It might be interesting if Paizo sticks with 2e as that means 1e becomes a game made by an aggregate of 3rd parties. Many of whom seem more willing to experiment than Paizo has been.
I honestly don't see that happening. None of the 3pp have the infrastructure or clout to step into the void. Paizo already had the architecture in place to start printing rulebooks, and already had a large stable of designers and developers, as well as an established subscriber base.
It's also seems likely that the sales of PF1 material were declining to the point that an edition change was deemed required. I suspect inertia is lost here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's enough PF1 out there for a lifetime if needed.
All this said, though, if the poll has similar results *after* PF2 is out, then there's a problem for Paizo. Right now PF2 is not a complete game, so we just can't judge.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Voted. Sticking with 1E. Not interested in the design direction 2E is going.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's enough PF1 out there for a lifetime if needed.
See, that's both true and false, and a problem.
On the one hand, the way you mean it, it's true, and that's the problem. There's lots of material out there, and that impacts sales of new product. It's the same problem the PC, laptop, tablet, and smart-phone markets have right now... most of the people who want one have one that's good enough. Well, Paizo can't just fire their staff and declare "there's enough Pathfinder".
On the other hand, it's false because lots of the material (adventures) is inapplicable. I'm involved with several PF groups, and there's a lot of material that we "can't" use because a couple guys ran it in yet-another-group, or "won't" use because we don't really care about the topics. Next August, we will have to start running material we want to run less and less and less, moving down the pile, skipping things that have been done before. I know, first world problems. None of us have time for home-brew.
That's frankly another reason I'm not happy about a non-compatible new edition. For the first six months of PF2, there will be one AP to chose from, and if we don't find the topic interesting, then there's no material to run. There won't be choice for years.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest reason to want to move to whatever pf2 ends up is because my group can't stomach mixing a lot of the post ultimate content with the core and apg content. It's not power creep, as much as the entire design philosophy and goals seemed to change after the magus filled the niches that Paizo wanted to cover in the post 3e world.
The later stuff is cool! Occult Adventures and ACG are some of the best books that PF has seen (imo). Having these new classes outperform the olde guard simply because they were designed with a different mindset than backwards compatible criterion, is a shame.
I want to see these guys design fully without the spectre of 3rd edition floating in the background, hamstringing them into rules traps that are simply legacy traditions. I want to see rings of protection and cloaks of resistance fade away in favor of meaningful magic items. I want to see innovation instead of another retread of a 20 (or 40) year old mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest reason to want to move to whatever pf2 ends up is because my group can't stomach mixing a lot of the post ultimate content with the core and apg content. It's not power creep, as much as the entire design philosophy and goals seemed to change after the magus filled the niches that Paizo wanted to cover in the post 3e world.
The later stuff is cool! Occult Adventures and ACG are some of the best books that PF has seen (imo). Having these new classes outperform the olde guard simply because they were designed with a different mindset than backwards compatible criterion, is a shame.
I want to see these guys design fully without the spectre of 3rd edition floating in the background, hamstringing them into rules traps that are simply legacy traditions. I want to see rings of protection and cloaks of resistance fade away in favor of meaningful magic items. I want to see innovation instead of another retread of a 20 (or 40) year old mechanic.
You don't need PF2 for any of these. There are dozens of already established game systems to choose from.
For me the fact that the only new stuff they added was Goblin and Alchemist just kind of bores me. Truthfully, I think at this point they'd have to change virtually the entire line up of both races/ancestries and classes for me to care about either.
But they aren't really new. The alchemist was a well documented class from a core book (just not THE core rule book). I'll grant you the goblin race was a kind of monster race, and few players cared about it. Now that it's one of the main races, Paizo tells the players that playing a goblin shouldn't be a problem in Golarion: some of them are roaming with groups of human, dwarf and elf adventurers.
|
Vote in our poll at JonBrazer.com
Since there's no login required, how does the poll filter out people who have already voted? Every time you go to the page you have to vote to see the results.
Vote in our poll at JonBrazer.comSince there's no login required, how does the poll filter out people who have already voted? Every time you go to the page you have to vote to see the results.
Actually, you can just click on View Results to see the results without voting. However, your general point about the weakness of any internet poll of this sort does stand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might not, mostly because I just don't want to re-buy the same books over and over, unless they release a complete conversion guide.
I'm totally okay with Paizo upgrading the rules after using a 18-years old system; I'm just not comfortable at buying the same books all over again...
Vote in our poll at JonBrazer.comSince there's no login required, how does the poll filter out people who have already voted? Every time you go to the page you have to vote to see the results.
It's supposed to use a cookie to make sure you don't vote more than once. But as pjrogers said, there's a view results button at the bottom.
Next time I'll probably have to set it up for a login requirement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's supposed to use a cookie to make sure you don't vote more than once. But as pjrogers said, there's a view results button at the bottom.Yeah, this is easily bypassed by clearing cookies.
I'd hope that people wouldn't do that unless they WANT to subvert the poll which makes no sense to me.
|
|
Actually, you can just click on View Results to see the results without voting. However, your general point about the weakness of any internet poll of this sort does stand.Vote in our poll at JonBrazer.comSince there's no login required, how does the poll filter out people who have already voted? Every time you go to the page you have to vote to see the results.
Ah, cool, missed that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd hope that people wouldn't do that unless they WANT to subvert the poll which makes no sense to me.It's supposed to use a cookie to make sure you don't vote more than once. But as pjrogers said, there's a view results button at the bottom.Yeah, this is easily bypassed by clearing cookies.
...
The internet has a history of this sort of thing.
I just assume that I am small enough that no one outside of gaming would care about my company or my poll.
I mean it's not like this poll is going to have any lastung impact. If P2's rules are great and I enjoy the game, I'll support it. If not, I won't. I just wanted to see what people are thinking so far.
And I certainly don't let people write in their own answers because of boaty mcboatface.
There's enough PF1 out there for a lifetime if needed.See, that's both true and false, and a problem.
On the one hand, the way you mean it, it's true, and that's the problem. There's lots of material out there, and that impacts sales of new product. It's the same problem the PC, laptop, tablet, and smart-phone markets have right now... most of the people who want one have one that's good enough. Well, Paizo can't just fire their staff and declare "there's enough Pathfinder".
On the other hand, it's false because lots of the material (adventures) is inapplicable. I'm involved with several PF groups, and there's a lot of material that we "can't" use because a couple guys ran it in yet-another-group, or "won't" use because we don't really care about the topics. Next August, we will have to start running material we want to run less and less and less, moving down the pile, skipping things that have been done before. I know, first world problems. None of us have time for home-brew.
Well, there will be 22 Paizo adventure paths (for PF1) + the Emerald Spire Superdungeon as well as 30+ modules from Paizo. From 3PPs, there are the following epic (10+ level-spanning) adventures (just to name a few):
Adventure-a-Week:
Rise of the Drow
Hammerdog Games:
The Grande Temple of Jing (megadungeon)
Frog God Games:
The Blight
The Northlands Saga
Rappan Athuk
Slumbering Tsar
Obviously YMMV, but to go through all of these would likely take over 50 years for my group. Of course, if you play in multiple groups, there will be overlap, but this is just a small sample from 3 third-party publishers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's enough PF1 out there for a lifetime if needed.Well, there will be 22 Paizo adventure paths (for PF1) + the Emerald Spire Superdungeon as well as 30+ modules from Paizo. From 3PPs, there are the following epic (10+ level-spanning) adventures (just to name a few):
Adventure-a-Week:
Rise of the DrowHammerdog Games:
The Grande Temple of Jing (megadungeon)Frog God Games:
The Blight
The Northlands Saga
Rappan Athuk
Slumbering TsarObviously YMMV, but to go through all of these would likely take over 50 years for my group. Of course, if you play in multiple groups, there will be overlap, but this is just a small sample from 3 third-party publishers.
Yes, and this makes me very happy! I'll stop b...... and moaning about PF2 - I don't have to play it, so I'll stop going to the playtest threads, where I'm not contributing in a positive way.
I would've loved a tweaked Pathfinder instead of "Otherfinder" (great name for it, by the way:-), but Paizo has chosen to go in another direction, which may be a smart move on their part, even though I can't follow.
The closest match for me was: "Our group is ignoring the playtest, and we will see what the final version is before we decide."
One of the players in my regular group has downloaded the playtest, made some headway on reading it, created at least one character, and has started making noises about maybe trying to run it someday.
I, on the other hand, have my hands full with running my 1e home game. I will NOT be converting that game to 2e, because I've already invested a lot of time and money in developing it for 1e. And I'm still trying to assimilate some of my later 1e books (UC, UM, ACG, Unchained, etc.) before deciding how much of that material to use in the game. Converting to 2e would put a lot of that work to waste, and would alienate at least one of my players (who has had few if any good experiences with edition changes mid-campaign).
I've only very briefly glanced at the playtest docs, but simply don't have the free headspace to learn a new edition right now. I'm sure I'll try it at some point, but I'd be surprised if it happens before the game reaches it final form AND PFS for 2e starts up. Even then, I'll be playing and running PFS for 1e for as long as there are enough other people in the local community who want to keep it going after Paizo stops releasing new material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell us if you are switching from Pathfinder 1e to 2e (or anticipate doing so). Curious publishers want to know (what to support).
I would like to thank you for calling it 2e and not 2.0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sticking with New 'n' Pathy! myself. : )
Probably not for a while. I have a bunch of characters that I haven't had a chance to play yet. I'd like to at least play a few more before switching editions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. For starters, I've not gotten to really try it myself, but after looking over it I can say I'm really not a fan of anything it's bringing to the table. I'm not a fan of the whole "dumbing down the game for dummies" approach, and I actually enjoy the combat and leveling in pathfinder. I absolutely LOATHE systems like milestone leveling, and these inspiration point things, and the changes they are making overall.
Like. I have a friend who genuinely hates combat and exp in pathfinder, he thinks it takes away from the game, but he likes inspiration points because "They make the game interesting". A game where you can role play an adventuring wielder of reality warping magic, and an inter-dimensional corpse bamfing into your dimension to grab a random peasant and pull him to the negative energy plane to chase him like a horror movie slasher villain out of it's sheer hatred of the living is not only accepted as a possibility, but a fairly normal occurrence... Is not interesting to this man. That's not a problem Paizo needs to address, that's a problem with the player, as I can tell you he does not make characters that mesh well with the world (his current character is a wizard, who worships zon kuthon, and is a "emo goth poser". Which to him, translates into only preparing pit, grease, invisibility and enlarge person, and sitting in the back whining about how the universe is pain while invisible.) and honestly, it only creates real problems when the developer tries to cater to this mindset.
Our DM has been using this system called "Drama Points" which is functionally inspiration, where he makes something "Dramatic" happen and will give you a drama point to spend later, which have been used to save the party members from death or trade in for feats. We're in the mummy's mask module, just finished book
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And in the room right before the final boss of the book, our level 6 party (Fighter, Paladin, Wizard affected by Blindness, and Medic) finds a crypt thing that guards the door. The fighter failed his will save when the Crypt Thing tried to teleport us away at the start of combat. Normally it sends you 100 feet in any direction. BUT because the player accepted 4 drama points, the teleport ended up putting him 88,903 feet IN THE AIR. He had a ring of slow fall, so he'd survive, but it would take him 17 minutes in game to reach the ground again, assuming he took the ring off for most of that fall. Trust me, we did the math. And the rest of us had no way of knowing this, as far as we knew, he was warped 100 feet in any direction since we knew how the Crypt Thing worked, and was either going to run back to us in about 30 seconds, or be stuck on the other side of the door where my pally sensed great evil. So, we quickly busted into the room and engaged the boss fight, a mummy, a greater mummy, and a wizard with a wand of enervation and a major artifact mask. And our wizard was blind, and played by the guy that hates combat. He cast enlarge person on me then cast invisibility on himself and tried to leave the room, wandering blindly in random directions. I had to fight this boss functionally alone until the fighter used SEVEN drama points to smash through the ceiling into the boss room. Medic died. I dropped to below 0 at 5 separate instances during that fight. Used all my lay on hands, both prepared spells, even my bonded mount. The only reason we won is because the DM got tired by this point, got bored, and purposefully played the boss like a literal moron. I mean literally, he didn't use hardly any of the spells that the guy had or the wand and spent the 9 rounds that I was stuck in the pit with a pair of mummies that the emo wizard stuck under me chasing the medic, who was afflicted with 6 rounds of fear, MONOLOGUING AT HIM. The fighter landed in the pit, immediately got dropped by the greater mummy, and I was at 3 hp by this point with one lay on hands left. I managed to kill the greater mummy with the fighter at -9, and we were still in the pit for 3 rounds. 5 rounds later, the wizard finally attacks the medic, and then landed on the ground in front of me to taunt the medic. Only reason we killed him, the DM let us kill him.
And honestly, all I see in 5e is this horror story becoming the norm. I have no interest in that, because 5e from what I have seen, rewards bad DM'ing and bad play. It rewards players who are too lazy to write a decent backstory for a character, or who want to play a lawful stupid paladin, or a chaotic stupid rogue, who thinks being actively detrimental to his team is funny or who simply don't like how the rules work. That's dumb. A beer and chips campaign is a beer and chips campaign, but even then there's etiquette. You can expect people to be more crazy, with weird concepts, but at it's core any pathfinder or DnD game is about adventurers, going on adventures. There's a point and a limit for everything, and 5e absolutely caters to the worst kinds of players who aren't interested in adventures. If they think the game is boring, or not interesting, then that's their problem, and I don't want the game to change specifically to suit them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like. I have a friend who genuinely hates combat and exp in pathfinder, he thinks it takes away from the game, but he likes inspiration points because "They make the game interesting". A game where you can role play an adventuring wielder of reality warping magic, and an inter-dimensional corpse bamfing into your dimension to grab a random peasant and pull him to the negative energy plane to chase him like a horror movie slasher villain out of it's sheer hatred of the living is not only accepted as a possibility, but a fairly normal occurrence... Is not interesting to this man. That's not a problem Paizo needs to address, that's a problem with the player, as I can tell you he does not make characters that mesh well with the world (his current character is a wizard, who worships zon kuthon, and is a "emo goth poser". Which to him, translates into only preparing pit, grease, invisibility and enlarge person, and sitting in the back whining about how the universe is pain while invisible.) and honestly, it only creates real problems when the developer tries to cater to this mindset.
Most of us have run into "that guy" at our gaming tables, whose play style is radically different from what the rest want or expect. You may have been most comfortable (assuming you were there to be so) working with 1st edition AD&D, which, if published adventures are any indication, required a lot more teamwork and planning within the party than you generally see anymore. Though even then, I have seen an interview by Tracy Hickman (who co-wrote the original Dragonlance books and the original I6 Ravenloft module) talk about pulling a "Leroy Jenkins" on a party he played with, so maybe it's more the player type that the game at large.
May I also suggest that you may find this article on EN World an interesting read. It seems to be saying many of the same things you are, from a game design standpoint.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We will not be switching over to PF2. A couple of my players are doing a playtest in another group but as for the rest of us, we're staying put. We wish nothing but the brightest of futures for Paizo and Pathfinder but we've spent too many years and too much money to want to learn a new system and start over. Between PF Classic's vast array of options and those of D&D 3.5 that we can engineer to work with PF we will never run out of stories to tell or PCs to play. So the men and women of Der Klüsterphüchen will be staying behind. Good luck!
Like. I have a friend who genuinely hates combat and exp in pathfinder, he thinks it takes away from the game, but he likes inspiration points because "They make the game interesting". A game where you can role play an adventuring wielder of reality warping magic, and an inter-dimensional corpse bamfing into your dimension to grab a random peasant and pull him to the negative energy plane to chase him like a horror movie slasher villain out of it's sheer hatred of the living is not only accepted as a possibility, but a fairly normal occurrence... Is not interesting to this man. That's not a problem Paizo needs to address, that's a problem with the player, as I can tell you he does not make characters that mesh well with the world (his current character is a wizard, who worships zon kuthon, and is a "emo goth poser". Which to him, translates into only preparing pit, grease, invisibility and enlarge person, and sitting in the back whining about how the universe is pain while invisible.) and honestly, it only creates real problems when the developer tries to cater to this mindset.Most of us have run into "that guy" at our gaming tables, whose play style is radically different from what the rest want or expect. You may have been most comfortable (assuming you were there to be so) working with 1st edition AD&D, which, if published adventures are any indication, required a lot more teamwork and planning within the party than you generally see anymore. Though even then, I have seen an interview by Tracy Hickman (who co-wrote the original Dragonlance books and the original I6 Ravenloft module) talk about pulling a "Leroy Jenkins" on a party he played with, so maybe it's more the player type that the game at large.
May I also suggest that you may find this article on EN World an interesting read. It seems to be saying many of the same things you are, from a game...
Functionally, yep. Though it doesn't address the issue I see, or rather maybe it doesn't quite see it the same way I do. The problem isn't that players are one man armies, PC's are supposed to be adventurers and functionally a single adventurer is equal to several NPC's or monsters, except the unnaturally powerful ones in which case a group of adventurers is often equal to one of them. The problem I see is that these players often have an unrealistic expectation to how their character should interact with the world around them.
Like, your actions in the game should have consequences. They don't need to be on the level of butterfly effect or that stepping on a blade of grass so drastically changes the future so that monkeys rule the earth, but there does need to be some ramification, a logical reaction by the world your PC inhabits, to the PC's various actions and behaviors. If I play a necromancer (Which I do from time to time, chaotic neutral) I usually have to role play in a way where I have to hide my undead minions outside of towns, or not talk during specific dialogues, because MY character's actions of resurrecting 10 dead bodies in the town as undead minions to fight off the bandits trying to murder everyone in the town, even if for a good cause, just doesn't usually gel well with the families of those dead bodies. And sure, my character can react however he wants to, but I can't just expect to get away with some wonky anime haired protagonist BS. And I don't mind crazy like this ON OCCASION, it's when that is their sole style of play that I don't like it. Like the guy that genuinely thinks lawful-good = lawful stupid, and makes the now famous quote to paladin players "you can do what the law says, I'LL do what's right", I'd love to meet anyone who would never get tired of playing with that guy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I voted in the poll, a few days ago.
No. Our group won't be switching to PF2E. We have finally houseruled and homebrewed our modified version of PF1E to our liking.
Right now, if I were to switch, it would either be to Castles-n-Crusades or DnD5E. But, won't even do that as I still like PF1 better and can import from those two games and other editions and variants of End, as desired (with a little bit of work).
I may run some PF2E adventures using the Pathfinder Legacy (house ruled) rules set though, if an adventure really captures my interest. But, I have a lot of adventures to run, already, and Rappan Atthuk awaits!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on what I've seen so far, not a chance. Major changes would need to be made between now and release for me to consider switching over wholesale, though that doesn't mean I won't buy some of the products (e.g. adventures). 2E has a few ideas worth stealing but overall, doesn't fix my major issues with Pathfinder and makes several of them (notably the extreme level-scaling) worse. Its good ideas are never implemented in the most straightforward and intuitive way, nor the one that would be easiest to balance; most are saddled with limitations and exceptions and special cases until you wonder what the point of making the change in the first place was, if they're just going to kludge it back into something that plays like the old version. No thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may have been most comfortable (assuming you were there to be so) working with 1st edition AD&D, which, if published adventures are any indication, required a lot more teamwork and planning within the party than you generally see anymore.
I am moving my new P1 campaign towards a more AD&D play style.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Voted.
I won't switch.
It would have been a tough sell anyways, and then PF2 went in the opposite direction on everything and added essentially nothing of value from my perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, your actions in the game should have consequences. They don't need to be on the level of butterfly effect or that stepping on a blade of grass so drastically changes the future so that monkeys rule the earth, but there does need to be some ramification, a logical reaction by the world your PC inhabits, to the PC's various actions and behaviors. If I play a necromancer (Which I do from time to time, chaotic neutral) I usually have to role play in a way where I have to hide my undead minions outside of towns, or not talk during specific dialogues, because MY character's actions of resurrecting 10 dead bodies in the town as undead minions to fight off the bandits trying to murder everyone in the town, even if for a good cause, just doesn't usually gel well with the families of those dead bodies. And sure, my character can react however he wants to, but I can't just expect to get away with some wonky anime haired protagonist BS. And I don't mind crazy like this ON OCCASION, it's when that is their sole style of play that I don't like it. Like the guy that genuinely thinks lawful-good = lawful stupid, and makes the now famous quote to paladin players "you can do what the law says, I'LL do what's right", I'd love to meet anyone who would never get tired of playing with that guy.
Agreed 100%, though in my mind, assigning consequences to player actions is more of a GM's construct than that of the game system. Systems that create "one man armies", however, do seem to enable players with a Gawd Complex more than others.
Like, your actions in the game should have consequences. They don't need to be on the level of butterfly effect or that stepping on a blade of grass so drastically changes the future so that monkeys rule the earth, but there does need to be some ramification, a logical reaction by the world your PC inhabits, to the PC's various actions and behaviors. If I play a necromancer (Which I do from time to time, chaotic neutral) I usually have to role play in a way where I have to hide my undead minions outside of towns, or not talk during specific dialogues, because MY character's actions of resurrecting 10 dead bodies in the town as undead minions to fight off the bandits trying to murder everyone in the town, even if for a good cause, just doesn't usually gel well with the families of those dead bodies. And sure, my character can react however he wants to, but I can't just expect to get away with some wonky anime haired protagonist BS. And I don't mind crazy like this ON OCCASION, it's when that is their sole style of play that I don't like it. Like the guy that genuinely thinks lawful-good = lawful stupid, and makes the now famous quote to paladin players "you can do what the law says, I'LL do what's right", I'd love to meet anyone who would never get tired of playing with that guy.Agreed 100%, though in my mind, assigning consequences to player actions is more of a GM's construct than that of the game system. Systems that create "one man armies", however, do seem to enable players with a Gawd Complex more than others.
I don't think I would call it a god complex, as much as I would just call it being spoiled and lacking a real understanding of consequence. Like, the more of these players I encounter, the more I imagine their parents never told them "no" or disciplined them when they did something wrong. My mother tanned my hide when I was a little turd, so I learned my manners. I've gotten to know a few of these types IRL while I was in college, and I noticed that it wasn't just in game that they held this type of thinking. It's just how they think in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not switching
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Voted. Not switching.
I really hope Paizo proves my fears wrong and creates something great, but my hopes have been dying bit by bit as the playtest has gone on, and at this point I'm the last person in my group who even cares about the future of Pathfinder. The rest have already started purchasing books from WotC and planning D&D 5e campaigns, with occasional talk of playing PF1 adventures that we haven't gotten around to yet.
Even if the new edition ends up being great (which, at this point, I don't think is going to happen), I doubt I'll even be able to get the entire group to willingly come back and give it a try. Too much animosity.
So... Yeah, we're almost certainly not playing PF2. At best, I may keep up with adventures if they seem easy enough to convert backwards to PF1.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Voted. Certainly not switching unless they suprise me and turn 180° in the opposite direction with almost everything from the Playtest. It simply isn't Pathfinder anymore