback of the system. Not just my own opinions.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alarith, about the negative feedback.

If we put forum posters into 3 main groups. Here is what we'll hear:
1. Enjoys Playtest: At most 1-2 posts lauding Paizo. Maybe a few mild posts with pointed feedback on balance, questions, etc.
2. Mixed Feelings: At most 1 post lauding Paizo. Probably several posts with misgivings.
3. Negative Feelings: Probably no posts lauding Paizo. Likely several/many posts with grievances.

Forum posters are a very particular/select group. I own a laptop, furniture, board games, cookware, investments, plants, bicycles, and lots of other stuff that I do not participate in any forums for. Most of Paizo's customers are the same.

For example, I'm overall very happy with the direction of the playtest and so are the 6 other PCs in my playtest session. I haven't created a post praising Paizo. Why would I? I'll give them some feedback and buy the official release if it looks good. *None* of my PCs post in the forums. They either have no need, interest, and/or knowledge of the forum. Roleplaying to them is a fun game. They are all filling out the playtest feedback survey.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It was always going to be a risk.

The big catch is that no new edition has a 100% conversion rate. There will always be fans who stick with what they have. (Especially those people who feel they haven't got their money worth from the previous edition.) So a new edition CANNOT just appeal to the existing fanbase, as that leads to diminishing returns.
However, it can't just appeal to new fans. Firstly, because that means casting aside your most dedicated fans. But also because it means targeting a theoretical audience: players who may or may not actually exist or be willing to buy the product.

Paizo was *always* going to have an uphill battle. People who liked Pathfinder and stuck with it despite the heavy competition over the last four years are those players who are okay with its current mechanics. But there's enough content for years of campaigns with Pathfinder 1. Even a decade or two.
Pathfinder 2 was always going to be selling people a game they did not *need* while also invalidating books they had already purchased. This is doubly problematic as the core audience of Pathfinder were players who didn't want to switch to 4e because they hadn't gotten their money's worth of from 3e. And there's far, far more Pathfinder content than there was for 3.5e.

ICv2's charts put Pathfinder below Starfinder in sales, but table play of Pathfinder seems much higher than Starfinder, especially on VTT. Pathfinder's sales have dropped and without the risk of Pathfinder 2 then revenue would dry up. Players already have more content than they need.

Adding to the problem, Paizo has the largest game staff of game designers in the hobby. So there needs to be a lot of product put out to justify keeping the staff on the payroll.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Alarith wrote:

May it's just me but most feedback I see from the playtest is negative. I know that ppl tend to post more if they are unhappy about it, but the negative feedback seems overwhelming at the moment. Does this constitute a financial risk to Paizo? I mean if they bring out this new edition and many ppl don't buy it because the don't like it, won't that be a serious problem for Paizo? And if yes, doesn't that mean that they will listen very closely to what the community has to say, to prevent that?

Kind regards

Ala

Wanted to address your last question directly.

There is a tendency to feel, here on Paizo the community forums - or on any community forum, really - that our voices are representative of the entire fanbase.

That is not the case.

There are hundreds of people who are active on the playtest forum. But there are thousands of people who play Pathfinder. Even if we assume that 1 out of 10 people who play is active on the forums (an estimate that is almost certainly high), that means that 90% of Paizo's playerbase never posts here. And it's entirely possible for the playerbase as a whole to have trends and desires that never manifest here.

Stated plainly: Every single person on these forums could think something was a good idea, and it could still, by a ten-to-one margin, be a bad idea.

So YES it's important that Paizo listen to feedback. But they can't treat the forum feedback as gospel. They have to listen to all the feedback they can possibly get from anywhere, and they most especially need feedback from the people who are actually playing the game.

So as was said upthread, if you really want your voice to be heard, play or run the playtest, and submit the survey. Paizo is listening to the forums, for sure, but the forums are only one small facet of the fanbase that they need to listen and respond to.

As someone who has seen games die because the developers catered to their most vocal and dedicated fans - without realizing that was 1% of their playerbase and that everyone else didn't feel the same way - I wouldn't want to see Paizo make the same mistake.


Its a psychological fact that humans are more likely to react to things they dislike than to things they do. People that dislike are more likely to post and complain that people who like posting and praising. Its just the way we have evolved.

Also, Paizo has made it very clear that they are more concerned with ACTUAL PLAY feedback and NOT theorycraft when it comes to input on their design. You will notice very few of the loud naysayers seem to be citing actual gameplay anecdotes and instead talk about how things "seem" or "sounds".


Yeah there's a Risk with 2e.

But there's also a risk with staying with 1e.


Yes, of course it's a risk. But it's less of a risk than trying to ride the 1E horse for too long. "Stick with 1E forever" wasn't a viable long-term plan.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Paizo doesn't need to "take over 5e". All it needs is take a small chunk of 5e base AND ensure that of every 10 new people coming in to play a popular generic fantasy RPG, a couple will come to play PF. Because as it stands, 5e is pretty much dominating the influx of new people into the generic fantasy RPG base. PF1 doesn't have a candle next to 5e when it comes to entry bar, availability of people to play with and accessibility of the ruleset.

BUT

Paizo doesn't need to eclipse or defeat or set aside WotC. With a medium sized non-traded company that doesn't answer to shareholders or Lords of the Boards you do have a little more luxury in setting your goals. Your benchmarks are not as aggresive. Besides, Paizo has Starfinder, which is happily occupying the "Guardians of Galaxy RPG" niche unopposed and the card game, which is also a happy camper in its category.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Hurká wrote:
For example, I'm overall very happy with the direction of the playtest and so are the 6 other PCs in my playtest session. I haven't created a post praising Paizo. Why would I?

In general positive reinforcement is more effective on human behavior, so if you see something you like in the playtest, I definitely encourage you to say something.


bugleyman wrote:
Yes, of course it's a risk. But it's less of a risk than trying to ride the 1E horse for too long. "Stick with 1E forever" wasn't a viable long-term plan.

For as much as I'm complaining and worried, I'll agree to this. At the very absolute least, they were going to have to come up with a huge patch book that retooled things even more. Unchained to a degree was this.

But they couldn't sit on PF1 for the rest of time. No game can survive that forever. Not without changes.

I might complain about those changes, but they were going to have to happen sooner or later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hurká wrote:
*None* of my PCs post in the forums. They either have no need, interest, and/or knowledge of the forum. Roleplaying to them is a fun game. They are all filling out the playtest feedback survey.

My own group(Outside of two) don't come to the forums either.

But in their cases, they have reasons why they don't come to the forums.

I should listen to them more. I've become far more bitter about the game after coming here.


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

The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.

To my mode of thinking, this would have been a much safer bet overall, would not have upset a good part of the existing customer base and would have ensured Paizo to retain and enlarge the design space which no other big publisher is currently occupying.


You cannot and will not beat 5E in sales, that’s just the way it is. I love starfinder and although being a little hesitant about 2E I can now say I will love it as well. All the hate on the forums is the same thing that happens every time something in the RPG world changes. People should just be happy Paizo cares enough to publicly playtest it and change based on the feedback it receives. Paizo is taking a small risk in my eyes as they have a loyal base of customers who might be a little hesitant at first but I am sure will jump on the bandwagon eventually if not right away.


From a business perspective, this is largely risk vs reward. There is risk both in working towards 2e, and in keeping with 1e.

In the case of the latter, PF1 was hitting a point of bloat. While options are good to have, you eventually hit a point where a phenomenon called "option paralysis" happens. It's described with the example of when you go into a restaurant with a huge menu, yet end up ordering the chicken fingers because it is something you know. This manifested in Pathfinder in two distinctive ways: there were destinct ways you needed to build characters in order to remain relevant to later release content, and the system was so large as to intimidate new players.

So you had a lot, most of which was useless (like sword and pistol for example) and any new player had to dig through it all to learn how to play. If PF1 were to continue, that benchmark for entry would continue to grow and act as a deterrent for a growing audience. Now PF1 enthusiasts may claim it doesn't matter, there will always be that core audience of 3.5e, to which I will say there are still people who prefer 3.5e to PF and refused to adopt either new system. They are not finding new players to the game because the bar for entry and understanding is too high for new players.

Video gaming also experiences the same thing, and there is an Extra Credits video on YouTube on it titled "Don't Just Hire Your Fans" that I strongly recommend watching for a reason on why improving on the same is not always ideal.

On the flipside, you have the risks with PF2. Many of the largest complaints are from veterans to the franchise but that is the largest demographic that they have to upset essentially. A high risk to potentially alienate some of your core player base, but the potential reward is expanding the game to the new audiences previously inaccessible due to PF1's high point of entry. Others have gone into detail on that one better though, so I will leave it there.

To put it in simpler terms, on the one half is staying the same and expanding, the risks are lesser but the reward is also minimal. The other is changing and risking losing some of what you have, but gaining a whole lot more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Isaac Zephyr - Extra Credits also did a vid on Option/Choice Paralysis. Which is a problem I'm having with PF2.

"Gasp, how can you? There's so much less bloat!"

It's mainly the classes. Where half the class is missing and I'm expected to build it as I fully want.

Me: ....Hahahha. HAHAHHAHAHA. UM...fills out the most basic Fighter/Monk/Etc.

This is going to get worse as PF2 gets splatbooks, partially with all the Dedications they are more than likely going to print. Now PF1 has this in spades with all the bloody feats, spells, and abilites. But at least to me, I find the PF1 selections easier. This could be due to being used to it more.

I might make a topic about it as it's something I think deserves to be talked about. All these "Oh look this is an option now" posts I keep seeing are nice and all but having that choice there isn't always a good thing.


magnuskn wrote:
The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.

That may end up being what 2E becomes.

A lot of people love 1E so making it too not-like-1E could be bad for the bottom line.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

Yeah there's a Risk with 2e.

But there's also a risk with staying with 1e.

Yep, I'm here no matter what.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DaveMage wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.

That may end up being what 2E becomes.

A lot of people love 1E so making it too not-like-1E could be bad for the bottom line.

I'm going to disagree here, but not for the typical reason: I think it is absolutely vital to the survival of 2e that it is NOT backwards compatible with 1e, or even anything resembling backwards compatible.

There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.

Plus changing the system in a major way gives Paizo more chances to reinvent things they didn't do well previously, rather than simply rehashing them in similar forms in 2e.


MaxAstro wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.

That may end up being what 2E becomes.

A lot of people love 1E so making it too not-like-1E could be bad for the bottom line.

I'm going to disagree here, but not for the typical reason: I think it is absolutely vital to the survival of 2e that it is NOT backwards compatible with 1e, or even anything resembling backwards compatible.

There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.

Plus changing the system in a major way gives Paizo more chances to reinvent things they didn't do well previously, rather than simply rehashing them in similar forms in 2e.

Fair.

Won't stop people from making their own transfers though. The Trinkets seem interesting enough to port back for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.

That may end up being what 2E becomes.

A lot of people love 1E so making it too not-like-1E could be bad for the bottom line.

I'm going to disagree here, but not for the typical reason: I think it is absolutely vital to the survival of 2e that it is NOT backwards compatible with 1e, or even anything resembling backwards compatible.

There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.

So...rather than have those that love 1E buy some of the products, you think it's better if they buy none? :) (Cuz that's what I did for that other RPG that went from 3.5 to 4E.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.

That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.


magnuskn wrote:
The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.

You'll have to define what you consider the "3.X engine" and what bits of it aren't part of the PF2 playtest, because it looks very much to be built from the same parts.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If "tweaking 3.5 and updating it" was a viable route, WotC would have gone with it in 2015. After all, they had the brand recognition, 3.5 grogs would embrace the chance and given choice of playing "The Real Deal" as opposed to "3.5 with beholders and illithids filed off", people would have gone with the former. And everybody who was salty about 2006 would forgive them 4e in a jiffy if they could go Planar Shepherd/Ur-Priest once more.


Bluenose wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.
You'll have to define what you consider the "3.X engine" and what bits of it aren't part of the PF2 playtest, because it looks very much to be built from the same parts.

Right on, which parts of PF2 do you define as very much built from the same PF1 parts?


magnuskn wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.
That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.

To be honest, I use material from 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 for my "3rd Ed" campaigns, they are all simply too similar for me to really categorise as completely different games (such as AD&D and 4th Ed), but I generally agree with you about nothing wrong with releasing an evolutionary version of a system that works. Even 5th Ed is more evolutionary than revolutionary, sort of like 3rd Ed Lite.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.
That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.
To be honest, I use material from 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 for my "3rd Ed" campaigns, they are all simply too similar for me to really categorise as completely different games (such as AD&D and 4th Ed), but I generally agree with you about nothing wrong with releasing an evolutionary version of a system that works. Even 5th Ed is more evolutionary than revolutionary, sort of like 3rd Ed Lite.

Early on I used PF as errata for 3.5.

I mix and match OSR systems I can run a B/X adventure in 2E or Castles and Crusades. That is with no drastic modifications or conversions.


Alarith wrote:

May it's just me but most feedback I see from the playtest is negative. I know that ppl tend to post more if they are unhappy about it, but the negative feedback seems overwhelming at the moment. Does this constitute a financial risk to Paizo? I mean if they bring out this new edition and many ppl don't buy it because the don't like it, won't that be a serious problem for Paizo? And if yes, doesn't that mean that they will listen very closely to what the community has to say, to prevent that?

Kind regards

Ala

I've run 5 groups through PF2 games. So far response has been positive save for some gripes about the Paladin and wooden shields.


Zardnaar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.
That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.
To be honest, I use material from 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 for my "3rd Ed" campaigns, they are all simply too similar for me to really categorise as completely different games (such as AD&D and 4th Ed), but I generally agree with you about nothing wrong with releasing an evolutionary version of a system that works. Even 5th Ed is more evolutionary than revolutionary, sort of like 3rd Ed Lite.

Early on I used PF as errata for 3.5.

I mix and match OSR systems I can run a B/X adventure in 2E or Castles and Crusades. That is with no drastic modifications or conversions.

Ah, I really want to check out Castles & Crusades (heard about it for years, from you!), it sounds like a cross between AD&D and 3rd Ed, is that right? If so, that is exactly what I was looking for/doing, after I got disillusioned with 4th Ed.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.
That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.
To be honest, I use material from 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 for my "3rd Ed" campaigns, they are all simply too similar for me to really categorise as completely different games (such as AD&D and 4th Ed), but I generally agree with you about nothing wrong with releasing an evolutionary version of a system that works. Even 5th Ed is more evolutionary than revolutionary, sort of like 3rd Ed Lite.

Early on I used PF as errata for 3.5.

I mix and match OSR systems I can run a B/X adventure in 2E or Castles and Crusades. That is with no drastic modifications or conversions.

Ah, I really want to check out Castles & Crusades (heard about it for years, from you!), it sounds like a cross between AD&D and 3rd Ed, is that right? If so, that is exactly what I was looking for/doing, after I got disillusioned with 4th Ed.

Yes we actually had it out tonight after sesison 0 crashed and burned. It has some issues but its more like a sane AD&D 1E with modern mechanics with set DCs of 12 (trained) and 18 (untrained). Its level+ ability mod to hit those DCs and a 1-10 modifier if the DC needs to be higher such as trying to climb while its wet.

No skill system either but the various classes in effect have skills built in. It gets a bit funky at higher levels and with Dragons but not to the extent you want to pull your teeth out or ragequit and its not like any of the other D&Ds/clones have done any better. It also has the best MC system in any D&D or clone IMHO its a tweaked AD&D MC but you add the xp together and use a table to work out the new classes HD. You can also rename the MC so rather than a Fighter/Mage you can be a Mageknight or whatever (and there is a Knight class).

Not recommended if feats are your be all and end all of D&D. If you like OSR games or a simplified 3E it might be up your alley. I'm usually a DM though so I rate any D&D that is easy to run highly that usually translates to a page or two of notes and houserules. DC 12 and 18 is the guts of the system the PHB is around 160 pages.

Its not perfect and there is not many moving parts although the DMG has basically feats you can layer on. It also has a lot of adventures some of which are really great and my players will actually play and enjoy it, wife loved her Ranger/Druid MC.

BTW D&D in this context includes OD&D-5E, Pathfinder, OSR clones. Doesn't include games like DCC.

The biggest turn off is if it gives me a headache to run it as I usually DM although one of my players will run 5E or Star Wars on occasion. If I want to play Pathfinder or OSR I have to run it myself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
You'll have to define what you consider the "3.X engine" and what bits of it aren't part of the PF2 playtest, because it looks very much to be built from the same parts.

I think I'll skip having to explain a system for your edification which we are already all playing.

PF2E added +level to everything, which keeps the math pleasantly easy to manage, but makes classes feel a bit same-y, which was a problem already with the 4E design.

That is the biggest design difference between PF1E and PF2E, but from that decisions apparently grows a need to nerf about all spells, many feats and many classes to arrive at a much more pronounced "keep it safe" gradualism. The decision seems to have been made to take cool abilities many classes got and gate them away to later in the game (in a nerfed version, of course).

The feeling I'm getting from PF2E is that the overarching design motto was "okay, let's make sure everything is super-duper balanced" and the devs balanced the fun right out of many of the nerfed parts of the game. They nerfed Prestidigitation, for cripes sake!

And, yes, that is a personal feeling I've gotten from reading the rules, I am not ascribing this as an active motivation to the devs. But it seems to have been, again IMO, the unintended consequence of their good intentions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
If "tweaking 3.5 and updating it" was a viable route, WotC would have gone with it in 2015. After all, they had the brand recognition, 3.5 grogs would embrace the chance and given choice of playing "The Real Deal" as opposed to "3.5 with beholders and illithids filed off", people would have gone with the former. And everybody who was salty about 2006 would forgive them 4e in a jiffy if they could go Planar Shepherd/Ur-Priest once more.

That is pretty much as much an assumption as my theoretical case is. Maybe their approach rather was "okay Pathfinder is kicking our asses right now, they already are occupying the 3.x design space and we still got a lot of people mad as us over the Forgotten Realms fiasco, why don't we try a completely new direction".

Not saying I am correct, but I am posing this as much less of a definitive statement than you are.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:


That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.

Uhm, Giant in the Playground is a popular website with entire forums dedicated to "3.P" games and Pathfinder's early word of mouth marketing included phrases like "3.5 lives!", so there are actually a ton of people who do, in fact, treat PF1 as a 3.5 supplement. I mean, one of the biggest complaints that keeps popping up across multiple forums is that PF2 is too different from PF1 for people to easily continue using their existing collections. Make of that what you will, but it's inaccurate to say that some people didn't treat 3.5 as a supplement for 3.0 (I personally still used a lot of my 3.0 books when playing 3.5), or that some still don't treat PF as a supplement for 3.5.


Gorbacz wrote:

If "tweaking 3.5 and updating it" was a viable route, WotC would have gone with it in 2015. After all, they had the brand recognition, 3.5 grogs would embrace the chance and given choice of playing "The Real Deal" as opposed to "3.5 with beholders and illithids filed off", people would have gone with the former. And everybody who was salty about 2006 would forgive them 4e in a jiffy if they could go Planar Shepherd/Ur-Priest once more.

But that's exactly what Paizo did when they created Pathfinder.It was billed as a continuation of 3.5 with backwards compatibility and a few tweaks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
They nerfed Prestidigitation, for cripes sake!

Nerfed?

They took a hammer to it until anything even vaguely resembling "fun" was beaten out.


I do expect Paizo to shrink after PF 2.0 initial boon. Not disappear, however.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
magnuskn wrote:


That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.
Uhm, Giant in the Playground is a popular website with entire forums dedicated to "3.P" games and Pathfinder's early word of mouth marketing included phrases like "3.5 lives!", so there are actually a ton of people who do, in fact, treat PF1 as a 3.5 supplement. I mean, one of the biggest complaints that keeps popping up across multiple forums is that PF2 is too different from PF1 for people to easily continue using their existing collections. Make of that what you will, but it's inaccurate to say that some people didn't treat 3.5 as a supplement for 3.0 (I personally still used a lot of my 3.0 books when playing 3.5), or that some still don't treat PF as a supplement for 3.5.

Sure, and some people are still playing AD&D, but I think a majority of people changed editions completely (especially because there were OP options in both 3.0 and 3.5 which were negated by gating off the older content).


magnuskn wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
magnuskn wrote:


That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.
Uhm, Giant in the Playground is a popular website with entire forums dedicated to "3.P" games and Pathfinder's early word of mouth marketing included phrases like "3.5 lives!", so there are actually a ton of people who do, in fact, treat PF1 as a 3.5 supplement. I mean, one of the biggest complaints that keeps popping up across multiple forums is that PF2 is too different from PF1 for people to easily continue using their existing collections. Make of that what you will, but it's inaccurate to say that some people didn't treat 3.5 as a supplement for 3.0 (I personally still used a lot of my 3.0 books when playing 3.5), or that some still don't treat PF as a supplement for 3.5.
Sure, and some people are still playing AD&D, but I think a majority of people changed editions completely (especially because there were OP options in both 3.0 and 3.5 which were negated by gating off the older content).

I can see that, but at this point I sort of have a 3rd Ed/PF1 house-ruled thing; among the three I can pretty much get the d20 D&D experience I want (I also throw in some 4th and 5th Ed bits).

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Financial risk for Paizo with 2nd Edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion