Paizo you guys are making a HUGE brand mistake trending towards 5e.

[Zoopshab]

Dnd 5e already exists. What does a player think of when they hear 5e. Thats the tabletop RPG thats easy to learn and flows quickly.

What do players think of they hear Pathfinder? Thats the tabletop RPG that's really complex and in-depth when you learn its ruleset.

Trying to make your game more like 5e leaves you no market advantage. And abandons the niche you already have.

You are going completely in the wrong direction. You should be preserving what you already have and adding to your in-depth complexity. Consolidating the FAQ issues and re-release with cleaned up ruling, ammendments and retractions. You already have the FAQ as a base that has done so much work already.

Dnd 5e is already a strong product that was first to market. You aren't entering the market in the same condition where 4e was released. You are going to make yourselfs into a second rate also-ran.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

Are you trying to stop the playtest with this post? I'm not sure what the purpose is. This was zero percent constructive.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

So wait, Paizo has to make a pointlessly complicated and confusing game in order to preserve their brand name?

Why on earth would anyone want to be known for a game that's clunky and full of so many options (80% of which are traps, 10% of which are situational, and the other 10% breaking the game entirely) that it's more fat than a blue whale?

Granted, I am exaggerating those statements some (though others would say they are accurate), but I can assure you that there are so many problems with PF1 that still resulted in them being inferior to 5e, especially when there isn't going to be a "more of the same" market or OGL to poach from this time around. Telling them to respect an objectively inferior niche is not going to help them surpass the sales and popularity of 5E.

On top of that, surpassing the sales of 5E has been stated to not be a design goal of PF2, so expecting them to meet something of that magnitude is not one of their priorities.

[Excaliburproxy]

Zoopshab wrote:

Dnd 5e already exists. What does a player think of when they hear 5e. Thats the tabletop RPG thats easy to learn and flows quickly.

What do players think of they hear Pathfinder? Thats the tabletop RPG that's really complex and in-depth when you learn its ruleset.

Trying to make your game more like 5e leaves you no market advantage. And abandons the niche you already have.

You are going completely in the wrong direction. You should be preserving what you already have and adding to your in-depth complexity. Consolidating the FAQ issues and re-release with cleaned up ruling, ammendments and retractions. You already have the FAQ as a base that has done so much work already.

Dnd 5e is already a strong product that was first to market. You aren't entering the market in the same condition where 4e was released. You are going to make yourselfs into a second rate also-ran.

I would certainly argue that 2E pathfinder does offer a far deeper and more complex rules set than 5E DnD does. I also don't think publishing more 3.5 amendments is the right way to go. That engine already has a massive amount of content, I have already played it to death, and it has a slew of built-in structural issues.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

Are you trying to stop the playtest with this post? I'm not sure what the purpose is. This was zero percent constructive.

"I said I want to swim into magma no matter what! Are you trying to stop me? This is 0% constructive"

[Tarik Blackhands]

Oh hey. This thread again.

takes a shot

[Gorbacz]

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

Are you trying to stop the playtest with this post? I'm not sure what the purpose is. This was zero percent constructive.

"I said I want to swim into magma no matter what! Are you trying to stop me? This is 0% constructive"

Hey there! Phew, so glad you're alive and fine. There's a fascinating thread of yours you seemingly forgot about!

[Brother Fen]

Woo hoo! *chug*chug*chug*

[Ephialtes]

Zoopshab wrote:

Dnd 5e already exists. What does a player think of when they hear 5e. Thats the tabletop RPG thats easy to learn and flows quickly.

What do players think of they hear Pathfinder? Thats the tabletop RPG that's really complex and in-depth when you learn its ruleset.

Trying to make your game more like 5e leaves you no market advantage. And abandons the niche you already have.

You are going completely in the wrong direction. You should be preserving what you already have and adding to your in-depth complexity. Consolidating the FAQ issues and re-release with cleaned up ruling, ammendments and retractions. You already have the FAQ as a base that has done so much work already.

Dnd 5e is already a strong product that was first to market. You aren't entering the market in the same condition where 4e was released. You are going to make yourselfs into a second rate also-ran.

First, 5e might be easy to learn, but only because it is significantly dumbed down. I played a lot of 5e and got bored by this oversimplification so especially the PF2 playtest appealed to me because it is not that bloated than PF1 but if at all it is definitely not 5e.

And face it, PF1 is a product for 3.5 enthusiasts. This is a dwindling number of players. If Paizo stays in this niche they will suffer and they know it. Thus a PF2 to streamline what many love in 3.5 but also make it moore accessible to new players is a very reasonable motivator. Those new players who won't be appealed by PF1 might see PF2 as a sophisticated alternative.
So personally, PF2 appeals to me strongly and in my case I will happily leave 5e for PF2.

[Hythlodeus]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Why on earth would anyone want to be known for a game that's clunky and full of so many options (80% of which are traps, 10% of which are situational, and the other 10% breaking the game entirely) that it's more fat than a blue whale?

because it is still a better game than anything presented in this playtest

[Sara Marie]

Thanks for the feedback. There's not really much here that can produce a discussion and I don't think it's going to help anything for people to come dogpile so I'm going to close this thread up.