What should Paizo's product strategy be?


Product Discussion

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like PF2 is being written specifically to avoid the especially thorny rules interactions that PF1 had (still waiting on that gauntlet FAQ). FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".

Yup. Paizo design appears to have an extreme aversion to just owning up and saying, "you know, we wrote ourselves into a corner, let's go ahead and break things now and fix the result afterward". This is fine if GMs and players are of the classical type who are willing to make decisions for their tables without much care for whether those decisions are Rules As Written™, but that seems to be a dying art.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".
And no, I don't feel that a "by default if we have not ruled on a FAQ, it's up to you" standard operating procedure is acceptable.
Why? It's the same result as Select All -> Mark "Will Not Fix", which you seem to be okay with.

No. It's not. With silence plus default statement, there's no feedback to the audience asking for an answer as to if one is forthcoming, being considered, or fits in the "will not fix" category. Without a default statement, silence leaves the first two categories where "will not fix" is a unique state.

But you knew that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".
And no, I don't feel that a "by default if we have not ruled on a FAQ, it's up to you" standard operating procedure is acceptable.
Why? It's the same result as Select All -> Mark "Will Not Fix", which you seem to be okay with.

No. It's not. With silence plus default statement, there's no feedback to the audience asking for an answer as to if one is forthcoming, being considered, or fits in the "will not fix" category. Without a default statement, silence leaves the first two categories where "will not fix" is a unique state.

But you knew that.

Are legions of frustrated pedants sitting around waiting to see if Paizo will actually answer a FAQ? Are games literally put on hold for the duration? Or do GMs and players make their own decisions and use them until and unless Paizo publicly weighs in?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Are legions of frustrated pedants sitting around waiting to see if Paizo will actually answer a FAQ?

Have you even read the forums?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasm Elemental wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Are legions of frustrated pedants sitting around waiting to see if Paizo will actually answer a FAQ?
Have you even read the forums?

Heh, occasionally.... But generally when I ask a question, I go back to playing the game and course-correct if and when an eventual answer is offered that contradicts our original interpretation. If that's considered a novel approach, then I highly recommend trying it.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There are still people bringing up the bardic masterpieces thread, is all I'm saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The more I keep looking at the PFRPG rule books the more I wish they would make consolidated volumes. So painful having all these rules spread out.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Pretty sure that's what the Hardcover line was.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
There are still people bringing up the bardic masterpieces thread, is all I'm saying.

That's fine, if futile at this point, but hopefully they went on to play their games while they waited. Unless it was PFS, which is basically designed to exacerbate this sort of problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Pretty sure that's what the Hardcover line was.

Yup. Also, there is an Internet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Odd. I'm facing a lot of conflicted emotions as Pathfinder 2e approaches its launch Aug. 1 and 1e becomes history.

First of all, I'm absolutely dying to see what's changed in 2e since the PlayTest. I'm very much hoping there have been major changes to the action economy from what it was in the PlayTest -- which I very much didn't like. It's a critical factor. If it's still pretty much the same, a lot of other stuff is going to have to be really good to overcome my objections. I did like some of the readability enhancements I saw in PlayTest books -- and the new concept that some spells could have a crit. fail or crit. success. That's kind of cool.

Second, I hope 2e is successful -- even though I'm still committed entirely to 1e. I've got way too much of an investiment in 1e to really move forward to 2e. I'm not convinced it's going to be worth the effort to do conversions, on the fly or otherwise, to get 1e material to work in 2e or visa versa. Unless 2e is really good (and not just dumbed down as some people possibly unfairly claim), to me an elf is just an elf -- is other words in one way all these different systems are really the same thing. The challenge is really working within the systems to "win". Not really sure it matters which one in a way.

So, I'm also a bit depressed because my 1e world has become frozen in time. It now only has a past. There won't be more future. No point checking for all the exciting 1e new releases -- except, curiously, while very happy with the breadth of 1e rule books, and in spite of their flaws, I'm very happy that this set of really great books is finally finite. There won't be more rule books to overload GMs. We now have an opportunity to master the existing material -- and will do so excitedly probably for the next 10 years or so as long as we have players.

There's a number of people that really love 1e because it seems to fit the natural progression from the now overly simple D&D. I started with D&D in the 80s. We called it AD&D -- you can think of it as D&D 1e. When you play that long enough, you want more than just the core races and classes, more equipment, more spells, etc. There's no way Pathfinder 1e fans can really go to something as vanilla as D&D 5e.

I hope that as Pathfinder 2e evolves that it leaves room for people like us to continue to embrace complexity even as, perhaps, others don't. Please don't forget us. Pathfinder 1e will be in our hearts forever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Odd. I'm facing a lot of conflicted emotions as Pathfinder 2e approaches its launch Aug. 1 and 1e becomes history.

First of all, I'm absolutely dying to see what's changed in 2e since the PlayTest. I'm very much hoping there have been major changes to the action economy from what it was in the PlayTest -- which I very much didn't like. It's a critical factor. If it's still pretty much the same, a lot of other stuff is going to have to be really good to overcome my objections. I did like some of the readability enhancements I saw in PlayTest books -- and the new concept that some spells could have a crit. fail or crit. success. That's kind of cool.

Second, I hope 2e is successful -- even though I'm still committed entirely to 1e. I've got way too much of an investiment in 1e to really move forward to 2e. I'm not convinced it's going to be worth the effort to do conversions, on the fly or otherwise, to get 1e material to work in 2e or visa versa. Unless 2e is really good (and not just dumbed down as some people possibly unfairly claim), to me an elf is just an elf -- is other words in one way all these different systems are really the same thing. The challenge is really working within the systems to "win". Not really sure it matters which one in a way.

So, I'm also a bit depressed because my 1e world has become frozen in time. It now only has a past. There won't be more future. No point checking for all the exciting 1e new releases -- except, curiously, while very happy with the breadth of 1e rule books, and in spite of their flaws, I'm very happy that this set of really great books is finally finite. There won't be more rule books to overload GMs. We now have an opportunity to master the existing material -- and will do so excitedly probably for the next 10 years or so as long as we have players.

There's a number of people that really love 1e because it seems to fit the natural progression from the now overly simple D&D. I started with D&D in the 80s. We called it AD&D -- you can...

Right there with you, even down to the ADnD 1980's references (I started with the 3 booklet White Box set).

Going forward? While I lament the loss of future AP's (I dropped my AP subscription), I figure that I can always follow the 2E discussions of each AP - likely lots of tips/hints/etc at where the future AP's are going to take Golarion - and use those as inspiration for homebrew adventures. I have no interest in trying to convert 2E back to 1E, and have so much 1E material, I can pretty much use what I have for the rest of my life. Each person's iteration of Golarion will be unique - and the end of the 1E line doesn't necessarily have to mean that your Golarion has to be frozen in time too.

I see the advent of 2E being just like the "Time of Troubles" (and other such) when WotC does Edition Changes. All the AP's are assumed to be completed going into the 2E version of Golarion. Great if you want to "reboot the franchise" but useless if you still want that uncertainty of playing through a 1E AP and letting the result impact your version of Golarion (well, at least if you have a persistent world and don't run AP's in isolation). There are AP's I still want to run, and have the result impact my version of the world, without regard for what will be 2E canon going forward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By creating 2e has Paizo opened the door to losing more market share to D&D 5e?

I've looked at 2e. I'm staying with 1e, unless we lose all our players.

I very much like Pathfinder. With the colorful PDFs, it's very accommodating to the VTT environment I've grown to love.

For reasons that still perplex me, D&D 5e (last I check) still has no material in PDF format -- but 1e through 4e do.

Given the choice between oblivion (the loss of our 1e players) and playing 2e, I'd probably be forced to give up the ghost and go back to D&D.

Pathfinder 1e is really my most favorite RPG -- and I very much hope it doesn't come to that!

Paizo, I really think that to compete with 5e that a simplified variation of 1e would have had a better chance -- one that could have allowed players to scale up to full 1e if they decided too after becoming more experienced players.

I can't really stand looking at 2e.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That ship has sailed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
By creating 2e has Paizo opened the door to losing more market share to D&D 5e?

Market share isn't terribly important in an expanding market (like RPGs).

I'm sure Paizo would love to capture a larger proportion of the gaming dollar, but equally sure that they wouldn't have that as a performance indicator. They need to keep the lights on, pay the staff and put some money away for a rainy day. That will be their goal, not fruitlessly trying to triumph in an almost unwinnable battle.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
a simplified variation of 1e would have had a better chance -- one that could have allowed players to scale up to full 1e if they decided too after becoming more experienced players.

That would be the PF1 Beginner Box


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
a simplified variation of 1e would have had a better chance -- one that could have allowed players to scale up to full 1e if they decided too after becoming more experienced players.
That would be the PF1 Beginner Box

No, the beginner box is too simple. There's simplifications that were applied to create 2e. Instead, direct those motivations to producing a paired down 1e. Just a thought if 2e doesn't catch on.

I've already talked to a DM for 5e who was laughing at all the different types of feats. I'm afraid 2e might be an easy target for things like that. It's going to affect mind share.

I'm just proposing a fail back position for Paizo if 2e doesn't work out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I'm just proposing a fail back position for Paizo if 2e doesn't work out.

We've been down this road. The fallback position is: forward.

PF1 didn't produce enough income for Paizo to justify continuing it as-was. They will have shed PF1 popularity, even if you only consider the people who do shift to PF2.

This is math.

Let X = the number of sales required for long-term survivability
Let Y = the number of sales below X that Paizo was already at
Let Z = the number of sales below X that Paizo will be at in two years

X - Y -Z = still lower than X

There's no addition sign anywhere in that equation because there's no influx of new sales. "Not enough" minus "anything" is still "not enough".

If PF2 fails, Paizo will shift to PF3, or pure Starfinder, or, or, or, but revisiting the past is not very likely at all.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

By creating 2e has Paizo opened the door to losing more market share to D&D 5e?

I've looked at 2e. I'm staying with 1e, unless we lose all our players.

I very much like Pathfinder. With the colorful PDFs, it's very accommodating to the VTT environment I've grown to love.

For reasons that still perplex me, D&D 5e (last I check) still has no material in PDF format -- but 1e through 4e do.

Given the choice between oblivion (the loss of our 1e players) and playing 2e, I'd probably be forced to give up the ghost and go back to D&D.

Pathfinder 1e is really my most favorite RPG -- and I very much hope it doesn't come to that!

Paizo, I really think that to compete with 5e that a simplified variation of 1e would have had a better chance -- one that could have allowed players to scale up to full 1e if they decided too after becoming more experienced players.

I can't really stand looking at 2e.

I mostly agree with you... But I don't see how simplifying 1E is going to help; the fact they gutted everything about 1E to make 2E is why I dislike 2E.

D&D 5e appeals to people who didn't even play pen and paper RPGs, or anything remotely similar before they started; its "easy to learn"... Pathfinder's appeal was NOT about that, it was the system for people who were familiar with more complicated systems, and were having trouble gearing down into a system gutted of all its subtle interactions and choices.

I got into Pathfinder... Because when I was a kid, I played Baldur's Gate, and I wanted to have a chance to play more of it given the series was "over" back then.

I think reproducing that is probably going to be the main way Pathfinder may get some new life in it. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is probably going to bring quite a few people into Pathfinder, assuming it gets advertised.

Its a great option for people who can never manage to find enough people to form a group for Pathfinder; and people who don't play Pathfinder are going to find it easier to get into because it doesn't require as much planning to start playing.

... He said, wishing for the same for Starfinder as well because I'm stuck as a perma-GM in that.


Anguish wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I'm just proposing a fail back position for Paizo if 2e doesn't work out.

We've been down this road. The fallback position is: forward.

PF1 didn't produce enough income for Paizo to justify continuing it as-was. They will have shed PF1 popularity, even if you only consider the people who do shift to PF2.

This is math.

Let X = the number of sales required for long-term survivability
Let Y = the number of sales below X that Paizo was already at
Let Z = the number of sales below X that Paizo will be at in two years

X - Y -Z = still lower than X

There's no addition sign anywhere in that equation because there's no influx of new sales. "Not enough" minus "anything" is still "not enough".

If PF2 fails, Paizo will shift to PF3, or pure Starfinder, or, or, or, but revisiting the past is not very likely at all.

Says you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luna Protege wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

By creating 2e has Paizo opened the door to losing more market share to D&D 5e?

I've looked at 2e. I'm staying with 1e, unless we lose all our players.

I very much like Pathfinder. With the colorful PDFs, it's very accommodating to the VTT environment I've grown to love.

For reasons that still perplex me, D&D 5e (last I check) still has no material in PDF format -- but 1e through 4e do.

Given the choice between oblivion (the loss of our 1e players) and playing 2e, I'd probably be forced to give up the ghost and go back to D&D.

Pathfinder 1e is really my most favorite RPG -- and I very much hope it doesn't come to that!

Paizo, I really think that to compete with 5e that a simplified variation of 1e would have had a better chance -- one that could have allowed players to scale up to full 1e if they decided too after becoming more experienced players.

I can't really stand looking at 2e.

I mostly agree with you... But I don't see how simplifying 1E is going to help; the fact they gutted everything about 1E to make 2E is why I dislike 2E.

D&D 5e appeals to people who didn't even play pen and paper RPGs, or anything remotely similar before they started; its "easy to learn"... Pathfinder's appeal was NOT about that, it was the system for people who were familiar with more complicated systems, and were having trouble gearing down into a system gutted of all its subtle interactions and choices.

I got into Pathfinder... Because when I was a kid, I played Baldur's Gate, and I wanted to have a chance to play more of it given the series was "over" back then.

I think reproducing that is probably going to be the main way Pathfinder may get some new life in it. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is probably going to bring quite a few people into Pathfinder, assuming it gets advertised.

Its a great option for people who can never manage to find enough people to form a group for Pathfinder; and people who don't play Pathfinder are going to find it easier to...

Simplifying 1e as a gateway to full 1e for those who may eventually seek out a more complex game. This is something that neither 5e nor 2e can offer. 2e strikes me as a me-too attempt to have a 5e but may not have done it as well.

I think the error here was to fail to do something smart and interesting in a new addition, but, rather, focus on a very young demographic that will quickly out grow and tire of 2e. 2e just doesn't adapt to a more sophisticated group, from what I see. Probably should start thinking about a 3e, if there's enough creative energy left.

Regardless of all the chatter, I still believe Pathfinder 1e was the best RPG I have ever experienced. Yes, it had flaws, but from what I see in 2e it looks like the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

I hope I'm wrong because I'd like to see Paizo continue to be successful.

What I think will happen is players, when given a choice of 5e or 2e, mostly it will be 5e. 2e is kind of a head scratcher. In a number of different places, such as the Bestiary that lists ability modifiers instead of ability scores because people don't want to do the math in their head, it just seems like we the fans have been greatly underestimated -- or middle school kids are the primary demographic.

Does 5e insult its players with simplifications like that? I'm really asking because I don't know. Given the choice between the two, I'd rather succumb to the RPG that at least still respects me.

But as long as I can still play 1e, I don't have to worry about it.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:


a more sophisticated group

people don't want to do the math in their head

middle school kids are the primary demographic

insult its players with simplifications

The fact that you prefer complicated game systems does not mean that you are more intelligent or sophisticated than a person who prefers less complicated game systems. There's no correlation between the preference and mental capability.

My 5e group has three people with degrees in Law, one M.D. and one PhD. They are extremely intelligent people, they just prefer more streamlined gaming systems where they spend less time fiddling around with rules and more time storytelling for their weekly RPGing.

Your error in understanding this leads you to groundless elitism where you see yourself as superior on the count of your gaming preferences. You're doing no favour to yourself, your position, your chances of anybody taking you seriously or frankly the hobby as a whole. It's neither wise nor powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:


a more sophisticated group

people don't want to do the math in their head

middle school kids are the primary demographic

insult its players with simplifications

The fact that you prefer complicated game systems does not mean that you are more intelligent or sophisticated than a person who prefers less complicated game systems. There's no correlation between the preference and mental capability.

My 5e group has three people with degrees in Law, one M.D. and one PhD. They are extremely intelligent people, they just prefer more streamlined gaming systems where they spend less time fiddling around with rules and more time storytelling for their weekly RPGing.

Your error in understanding this leads you to groundless elitism where you see yourself as superior on the count of your gaming preferences. You're doing no favour to yourself, your position, your chances of anybody taking you seriously or frankly the hobby as a whole. It's neither wise nor powerful.

Your edits to my text somewhat put it out of context. Can't play by the rules or are you trying to over simplify things?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I can and that's what I do, what these quotes do is show the context. And the context is your view that PF2/5e are simplistic games undeserving the attention of a sophisticated gamer. Apart from the fact that PF2 is significantly more complicated than 5e and lumping them together has little merit, these quotes pretty much paint the whole picture of your position one needs to make an educated opinion of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope that 2e is a success and that everything I've said here doesn't matter about my impressions. Those of you who are the next generation of RPG players deserve to have your time ... and I wish you the best!


I worry also about trying to formulate a future for Paizo based heavily on Starfinder.

Check this out ... Stargate RPG based on 5e

I don't know if Starfinder can stand up to that. Stargate has a lot of appeal and is perfect for an adventure-based RPG.


Gorbacz wrote:

I can and that's what I do, what these quotes do is show the context. And the context is your view that PF2/5e are simplistic games undeserving the attention of a sophisticated gamer. Apart from the fact that PF2 is significantly more complicated than 5e and lumping them together has little merit, these quotes pretty much paint the whole picture of your position one needs to make an educated opinion of it.

I have been looking at 2e in detail. I admit I have not looked at 5e so much.

What are the primary advantages of 2e over 5e?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I worry also about trying to formulate a future for Paizo based heavily on Starfinder.

Check this out ... Stargate RPG based on 5e

I don't know if Starfinder can stand up to that. Stargate has a lot of appeal and is perfect for an adventure-based RPG.

They don’t have to for the same reason they don’t have to stand up to Star Wars RPGs.

Starfinder is a Science Fantasy roleplaying game.

A Star Wars game is not a Scifi nor Science Fantasy game, it’s a Star Wars game.

Same with Stargate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I worry also about trying to formulate a future for Paizo based heavily on Starfinder.

Check this out ... Stargate RPG based on 5e

I don't know if Starfinder can stand up to that. Stargate has a lot of appeal and is perfect for an adventure-based RPG.

They don’t have to for the same reason they don’t have to stand up to Star Wars RPGs.

Starfinder is a Science Fantasy roleplaying game.

A Star Wars game is not a Scifi nor Science Fantasy game, it’s a Star Wars game.

Same with Stargate.

Good point. Maybe not. Starfinder also has a magic element that can't really be explained in a Stargate RPG. That might very well give Starfinder an edge, but I don't connect with the Starfinder artwork on the core rulebook cover. Just looks to childish for me.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I worry also about trying to formulate a future for Paizo based heavily on Starfinder.

Check this out ... Stargate RPG based on 5e

I don't know if Starfinder can stand up to that. Stargate has a lot of appeal and is perfect for an adventure-based RPG.

They don’t have to for the same reason they don’t have to stand up to Star Wars RPGs.

Starfinder is a Science Fantasy roleplaying game.

A Star Wars game is not a Scifi nor Science Fantasy game, it’s a Star Wars game.

Same with Stargate.

Good point. Maybe not. Starfinder also has a magic element that can't really be explained in a Stargate RPG. That might very well give Starfinder an edge, but I don't connect with the Starfinder artwork on the core rulebook cover. Just looks to childish for me.

I don't think artwork is really what we should be concerned about in terms of systems to play; the system itself is the primary concern.

Which in terms of which system to pick; the one I tend to favor is the ones that reward the pursuit of mastery. Starfinder does this pretty well for a game with only a few books out.

Pathfinder First edition, meanwhile, was the MASTER of the art of rewarding the pursuit of mastery.

Guess where both D&D 5e and PF2E fail?

For me, the question of whether to go Pathfinder 1st Edition or Starfinder came down to how much I could stand a setting that requires being stuck in medieval stasis; which isn't TOO bad in Pathfinder, but I was always going to struggle with the fact that the game would fall apart if I purposefully gave a High Science gun to every adventurer and their mother after annexing Numeria at the end of a Kingmaker AP.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I'm just proposing a fail back position for Paizo if 2e doesn't work out.

We've been down this road. The fallback position is: forward.

PF1 didn't produce enough income for Paizo to justify continuing it as-was. They will have shed PF1 popularity, even if you only consider the people who do shift to PF2.

This is math.

Let X = the number of sales required for long-term survivability
Let Y = the number of sales below X that Paizo was already at
Let Z = the number of sales below X that Paizo will be at in two years

X - Y -Z = still lower than X

There's no addition sign anywhere in that equation because there's no influx of new sales. "Not enough" minus "anything" is still "not enough".

If PF2 fails, Paizo will shift to PF3, or pure Starfinder, or, or, or, but revisiting the past is not very likely at all.

Says you.

Let me know when you're interested in a conversation instead of the repeated monologues.


Anguish wrote:
Let me know when you're interested in a conversation instead of the repeated monologues.

Hold on, I'll try and address that directly, since I've touched on this before.

Anguish wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I'm just proposing a fail back position for Paizo if 2e doesn't work out.

We've been down this road. The fallback position is: forward.

PF1 didn't produce enough income for Paizo to justify continuing it as-was. They will have shed PF1 popularity, even if you only consider the people who do shift to PF2.

This is math.

Let X = the number of sales required for long-term survivability
Let Y = the number of sales below X that Paizo was already at
Let Z = the number of sales below X that Paizo will be at in two years

X - Y -Z = still lower than X

There's no addition sign anywhere in that equation because there's no influx of new sales. "Not enough" minus "anything" is still "not enough".

If PF2 fails, Paizo will shift to PF3, or pure Starfinder, or, or, or, but revisiting the past is not very likely at all.

There's two problems with this analysis; X is a figure with shifting variables. Namely the cost of production divided by the price they set for the end product. If they set the price too high, they make more of a return per book but are less likely to sell each book, if they lower the price more books are sold but they don't make anything from it.

The other problem is the more important question: How do you get people who MIGHT want to spend money on the product if they knew about the product to do so? How do you make them aware the product even exists, and that it suits their interests?

From what I understand, there's virtually zero outreach to attempt to raise the number of books purchased by those not already in the role-playing circles; and very little outreach to convince those playing D&D 5e to try Pathfinder or Starfinder.

Plowing forward with accessibility isn't going to do any good if the people you're trying to make the game more accessible to don't even know you exist. Its like trying to sell an elixir of immortality on the peaks of a remote and obscure mountaintop, and just expecting people to come without telling anyone you're up there, or that you're selling the elixir.

... Or setting up a lemonade stand in a back-alley where there's no foot traffic.

Making a more accessible game isn't enough, its not even really advisable when the appeal of this game has been its use as a more "high end product" than D&D; a step upward for those seeking to play a much more tactical game.

Basically this game needs advertising. You need to plaster the games over every surface you can, and once you've found out how many more people are buying books because of that, you can look at your profits before deducting advertising costs and say "great, now we know how much we can afford to spend on advertising".

Honestly, at this point, I'd probably make a deal with an advertising company along the lines of "if you can promote our product enough to put us into a positive profit margin that will give us long term survivability, we'll give you (x) percent of that profit margin for that month... If you can't make us profitable, you get nothing."

... Which would essentially give that company an incentive to find the MOST effective way to advertise your product; as every time you make more money, they make more money.


Luna Protege wrote:

Pathfinder First edition, meanwhile, was the MASTER of the art of rewarding the pursuit of mastery.

Guess where both D&D 5e and PF2E fail?

Should "rewarding the pursuit of mastery" be a primary goal of a tabletop game of this type? Figuring out broken optimal rule combinations is fun, but is this what the game's all about?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:

Pathfinder First edition, meanwhile, was the MASTER of the art of rewarding the pursuit of mastery.

Guess where both D&D 5e and PF2E fail?

Should "rewarding the pursuit of mastery" be a primary goal of a tabletop game of this type? Figuring out broken optimal rule combinations is fun, but is this what the game's all about?

Considering that the purpose of a game is to have fun, and you JUST said its fun to make optimal rule combinations, then I would say yes.

Or rather, I'd say this is a niche that distinguishes it from D&D; and having a game that follows the same path as D&D is going isn't the right path, because people who like what D&D is offering will just play D&D.

For this game to survive, it needs to have a driving philosophy that's different from what D&D is offering. If D&D's philosophy is "the fantasy game EVERYONE can play", then Pathfinder will find a solid base as "the next level in tactical roleplaying games".

There are always going to be people who want to take their experience to the next level, and for quite some time, Pathfinder 1st Edition has been that game. I'd say stick with that.

... Because otherwise, if Pathfinder were to disappear, SOMEONE ELSE will end up making their OWN "High Tactics Roleplaying game" just so they have something to play on that level, and suddenly you've lost a potential niche to market to.

Thinking about it, the one angle you might have on why such a thing isn't necessarily the goal... Is if we make note of the existence of something like Warhammer 40k, which is also a game with a high skill ceiling, but unlike Pathfinder and D&D is a purely tactical game, not a roleplaying game.

But that's only really an argument if one's suggesting removing the roleplaying from the game, and adding more tactical elements to a game does NOT remove the roleplaying from the equation.

In fact, there are many aspects you can add to a roleplaying game while keeping the roleplaying aspects besides just boosting the tactical side, but tactics is what Pathfinder 1st Edition already does better than D&D, so this is why I focus on it.

Coincidentally, some of the alternatives have been covered by quite a few of Pathfinder's optional rules, such as downtime, Kingdom Building, Organizations, and such... But those are some pretty crude rules there, which could have really used a touch up, considering how little reward you get from them... But they're not as much of a focus of this game as being able to customize your character, and play out a highly tactical combat encounter.

... This is coming from someone who's been mocked as "wanting to play a city builder instead" in the times I've been stuck in D&D 5e campaigns and ended up ignoring or avoiding combat in favor of political maneuvering because the combat was dull.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hm. I've been watching a review of 2e on YouTube. I am hearing some very impressive things.

I may have expecting 2e to be too much "like" D&D and 1e, rather than a major rethinking of these RPGs.

I'm hearing about a lot of issues in these other game system being resolved. I didn't really expect that.

I'm committed a huge amount of time and money to 1e (including 9 months of work on VTT macros), but I can see the possibility of 2e in my future.

I just don't have the resources right now, but I will be taking a much deeper look at it.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Hm. I've been watching a review of 2e on YouTube. I am hearing some very impressive things.

I may have expecting 2e to be too much "like" D&D and 1e, rather than a major rethinking of these RPGs.

I'm hearing about a lot of issues in these other game system being resolved. I didn't really expect that.

I'm committed a huge amount of time and money to 1e (including 9 months of work on VTT macros), but I can see the possibility of 2e in my future.

I just don't have the resources right now, but I will be taking a much deeper look at it.

I have not heard what kind of issues have been "solved" in 2E, or even what issues they had With PF1E to begin with.

What I do know, is that its taken up at least one of the same problems of D&D 5e that annoys me there, and continues to annoy me in PF2E: Class Rigidity.

Here's a simple exercise to illustrate, by attempting to fill in the brackets with random combinations:

"I play a (Class) who specializes in (technique)"

... And ask yourself if that build is at all as viable as it would have been in another system; would playing such a character in one of the systems be needlessly handicapping yourself?

For example:
A Paladin who specializes in Unarmed Combat
Or A Barbarian who specializes in Ranged Combat

These two examples are two I could find immediately as implausible in PF2E... They're also implausible in D&D 5e as well. Both are POSSIBLE to make without handicapping yourself in PF1E however.

Special note for Unarmed in PF2E, not even the multi-class Archetypes allow you to become anything above trained in Unarmed.

This is somewhat a shame, because I really liked Saint Seiya, and so an armored champion of a god that forsakes weapons by their god's command in favor of fighting with their bare fists really appeals to me.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Luna Protege wrote:
Both are POSSIBLE to make without handicapping yourself in PF1E however.

With just the core rulebook?


Luna Protege wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Hm. I've been watching a review of 2e on YouTube. I am hearing some very impressive things.

I may have expecting 2e to be too much "like" D&D and 1e, rather than a major rethinking of these RPGs.

I'm hearing about a lot of issues in these other game system being resolved. I didn't really expect that.

I'm committed a huge amount of time and money to 1e (including 9 months of work on VTT macros), but I can see the possibility of 2e in my future.

I just don't have the resources right now, but I will be taking a much deeper look at it.

I have not heard what kind of issues have been "solved" in 2E, or even what issues they had With PF1E to begin with.

What I do know, is that its taken up at least one of the same problems of D&D 5e that annoys me there, and continues to annoy me in PF2E: Class Rigidity.

Here's a simple exercise to illustrate, by attempting to fill in the brackets with random combinations:

"I play a (Class) who specializes in (technique)"

... And ask yourself if that build is at all as viable as it would have been in another system; would playing such a character in one of the systems be needlessly handicapping yourself?

For example:
A Paladin who specializes in Unarmed Combat
Or A Barbarian who specializes in Ranged Combat

These two examples are two I could find immediately as implausible in PF2E... They're also implausible in D&D 5e as well. Both are POSSIBLE to make without handicapping yourself in PF1E however.

Special note for Unarmed in PF2E, not even the multi-class Archetypes allow you to become anything above trained in Unarmed.

This is somewhat a shame, because I really liked Saint Seiya, and so an armored champion of a god that forsakes weapons by their god's command in favor of fighting with their bare fists really appeals to me.

One example is spell lists in D&D and 1e have become too generic. Sometimes we can't even tell the difference between a divine and an arcane spell caster. So, in this case, I'd say there isn't enough class rigidity. At least part of this issue has been addressed in 2e.

Another issue that has been addressed is better roleplaying. Apparently, each character not only has not only traditional skills but, for example, might also have social skills.

Skills become more interesting in 2e, for example, because some characters (classes) can not only intimidate as we know it but they could intimidate someone to death (out of fright).

There's parts of 2e I wasn't thrilled with and I still see a lot of value in 1e, but I'm beginning to see the point of 2e development. Seems like there's enough there to overlook some things that might rub traditional, older players the wrong way and consider a new perspective. It's hard because 2e tries to be different and fix a number of issues we're so used to overlooking in D&D and 1e because many have been there since or near the beginning.

Different is sometimes hard. I've heard enough about 2e, though, that it seems worth it to tough it out and consider a very new (perhaps revolutionary) perspective. For the parts you just don't like, consider using home rules to fix it.

But, really, I think an amazing number of issues never addressed before may have been ironed out in 2e and it's worth a good hard look.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Luna Protege wrote:
What I do know, is that its taken up at least one of the same problems of D&D 5e that annoys me there, and continues to annoy me in PF2E: Class Rigidity.

The distinction between class-based systems and open systems is a genuine one, in my opinion.

There's an advantage to class-based systems (in that it's easy to create well known tropes without much work) but a disadvantage also (in that it's nothing like the way real people accumulate abilities, except on the coarsest scale - so playing off-type to a well known archetype or creating PCs with a mishmash of abilities is much more difficult).

PF1 and 3.5 covered up for the weakness via a plethora of classes - the problem is still there, but the more classes there are the harder it is to find a PC you want to play who doesn't fit one of them. If PF2 is going to try and provide the same experience, it's going to take several years, I'd expect.

The classes of PF2 aren't particularly rigid in theory - since so much is provided via feats and they can always invent more feats (half a dozen carefully constructed Paladin class feats could easily be geared towards an unarmed combat build, similarly with the ranged barbarian). It's not going to happen in a hurry though.


Rysky wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Both are POSSIBLE to make without handicapping yourself in PF1E however.
With just the core rulebook?

... Hmm... Fair point, but even as much as it got easier after supplements beyond the core book, it was at least doable right out of the core book... At least in the case of the unarmed paladin.

Here's the main Feats I had to use to make it optimal in what's out in PF1E:

Improved Unarmed Combat
Dragon Style
Power Attack
Crusader's Fist
Stunning Fist
Dragon Ferocity
Dragon Roar
Elemental Fist

The first one: Improved Unarmed Combat, a Core Rulebook ability, is the only one that's absolutely necessary to make it work. The die used for unarmed strikes is a minor thing.

There's also Power Attack, and Stunning Fist in the Core Rulebook, but the latter was only necessary for qualifying for some of the other feats.

So strictly speaking; in core, it at least didn't handicap you; which was about as much as you could ask of any class/technique combination aside from Fighter.

However, that's still better than what PD2E currently allows you to get away with.


But the beauty of it is that you don't have to stop playing 1e to put 2e on your radar. I don't. I still have a goal of mastering all the material in the 1e rule books. I really have to with all I've invested. I've also got 3rd party material I want to use.

2e has some good ideas and where appropriate you might apply them to a 1e campaign as home rules using 1e material. Some concepts 2e seems to have been greatly refined from 1e.

We have a way to go for 2e to get caught up with a volume of material. For the 1e dedicated GM (such as myself), I recommend looking at 2e to gets some useful ideas.

I felt that stopping 1e development was like throwing out the baby with the bathwater-- but ignoring what 2e is attempting to become just because there's some (major) items we find hard to swallow with our existing perspective is also throwing another baby out with the bathwater. There's lots of good stuff in there that should not be ignored.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Luna Protege wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Luna Protege wrote:
Both are POSSIBLE to make without handicapping yourself in PF1E however.
With just the core rulebook?

... Hmm... Fair point, but even as much as it got easier after supplements beyond the core book, it was at least doable right out of the core book... At least in the case of the unarmed paladin.

Here's the main Feats I had to use to make it optimal in what's out in PF1E:

Improved Unarmed Combat
Dragon Style
Power Attack
Crusader's Fist
Stunning Fist
Dragon Ferocity
Dragon Roar
Elemental Fist

The first one: Improved Unarmed Combat, a Core Rulebook ability, is the only one that's absolutely necessary to make it work. The die used for unarmed strikes is a minor thing.

There's also Power Attack, and Stunning Fist in the Core Rulebook, but the latter was only necessary for qualifying for some of the other feats.

So strictly speaking; in core, it at least didn't handicap you; which was about as much as you could ask of any class/technique combination aside from Fighter.

However, that's still better than what PD2E currently allows you to get away with.

The Monk Dedication pretty much does what you want and more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The Monk Dedication pretty much does what you want and more.

The problem, is that exact wording of what it does, still caps unarmed at "Trained", not expert, not master, not Legendary. Which is a fundamental problem with doing proficiency this way to begin with, and there does NOT appear to be any way to boost the proficiency through feats from what I can find.

Quote:

Monk Dedication:

You become trained in unarmed attacks and gain the powerful fist class feature (page 156). You become trained in your choice of Acrobatics or Athletics; if you are already trained in both of these skills, you become trained in a skill of your choice. You become trained in monk class DC.

Special You can’t select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the monk archetype.

... Not even the Powerful Fist ability leads to it growing in proficiency to even Expert.

Quote:

Powerful Fist:

You know how to wield your fists as deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist changes to 1d6 instead of 1d4. Most people take a –2 circumstance penalty when making a lethal attack with nonlethal unarmed attacks, because they find it hard to use their fists with deadly force. You don’t take this penalty when making a lethal attack with your fist or any other unarmed attacks.

None of the other Monk Dedication feats boost it beyond this.

You may say "does all you want and more", but when my entry level standard is "the character can use unarmed strikes as well as their normal proficiency", the fact they're stuck at trained while every other weapon can go up to either Master or Legendary, the fact that non-monks are capped at trained EVEN IF they take Monk dedication means this doesn't work.

This is also a problem with the weapon proficiency feat in PF2E, as there's no "higher than trained" equivalent.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Only the Fighter Dedication can get your Offense Proficiencies to Expert.

“You may say "does all you want and more", but when my entry level standard is "the character can use unarmed strikes as well as their normal proficiency",”

That’s moving the goalposts, the situation had been whether you could make a comparable character that wasn’t a Monk or Brawler using the core rulebook. P2 does allow that.

“the fact they're stuck at trained while every other weapon can go up to either Master or Legendary, the fact that non-monks are capped at trained EVEN IF they take Monk dedication means this doesn't work.”

That’s high level territory, and only the Fighter gets Legendary.


Bringing us back on topic ...

So, does Paizo create the same volume of rule books for 2e as it did for 1e -- just try to make them better?

Or should 2e be constrained to a much smaller set of books?


Is there a guide available to help convert 1e characters to 2e?


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Is there a guide available to help convert 1e characters to 2e?

Conversion Guide


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
That’s moving the goalposts, the situation had been whether you could make a comparable character that wasn’t a Monk or Brawler using the core rulebook. P2 does allow that.

In order for it to be comparable, it has to be similarly effective. Which in terms of "similarly effective" in 2E, it would be 1d4 damage for unarmed (okay, so your Monk Dedication boosts the damage die above that, but that's not really what we're looking at here), and as a 13th level Champion, they have a proficiency bonus of +6.

... Because the chain of comparisons, is that the 1E Unarmed Paladin's damage is less than that of a monk, but their attack bonus is identical to what they as a Paladin would use for a sword.

The only other comparison would be "how much you need to invest to do that", but at this point we can in fact move the goalposts closer and say "so long as it can be gotten by level 13"; given how little the general feats peak my interest.

Because, in fact... Spending 4 general feats on Unarmed proficiency in 2E may as well be the same thing as 1 feat in 1E given how they've changed the feat economy.

Rysky wrote:
That’s high level territory, and only the Fighter gets Legendary.

Its still asking a character who spent their early levels punching things to pick up a sword because "you're better at using swords than with fists"... Despite the character not ever having used a sword in their career since they started punching things at level 1.

...

That said, I just noticed that Gauntlets are a thing in 2E though, and apparently they're simple weapons so they probably would get expert proficiency in that (also no need for Monk Dedication)... I kind of just assumed they were classed under unarmed proficiency (is this the second time I've made that mistake?)

So I probably look pretty stupid now... Possibly more so if someone mentioned spiked gloves earlier.

A lot of these same arguments could apply to Martial weapons though, or to any exotic weapon proficiency... But that narrows the ones going to have to deal with this issue down to Bards, Alchemists, and a handful of weapons for Rogues.

... Looking through "Martial Agile weapons", Starknives seem to stand out as something a Rogue is going to be annoyed they can't be expert or master in.

Edit:

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Bringing us back on topic ...

So, does Paizo create the same volume of rule books for 2e as it did for 1e -- just try to make them better?

Or should 2e be constrained to a much smaller set of books?

If they made less content, that would take me from "disappointed" in 2E to "frustrated" in it.

... The shear VOLUME of missing content in 2E could be looked at as the source of all my problems with the system. Just about everything I've complained about could be fixed by just the implementation of like TWO general feats.

... But if that's going to be in their NEXT book, then that has to be in addition to just about all the kinds of stuff you'd have found in the Advanced Players guide to be worth it.


The 2e Bestiary has ability modifiers but no ability scores.

What if an NPC suffers ability drain or damage? Assume the NPC has the odd or even ability score for that modifier?


Joana wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Is there a guide available to help convert 1e characters to 2e?
Conversion Guide

Thank you.

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / What should Paizo's product strategy be? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.