Can Someone Explain What's Going On?


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Eh, my playtest goblin paladin started with 14/16/12/10/8/16, and was fine.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Helmic wrote:
PF1.5 already exists...
Where and in what form?

That is what Pathfinder Unchained IS.

I for one am VERY VERY glad they decided to throw out the manual and start with a new Edition, I was sick of reverse engineering and converting from 3.0 > 3.5 > PF less than a year into Pathfinder and I found after a few good Hardcovers the backwards compatibilty became more of a burden than a desirable feature. For that reason I am glad to see PF2 isn't being built in a way to allow for simple conversions or with BC in mind. They needed to lose the shackles of some of their (And others) mistakes.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Helmic wrote:
PF1.5 already exists...
Where and in what form?

Everything released since the core rules has been an incremental update of the ruleset. The errata applied via FAQ and reprints has changed the game away from what 1.0 was to 1.whatever


Thanks for the heads up, TOZ. Kirthfinder is definitely a step in the right direction (for me at least). If feels closer to the PF2 I was hoping to see. I didn't even know it existed until now. I might move on to that system. My only concern is long term support and depth of content. Without a major company behind it, there's really only so much one guy can produce.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

An important thing for OP to remember is that by now, most of the people who aren't really on board with a complete rework have left to find other games to play and the majority of the feedback you're going to get are from the ones who like whats being presented.

The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

Let me give an example of a weird rule in PF2: creating ability scores. A 1st-level character's ability scores are created by starting with 10s in all scores. Then the ancestry boosts give +2 to some scores and maybe an ancestry flaw gives a -2. Next, the player selects a background, which gives +2 to one of two fixed ability scores and +2 to another ability score of the player's choice. Third, the player choses a class, which gives a +2 to the class's key ability score. Fourth, the player applies +2 to four distinct ability scores of the player's choice.

This results in 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 in some order for ancestries without a flaw and 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 in some order for ancestries with a flaw. Sometimes we might have 18, 14,...

See, here's my logic... why does it matter? How does the fluctuation of a number have any meaningful impact on whether one character is different from another? It's just numbers, they're inherently soulless husks. That consistency is by far my favorite part of the system, something I've gushed about because I absolutely abhor the insistence on randomly generated stats for 3.5-derived games. RNG stats work fine for more OSR-style games where the stats themselves don't actually have that big an impact, characters are going to die frequently anyways, and a straight up fight is often a poor option that can and should be circumvented by interaction with the environment, but in 3.5-based games having one character whose highest stat is a 14 and another character starting with a 20 for more than a couple sessions absolutely causes people to just leave in frustration. Why is one person succeeding at the thing they're supposed to be good at and another person failing to succeed at what they're supposed to be good at "variety?" They're supposed to be succeeding at two completely different things to begin with, mucking with the stats just screws up the math and balance for the surface level appearance of variation. Nevermind that it often straight up locks people out of character options.

That number is not a personality, it is not a build, all the numbers are are a raw % chance for the character to do something. I'd even go more radical and just straight up delete attributes, or replace them with a multiplier so it scales off your level. That is how little I think a number means when it comes to a character being "unique."

Rolling for personality traits, character motivations, maybe a class that you then build around if you have a tendency to always pick the same thing, those are things that would do significantly more to make one character feel different from another.

Iunno, clearly I'm not seeing something because rolling for stats is very popular, but I can't help but suspect it's more out of an old tradition that needed fixing for a long, long time. My main gripe with point buy was that it basically required an online calculator to explain to most people and "minmaxed" stats were hard to explain. PF2 goes out of its way to make you justify why your stats are the way they are. You're a dwarf, so you've got +CON, +WIS, -CHA, and you just so happened to be strong. You're a warrior, so of course you'd have +STR and then +DEX. The free boosts are distributed, so +STR, +DEX, +CON, +WIS is easily justifiable through life experience. And then the final +STR is just part of being a fighter, something you got good at just as part of training to become an adventurer. The end result is a stat array that makes sense for that character, that doesn't sacrifice fairness or workable math or fun for the sake of an old tradition. They've got strengths, they've got weaknesses, and they've got a few stats they're middling at, giving them an appropriate variety of things to excel at that their class, race, and feat choices can actually expand upon.

Meanwhile, it seems like RNG attribute generation requires umpteen houserules because everyone seems to recognize RNG attributes are actually bad but feel obligated to do it anyways. 3d6 down the line, 4d6 drop lowest, 4d6 drop lowest but the entire group uses the same array rolled by one of the players that they all vote on, 5d6 drop lowest and drop the first 18 you roll, all the houserules seem awfully concerned with using the laws of averages to take the RNG out of it and not have extreme results.

It's exactly the sort of thing that I'd want to make a corpse out of. It's not interactive, it's not actually involved, it doesn't mesh with a character's story and often directly clashes with it since the supposedly competent adventurer can't actually hit their target more than 40% of the time and has limited narrative agency because the skill checks they chose constantly fail (and failing forward, while a marked improvement, still doesn't change the fact that horrible things happen every time one character tries to interact with the world mechanically). Why do we do this to our players? Does it actually benefit the game, or is it simply a tradition, a tradition that PF2 still works with by default as an optional rule? Hell, you could probably use point buy or stat arrays too, though I don't know why when PF2's basically a much more fun and involved point buy system to begin with.

Pathfinder is dead. Long live Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:


Meanwhile, it seems like RNG attribute generation requires umpteen houserules because everyone seems to recognize RNG attributes are actually bad but feel obligated to do it anyways. 3d6 down the line, 4d6 drop lowest, 4d6 drop lowest but the entire group uses the same array rolled by one of the players that they all vote on, 5d6 drop lowest and drop the first 18 you roll, all the houserules seem awfully concerned with using the laws of averages to take the RNG out of it and not have extreme results.

Side note, but I think most of the houserules are concerned with getting higher extreme results using the excuse of avoiding low ones. Prime example: "reroll ones". If you just wanted to avoid the really bad rolls, "treat ones as twos" would suffice, but with that ones are actually better than twos, since they get you another chance at a really good roll.

I'd gravitated to "everyone rolls and then can use any of the arrays rolled". Mostly like the "vote on" one, but allows for different choices for MAD/SAD builds.

Personally, I didn't like point buy because it pushed me too much into min-max mode - agonizing over where to put those last points. Even knowing it wouldn't really matter, but I hated dealing with bad dice luck, mine or others.

I think I do like this, though I haven't completely bought into it yet. Linking it to backgrounds bothers me, since it ties background more to mechanics than I'm really fond of.


I like the backgrounds, I don’t understand the people that think that they are restrictive or that think that they enforce optimization. Yes one of the stat boosts has to be one of 2 scores but the other is to whatever you want, that’s enough flexibility that any class can readily use any of them. As far as the feats are concerned at the moment the vast majority of backgrounds give at best a situationally useful one. At first I was bothered by that because “wow all these feats suck” but when I stopped looking at it from an optimization point of view I liked it because they seem to have been picked for flavor rather than power and keeps them on the same playing field. That was one of my big issues with 5e. In the handful of games I played half the PCs were sailors whether we were near water or not because it was just the best background in the core book. That may have changed by now it’s been a few years but my point stands.

This isn’t to say that it won’t change. System creep will almost inevitably make some backgrounds better than others but at the moment it’s fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Linking it to backgrounds bothers me, since it ties background more to mechanics than I'm really fond of.

I used to be totally against the idea of ever tying background to mechanics because of how horrid traits were in PF1. Like, apparently everyone is a reactionary because everyone wants that +1 init, that stat boost is just plain better than anything else and f$!! you for even considering anything else. I hate the idea of someone having a really cool character concept and then having to take s+## like that that completely clashes with it because of a misplaced need to derive meaning from numbers.

But then 5e came along, and I loved how it handled backgrounds. Backgrounds in 5e give you skills, and the end result is that every single thing that your character is proficient in can be explained as either part of being a member of a particular class or can be explained by their background. And since there's a lot of overlap between what those two things can cover, you're actually given quite a bit of freedom in choosing a background, so long the background is related to what your character does mechanically. And if your background is especially appropriate for your class and gives you a proficiency you already have, you can swap it with anything else of the same type for free - so a Cleric can get Perception by picking Acolyte and swapping out the Religion proficiency they already have, they don't have to pick Sailor to be optimal.

That idea, that there can be multiple valid options that result in the exact same thing mechanically, is what won me over. And PF2 mostly gets that right. For the Dwarf Fighter I was mentioning, they don't have to be a Warrior. Acrobat, Blacksmith, Criminal, Entertainer, Gladiator, Hunter, Laborer, Sailor, Scout, Street Urchin, Warrior, all those backgrounds can give you the exact same attribute boosts and thus are all equally optimal. And presumably when the game is released, players will be given instructions on how to create their own background, with those listed simply being samples. All you need is for your background is for it to be related to what your character is mechancially. If there's any overlap at all, the free boost will grant you the flexibility to make it work, and not just "work" but also be optimal.

That's the key thing I love about the new chargen system, there is no more Stormwind Fallacy. You are not being bad at RP anymore because you optimized. Optimization is now the norm, optimization is no longer a bad thing and is in fact something a GM should expect every single one of their players to do. It's something that a GM can actually look at, see that someone has their key stat below 16 for some reason, and intervene if that player is new and needs help. You will not RP better if your key stat is a 14, and you don't need to argue with anyone about having an 18 in your stat.

I really like the use of Lore skills, since that gives a character a chance to show off their background during play in a way that isn't powergamey but simply puts them in a spotlight for a second. If I have a warrior, I can chip in when the topic is actually about warfare, about what you should be doing as a foot soldier and where the captain's tent is usually located. If I'm playing a hunter, I can actually have useful things to say on the topic of hunting. If I'm a blacksmith, I'm probably going to know a lot about working with iron if that comes up. It's nothing overbearing, it's just a cool hook to make your character's backstory matter during actual play and to make the rest of the party appreciate you having that particular backstory.

My main gripe with backgrounds is definitely the skill feats, though. Most skill feats are really bad, and since the current version of the playtest relies so much on skill feats to differentiate between Trained and Expert+ that means that specialization doesn't feel very special. But then some skill feats are still just plain better than others. Pickpocket will scale with proficiency, for example, and Quick Repair is extremely desirable for anyone using a shield. Assurance from Farmhand is actually usable and useful in combat for trip builds, since it lets you auto-trip quite the selection of level-appropriate monsters with no risk of failure. That's 100% not something that belongs in backgrounds. And since you don't have to meet the prerequisite, you can get totally useless skill feats like Pickpocket where you can't actually use it because you're terrible at Thievery. That's going to be especially problematic in the final version if they stick with Untrained being +0, that's basically just a wasted skill feat.

I think the fix is to apply the same principle that's made 5e's backgrounds great. Just do what 5e does and just make your character Trained in your choice of one of two (or three, or more) thematically appropriate skills, and then if your class makes you trained in that skill you can then choose any skill you want. It's flavorful, it justifies more of your build thematically, and it doesn't have the potential to be stupidly imbalanced or result in one background in a splatbook just automatically being the best because it grants Battle Medic. Steal a trained skill from all the classes to make up for it, and then let the classes grant a skill feat of the player's choice at level 1 (rogues get two). Now players can make up their own backgrounds with no supervision beyond a reminder about the scope of their lore skill.

Possibly, it might be feasible to make the background still grant the skill feat, but then force that skill feat to have the skill you got from the background as the prerequisite. It would better tie your character's natural knack for something to their background, but then I worry about skill feat tier lists having an impact on that decision. If Battle Medic can exist, I don't want players to feel like they have to pick a background that grants Medicine so they can get it at level 1.

If that's not what Paizo does and they don't come up with a better alternative, that's basically what I"ll houserule it to anyways.


As far as the ABC ability score method of PF2 I see no problem with it. It puts all players on the same playing field and I’m fine with characters being generally competent. The supposed problem of there being only a couple spreads isn’t a problem to me, it’s no different than the attribute/skill pyramid many systems implement. Examples being White Wolf and Fate.

Point buy enables min/maxing and often also leads to similar ability score spreads.

Rolling for scores often has the problems mentioned by others in this thread. Plus in many ways it’s outdated and can feel really bad when there’s a wide party spread.

My group generally did point buy. The few times I’ve been in a group that rolled the house rules for rolls were often so extensive and kind that you usually ended up with higher scores than point buy but without them it can easily be a crap shoot. Overall I’ll take the ABCs any day.

Edit: I think mathmuse also mentioned something about no one picking humans with the spread which I find odd. In our DD run the human ancestry was the most commonly represented by a fair margin.


Nettah wrote:
While 18 is extremely good for most characters I am not sure I actually agree that it's the only viable starting array (at least not for all characters), most AP's don't let characters go all the way to level 20, so level 15 might be the last stat increase you get, thus maximizing your ability scores for that has some merit.

Thankfully this is apparently going to change for PF2. James Jacobs is on record as saying that the change to PF2 will let every AP go to level 20.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Nettah wrote:
While 18 is extremely good for most characters I am not sure I actually agree that it's the only viable starting array (at least not for all characters), most AP's don't let characters go all the way to level 20, so level 15 might be the last stat increase you get, thus maximizing your ability scores for that has some merit.
Thankfully this is apparently going to change for PF2. James Jacobs is on record as saying that the change to PF2 will let every AP go to level 20.

I applaud that decision. But I still find it unlikely that your character will see a ton of play after hitting 20 (unless your GM starts going into epic levels), so building towards 20 rather than 15 with your ability scores might not give you the same amount of benefits.

Just to underline my original argument, I do still think that an 18 is the way to go for the most optimized builds in most cases. I'm just saying that PF2 doesn't strictly punish you by choosing a different stat array to the extend that PF1 would for not utilizing dump stats. People might disagree with me on that, but that's my current view.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Helmic wrote:
PF1.5 already exists...
Where and in what form?
That is what Pathfinder Unchained IS.
TOZ wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Helmic wrote:
PF1.5 already exists...
Where and in what form?
Everything released since the core rules has been an incremental update of the ruleset. The errata applied via FAQ and reprints has changed the game away from what 1.0 was to 1.whatever

I think we have very different notions of what PF1.5e means in this context. To me, it means a new and more-or-less fully rewritten CRB that uses the existing PF1e rules and makes use of what's effectively been 10 years of playtesting and problem identification by the Pathfinder community. It could very well be called "Second Edition Pathfinder," but it would be an incremental and evolutionary second edition not the radical and more revolutionary PF2e that appears to be under construction (though I do acknowledge that we have little to no idea what will finally be in this PF2e if the current development process continues as it has).

So, from my perspective, the Unchained material is an interesting set of optional rules for PF1e, and "everything released since the core rules" is still PF1e even as it has admittedly "changed the game" toward something different from the strict version of PF1e found in the CRB. However, these changes have occurred in a haphazard and uncoordinated way, and what I see as PF1.5 would seek to bring some order out of the chaos that is currently PF1e.

Silver Crusade

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

Let's list all things that were introduced since the PF1 Core Rulebook which have changed the system in major ways AND weren't introduced in Unchained:

- archetypes
- traits
- fixed classes (Slayer > Rogue to begin with, moving on to Brawler > cMonk and Vigilante > Fighter, not to mention all classes that replace multiclass combos)
- items and feats specifically designed to override CRB limitations without having to errata the book. The "you can sneak attack targets with concealment" feat is a good example
- troop type
- haunts
- rules for underwater combat from Aquatic Adventures
- all the subsystems from splatbooks

Pathfinder 2018 is a very different game from Pathfinder 2009.
It's not just the number of spells, feats and classes that went up, it's also various elements of the ruleset which got introduced to fill voids in the Core Rulebook or to fix its shortcomings. Of course, the maddeningly frustrating thing was that many of those fixes were not made by just errating the core rulebook but instead existed in paralell, meaning that you were dependant on your system mastery to even know that squandered away somewhere in a 32-page Player Companion is a weapon which allows you to do your unarmed damage and get it enchanted, thus fixing one of the greatest headaches of the Monk class, vanilla or unchained.

If your roll on Knowledge (system mastery) will exceed 20, you'll be also aware of the fact that such item was first printed in the original Adventurer's Armory but then errated away because back then the design team thought that letting Monks so easily enchant their knuckles is nu-nu, but fast forward 10 years ahead and as the sun sets on the ruleset, apparently having Monks wear cold iron +2 flaming holy handwraps and finally getting over one of their massive weakness which was "many piddly attacks vs DR" is fine. Wohoo! Kept us waiting, huh?

And once again, the more time you spend in your basement researching every tiny bit of the system, the further you get ahead of the unwashed masses who just take the Core Rulebook and think that they're working with the same baseline as you are. And then they end up with a temple sword-waving core Monk next to your hand-wrapped, hard-assed, feats from 6 splats + a snazzy archetype uMonk who is arguably something of a Tier 3 class and can actually stand next to a Power Attack + Furious Focus + Greatsword + Gloves of Dueling Fighter and not look silly.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Let's list all things that were introduced since the PF1 Core Rulebook which have changed the system in major ways AND weren't introduced in Unchained ....

And I would like to thank Gorbacz for making a strong case that PF1 as it currently exists has many very cool features but it that also very much needs a PF1.5e reimplementation of the sort that I describe above. I don't see anything that supports the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that appears to be the direction in which PF2e is heading.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Let's list all things that were introduced since the PF1 Core Rulebook which have changed the system in major ways AND weren't introduced in Unchained ....
And I would like to thank Gorbacz for making a strong case that PF1 as it currently exists has many very cool features but it that also very much needs a PF1.5e reimplementation of the sort that I describe above. I don't see anything that supports the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that appears to be the direction in which PF2e is heading.

You think having a system that has stealth fixes which require a M.A. in system mastery to use its full potential is fine? Mmmkay. I don't. Fortunately, you'll be able to keep playing it and I'm sure that some level-headed 3PP company will see the stashes of cash to be made from publishing PF 1,5 the way True Fans want with some small fixes and adjustments. I mean, it's basically money laying on the floor, somebody will pick it up. Right. Right?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
You think ...

FWIW, I think the following things:

1) PF1e is a big old mess. It's got lots and lots of cool stuff, but it's got almost as many problems. I'm not a huge defender of it in its current form, and I agree that something needs to be done.

2) However, I do not think that PF2e as it appears to be shaping up is the answer. For one thing, I don't think it will really fix the "system mastery" problem as that is a function of Paizo's business model of putting out lots and lots of supplemental material, and there's no evidence that this will change. In a few years, PF2e with its likely large additional number of splatbooks, etc. will require a "M.A. in system mastery," similar to the current PF1e.

3) Paizo has a window of opportunity here to produce a rationalized, reorganized, and reimplemented PF1e, which they can call PF2e for branding reasons. Such a PF1.5 reimplementation could then be followed with a more disciplined and methodical process/schedule of releasing supplemental material so that the problems we see in PF1e (and are likely to see in what looks likely as PF2e) will not reappear.

4) I think such an approach has the potential to appeal to fans of PF1e, folks who liked PF1e in the abstract but have been alienated by its increasing system mastery demands, and non-PF folks with an interest in RPG gaming who get a game based on 10 years of playtesting and problem identification.

5) Finally, I think PF2e as it currently stands could be shaping up as a perfect storm for Paizo. There are large number of folks such as myself who have been turned off by the playtest process and the game we saw there. Amongst the people who liked the playtest games, there appear to be a significant number who don't like what they read in the "Top 5 things to expect for the final edition. Paizo Stream 21/12/18." With neither of these groups on board, I don't see how such a PF2e is successful with RPG gamers not familiar with PF and with RPG neophytes.

Anyhows, this is what I (one old gaming person) think. Take it or leave it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You think ...

FWIW, I think the following things:

1) PF1e is a big old mess. It's got lots and lots of cool stuff, but it's got almost as many problems. I'm not a huge defender of it in its current form, and I agree that something needs to be done.

2) However, I do not think that PF2e as it appears to be shaping up is the answer. For one thing, I don't think it will really fix the "system mastery" problem as that is a function of Paizo's business model of putting out lots and lots of supplemental material, and there's no evidence that this will change. In a few years, PF2e with its likely large additional number of splatbooks, etc. will require a "M.A. in system mastery," similar to the current PF1e.

3) Paizo has a window of opportunity here to produce a rationalized, reorganized, and reimplemented PF1e, which they can call PF2e for branding reasons. Such a PF1.5 reimplementation could then be followed with a more disciplined and methodical process/schedule of releasing supplemental material so that the problems we see in PF1e (and are likely to see in what looks likely as PF2e) will not reappear.

4) I think such an approach has the potential to appeal to fans of PF1e, folks who liked PF1e in the abstract but have been alienated by its increasing system mastery demands, and non-PF folks with an interest in RPG gaming who get a game based on 10 years of playtesting and problem identification.

5) Finally, I think PF2e as it currently stands could be shaping up as a perfect storm for Paizo. There are large number of folks such as myself who have been turned off by the playtest process and the game we saw there. Amongst the people who liked the playtest games, there appear to be a significant number who don't like what they read in the "Top 5 things to expect for the final edition. Paizo Stream 21/12/18." With neither of these groups on board, I don't see how such a PF2e is successful with RPG gamers not familiar with PF and with RPG neophytes.

Anyhows, this...

1) I agree that is bloated, but also that I wouldn't mind trying something new instead of just the same reskinned (that is pretty much what is achieved with house-rules)

2) I don't see where PF2 is close to the systematic issues that PF1 had that led to this issue. Limiting the number of bonuses that stack, reducing numerical bonuses from feats of all kind etc. seems to keep the game more balanced, and this is a trend that I don't see any indication would be a lot different in future splatbooks. More over it seems that the playtest aim much more towards options being pretty mechanically equal but different more in terms of flavor and playstyle.
So there are fewer "correct" builds and the difference between optimized characters and unoptimized seems smaller, thus requiring less system mastery.

3) Sure they have the opportunity to do that, but it does seem that Paizo is more interested in trying to actually make a new version than trying to "fix" PF1 and clean it up. I don't see how that would be more beneficial towards not getting bloating issues with supplements rather the other way around since if it's closer resembles PF1 it should be more backward compatible as well.

4) Depending on how the final game turns out it might alienate some of the PF1 fans that would rather have seen a game closer resembling that, but players that currently aren't playing PF1 seems more likely to play a newer different version of the system rather than one that is closely similar (but with some issues removed).

5) Maybe, but I don't think so. People would have to be more than a little stubborn to conclude they won't play PF2 because the rules in the playtest weren't to there liking, if the final version is a game they think is fun. Most of the players that had an issue with the hinted changes in the latest stream have only stated that they disagree with some of the changes (most just some of the changes to proficiency) but that they are overall still looking forward to the game. And there is likely a huge (larger than the number of people viewing the forums) customer segment that haven't really been paying attention to the playtest at all and might play the system if the final version is good. So could PF2 be a failure? Sure, but so could 1.5 or just sticking with 1e. In fact it seems reasonable to assume that PF2 has a bigger opportunity to be successful than the other approaches because that is the direction the company went for (and most companies wouldn't take a chance like that if it didn't seem financially sound).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.

Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
So could PF2 be a failure? Sure, but so could 1.5 or just sticking with 1e.

That's basically it in a nutshell.

Obviously 1e was no longer the answer, hence the change in direction.

It's impossible to say whether Paizo can revitalize Pathfinder with either PF2 or a hypothetical PF1.5.
One might be a great success and the other a failure; both options might offer success; or both could result in failure.

There is also the unspoken 4th option as a fallback.

I suppose it revolves around the nature of the competition and the question of how to capture and hold a decent-sized customer base.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
5) Finally, I think PF2e as it currently stands could be shaping up as a perfect storm for Paizo. There are large number of folks such as myself who have been turned off by the playtest process and the game we saw there. Amongst the people who liked the playtest games, there appear to be a significant number who don't like what they read in the "Top 5 things to expect for the final edition. Paizo Stream 21/12/18." With neither of these groups on board, I don't see how such a PF2e is successful with RPG gamers not familiar with PF and with RPG neophytes.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding why people might like PF2, and what the nature of their relationship with the game is. Anyone that's a fan of PF2 right now has only played the playtest version, which has radical changes nearly every other week. There is no one idea of what the system "must" be or else we're all gonna take our toys home. Criticism of the proposed changes to UTEML simply is not going to be the extreme knee-jerk reaction a PF1 player might have, we haven't spent 10 years loving this particular iteration of the game, we don't see changes as a threat to the hundreds of dollars we've invested in books. One thing we don't like isn't a dealbreaker for a PF2 fan like it might be for a PF1 fan.

Yeah, I don't necessarily know if I'll like the lack of +0 to untrained skills yet, but that's far from me abandoning PF2, or PF2 players in general deciding they don't like the game anymore. There's certainly apprehension over the new rules, but it's generally with the understanding that we don't yet know the full extent of the changes that'll go into the new skill system to make it work, and that regardless it shouldn't be terribly difficult to houserule things back into place.

I don't want PF1.5, I hate PF1 and I don't want to deal with it, it's got a stupid grappling flowchart and umpteen bonus types of which some stack but others don't and it's hard to remember which, to-hit and AC are straight f$&&ed, there's "flavor" options that are dominated by a few clearly superior choices thus actually removing flavor from the game, multiclassing is a massive pain in the ass and it utterly screws up class progression meaning you can't ever get those capstone features or level 9 spells, there's the entire tier system that has classes stratified so far apart in overall effectiveness that a variation of more than one tier in the same party can result in one player completely outclassing another by accident, classes only mechanically fit with specific races and you're only gimping yourself if you play something other than human or the two race with decent stat spreads...

I want PF2, I like a lot of what it's doing, and while I'm not antagonistic towards the desires of PF1 players I also think Paizo will do perfectly fine without the ones who want to stick with PF1. There's a much broader audience waiting for a good, solid, crunchy fantasy game, where the crunch comes from actual choices and tactical decisions rather than from wasting five minutes trying to figure out how Intimidate DC's are supposed to be calculated and then immediately houseruling it to something different because the official rules are terrible.

5e had success by re-examining 3.5 and making radical changes while maintaining the spirit of the game that some felt was lost with 4e. It's also a fairly light system without much customization, and the general trend at the moment is to put out rules light RPG's. Rules light RPG's are great, I love them, but there isn't a truly great crunchy alternative that isn't weighed down by decades of loutdated design.

PF2 will not succeed how PF1 succeeded because there is no 4e hysteria to capitalize on, and when it inevitably becomes clear PF2 isn't more popular than PF1 in like two months or whatever I'm sure there will be plenty of people that'll declare the thing a failure. But it doesn't need to outsell 5e, it doesn't need to outsell anything, it just needs to fill in that underserved niche and show that crunchy systems don't have to be terrible or inaccessible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
When it inevitably becomes clear PF2 isn't more popular than PF1 in like two months or whatever I'm sure there will be plenty of people that'll declare the thing a failure.

But surely Paizo's goal is to increase sales.

PF2 must be the mule that carries future product releases (APs, rulebooks, campaign books, etc.) on its back.

If it is no more up to the task than PF1 (presumably now) is, then it will be a failure from the company's perspective.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I believe Helmic was implying a comparison between PF2e's first two months and PF1e's first two months.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You think ...

FWIW, I think the following things:

1) PF1e is a big old mess. It's got lots and lots of cool stuff, but it's got almost as many problems. I'm not a huge defender of it in its current form, and I agree that something needs to be done.

2) However, I do not think that PF2e as it appears to be shaping up is the answer. For one thing, I don't think it will really fix the "system mastery" problem as that is a function of Paizo's business model of putting out lots and lots of supplemental material, and there's no evidence that this will change. In a few years, PF2e with its likely large additional number of splatbooks, etc. will require a "M.A. in system mastery," similar to the current PF1e.

3) Paizo has a window of opportunity here to produce a rationalized, reorganized, and reimplemented PF1e, which they can call PF2e for branding reasons. Such a PF1.5 reimplementation could then be followed with a more disciplined and methodical process/schedule of releasing supplemental material so that the problems we see in PF1e (and are likely to see in what looks likely as PF2e) will not reappear.

4) I think such an approach has the potential to appeal to fans of PF1e, folks who liked PF1e in the abstract but have been alienated by its increasing system mastery demands, and non-PF folks with an interest in RPG gaming who get a game based on 10 years of playtesting and problem identification.

5) Finally, I think PF2e as it currently stands could be shaping up as a perfect storm for Paizo. There are large number of folks such as myself who have been turned off by the playtest process and the game we saw there. Amongst the people who liked the playtest games, there appear to be a significant number who don't like what they read in the "Top 5 things to expect for the final edition. Paizo Stream 21/12/18." With neither of these groups on board, I don't see how such a PF2e is successful with RPG gamers not familiar with PF and with RPG neophytes.

Anyhows, this is what I (one old gaming person) think. Take it or leave it.

Agreed on all counts. Though RE:1 I'd say PF1 has a lot more good in it than bad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Agreed on all counts. Though RE:1 I'd say PF1 has a lot more good in it than bad.

Very true. I've been playing it for nearly 10 years, and I still love it.

To pjrogers' points:

1) Agreed.

2) Future bloat is a potential problem, but it's not worse with PF2 than it would be with an hypothetical PF1.5. The solution to it is tighter controls on new releases, just as you suggested in your point #3.

4) It might, but I strongly suspect a good number of those who said they didn't want a new edition, or wanted the new edition to be backwards-compatible, or generally wanted as few changes as possible wouldn't be easily swayed... Unless the devs gave up on fixing some of the worst issues with PF1.

To succeed along the lines you suggest, PF1.5 should:
- Be at least as fun as PF1, to most players - that's the bottom line.
- Be simpler than PF1, so that more players and especially GMs can get on board without excessive work.
- Be better balanced than PF1 especially at high levels, so that the fun is shared with everybody.
I might be wrong, but I believe PF2 as defined (and hopefully, as it will evolve further, and get closer to the sweet spot) is in a better position to accomplish this than a potential PF1.5.

5) See Helmic's answer for that one.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pjrogers wrote:
In a few years, PF2e with its likely large additional number of splatbooks, etc. will require a "M.A. in system mastery," similar to the current PF1e.

By your logic, 5E should have a metric ton of splatbooks, because 3E and 4E did so.

It doesn't. It has a grand total of 1,5 player-side splatbook after 4 years in print. It's so because companies are actually capable of changing their business models and revenue streams. The fact that Paizo has sold PF1 under the "zillion splatbooks" model does not preclude them from altering the model.

We'll see. My money is on Paizo drastically altering their PF2 publishing model into a pace that's faster than 5E but far slower than PF1.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
In a few years, PF2e with its likely large additional number of splatbooks, etc. will require a "M.A. in system mastery," similar to the current PF1e.

By your logic, 5E should have a metric ton of splatbooks, because 3E and 4E did so.

It doesn't. It has a grand total of 1,5 player-side splatbook after 4 years in print. It's so because companies are actually capable of changing their business models and revenue streams. The fact that Paizo has sold PF1 under the "zillion splatbooks" model does not preclude them from altering the model.

We'll see. My money is on Paizo drastically altering their PF2 publishing model into a pace that's faster than 5E but far slower than PF1.

I suspect we'll get the Starfinder model, we get tons of Adventure Paths, but core books are slow, only a few per year between alien Archives and a major core release like the recent Armory release and the upcoming Character Operations release next year.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
We'll see. My money is on Paizo drastically altering their PF2 publishing model into a pace that's faster than 5E but far slower than PF1.
MER-c wrote:
I suspect we'll get the Starfinder model, we get tons of Adventure Paths, but core books are slow, only a few per year between alien Archives and a major core release like the recent Armory release and the upcoming Character Operations release next year.

Are you (plural) saying Paizo needs to downsize? As in employees?

Exo-Guardians

Going to a slower release doesn't mean they downsize. it just means products get more time to develop. Paizo will still need all of it's dev teams they will just have them developing their product for longer.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Heck, maybe they'll downsize. WotC went from a massive D&D department during 4E to a small one currently, despite the inverse change in sales and quality.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Going to a slower release doesn't mean they downsize. it just means products get more time to develop. Paizo will still need all of it's dev teams they will just have them developing their product for longer.

Unless they're selling a lot more of each release, that's likely not a viable business model. Cutting back on production almost certainly means downsizing.

Exo-Guardians

thejeff wrote:
MER-c wrote:
Going to a slower release doesn't mean they downsize. it just means products get more time to develop. Paizo will still need all of it's dev teams they will just have them developing their product for longer.
Unless they're selling a lot more of each release, that's likely not a viable business model. Cutting back on production almost certainly means downsizing.

I think you misread that pretty hard, I'm not saying they are cutting back production, as that is simply the number of books printed, which yes would lead to problems, I'm saying they might adopt the Starfinder release schedule which has fewer CORE releases per year with more small releases like Adventure Paths and SFS modules, which by far sell more than core books.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MER-c wrote:
Going to a slower release doesn't mean they downsize. it just means products get more time to develop. Paizo will still need all of it's dev teams they will just have them developing their product for longer.

That also means prices will increase.

-Skeld

Shadow Lodge

Are they still the $30 I bought my 3.5 hardcovers for?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

May I suggest that we get back to the topic, or at least a little bit closer to it. Discussions of Paizo's business model and company size are irrelevant. Besides, I don't think we on this forum have either the basic competence or the necessary insider information to touch such subjects.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MER-c wrote:
Going to a slower release doesn't mean they downsize. it just means products get more time to develop. Paizo will still need all of it's dev teams they will just have them developing their product for longer.
Unless they're selling a lot more of each release, that's likely not a viable business model. Cutting back on production almost certainly means downsizing.
I think you misread that pretty hard, I'm not saying they are cutting back production, as that is simply the number of books printed, which yes would lead to problems, I'm saying they might adopt the Starfinder release schedule which has fewer CORE releases per year with more small releases like Adventure Paths and SFS modules, which by far sell more than core books.

That would be a welcome addition TBH. The one thing about PF that I cannot abide by is the truly INTENSE amount of content they put out on the regular during the youth of PF. Honestly, a single 32 page book per month is hard enough to incorporate into your own head-space, let along the breakneck pace things were going out then, during some months they had a Hardcover Release, a Player Companion Release, Campaign Setting Release, Map Pack Release, an Adventure Path Release, and Novel and Comic Book Release, all on top of those damn Goblin Plushies that I had to buy two of...

Needless to say, I gave up trying to "Collect em' All" years ago and have learned to appreciate the slower, and more impactful releases the kind of which they are putting out through Starfinder. A PF2 Release Schedule that accommodates for more awesome Adventures (Ideally they'll start selling "Collectors Edition AP Hardcovers again, maybe even to include printed Maps! I'd pay $100 for a Council of Thieves PF2 Hardcover, Player Folio, and Maps for the Adventure at the drop of a hat) for PF2 along with PFS Modules which help support the community which feeds the Paizo Machine which creates content, which we consume, which creates more demand, necromancy basically.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

An important thing for OP to remember is that by now, most of the people who aren't really on board with a complete rework have left to find other games to play and the majority of the feedback you're going to get are from the ones who like whats being presented.

The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.

I agree.

I use to come to the boards everyday not maybe once a week to see if anything changed.
I use to be active but Bulmahn killed of my thread and others so I feel like only is out feel back not being considered but is being shutdown.
Anyway, friends moved to other games & I'm doing FFG's rpg system.


I'd love to see more hardcover complete APs like the anniversary editions. Those are pretty nice for people who weren't around when the APs were originally released and now find it hard to find them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.
Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.

When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.

Why? In general, even if we do not play any version of PF most of us agree that a strong Paizo and an excellent game from them will make the hobby better in the long run.

MDC

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.
Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.

When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.

Why? In general, even if we do not play any version of PF most of us agree that a strong Paizo and an excellent game from them will make the hobby better in the long run.

MDC

I hear you and I like paizo.

But I feel too much that the playtest/pf2nd is riding too much on the coattails of pathfinder 1st and paizo is making a product that the fans have voiced disappointment of hoping the fans will buy it anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The other thing is that even if "tons of splatbooks" is the model, PF2 is still far less in danger of insane levels of bloat than PF1.

Why? Simply because of the fact that PF2 is based around "expansion of what you can do with the same numbers" instead of "bigger numbers every day".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

The other thing is that even if "tons of splatbooks" is the model, PF2 is still far less in danger of insane levels of bloat than PF1.

Why? Simply because of the fact that PF2 is based around "expansion of what you can do with the same numbers" instead of "bigger numbers every day".

SO much this. This has been one of the opinions I've held on why PF2 works so well at it's core.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Souphin wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.
Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.

When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.

Why? In general, even if we do not play any version of PF most of us agree that a strong Paizo and an excellent game from them will make the hobby better in the long run.

MDC

I hear you and I like paizo.

But I feel too much that the playtest/pf2nd is riding too much on the coattails of pathfinder 1st and paizo is making a product that the fans have voiced disappointment of hoping the fans will buy it anyway.

Making a prediction of failure isn't wishing ill. I was set to give it a go, but frankly the erosion of alignment and goblins as a core race are a step too far for my tastes and the game itself doesn't seem more fun than 1e. On top of this its going head first into a version of d+d that is doing quite well, not one that flopped on its face.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What a tease.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
I don't want PF1.5, I hate PF1 and I don't want to deal with it, it's got a stupid grappling flowchart and umpteen bonus types of which some stack but others don't and it's hard to remember which, to-hit and AC are straight f@$*ed, there's "flavor" options that are dominated by a few clearly superior choices thus actually removing flavor from the game, multiclassing is a massive pain in the ass and it utterly screws up class progression meaning you can't ever get those capstone features or level 9 spells, there's the entire tier system that has classes stratified so far apart in overall effectiveness that a variation of more than one tier in the same party can result in one player completely outclassing another by accident, classes only mechanically fit with specific races and you're only gimping yourself if you play something other than human or the two race with decent stat spreads...

Why do you assume "PF1.5" would have those things you don't want to deal with? The people clamoring for PF1.5 want exactly that: the removal of fiddly bits and broken things. It would be a system change, not PF1 with bandaids/mods. The only difference is that they want minimal addition of "new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics" or "needlessly limiting character options/flexibility". For instance, there's little reason to minimize character choices by locking people into "role boxes" of feats behind class gates. Or Resonance. Or "level bonus to everything". PF1.5, as people desire it, would have none (or less) of the things you complain about. It'd probably strap on most of the Unchained changes, simplify the grapple mechanic, fix the move/Full-Attack static combat issues by going to 3-action system, rework/rebalance some spells, fix multiclass progression issues, etc, etc. I don't know why you feel a "PF1.5" would be as fiddly as PF1. I know for a fact PF1 wasn't as fiddly as D&D 3.5. PF2, as currently proposed, feels the same as what happened when D&D went from 3.5 to 4E. Namely, in an attempt to simplify and rebalance, it over simplified the mechanics and generally eliminated all character diversity. Not enough crunch, not enough choice.

Honestly, I see alot of value in PF2 changes, as written. There's alot of good ideas there, seriously. 3 action system, in particular, was long overdue. I just feel Paizo went too far. Those of us who want to get creative in our builds and create unique characters don't really have options anymore. If they kept ~75% of PF2, and basically eliminated a handful of things currently in the system (particularly the class role locking), I could likely get behind the system. But I don't see that happening, because these system changes look like they've made a hard enemy of system savants that like to class dip and get silly with their builds. It's the lazy way of fixing the OP minmax problem: namely, make the build choices so limited and flatten the system so much that becoming OP is nearly impossible. The more difficult way of fixing the problem is to leave characters with plenty of diverse choices and to fix the overpowered abilities themselves (for instance, push certain class abilities higher into their level progression, or nerf broken feats/spells/abilities, etc). When you take the easy route, you fix the problem of OP chars at the expense of your player base that likes to build creative and playful and flavorful outside-the-box characters that straddle lots of class concepts. People like myself, sadly.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone from the PF1 guard that took a look at the playtest and it imidietly came clear that I wouldn't be joining up. Hell I was fairly sure that would be the case when I saw some of the preview blogs. (This is to give POV for the post.)

What paizo did was make a completely new game with only superficial resemblence and slapped on PF2 name. It isn't a second edition in anything but name. You could have just as well take a hypothetical situation of 4e dnd (or 5th) didn't exist in their current forms and have that game and slap PF2 on the cover and it would have as much to do with the first edition of pathfinder as what the playtest showed.

What I saw was dumbing down the mechanics, without even getting rid of complexity just changing how it is complex. Any real depth is gone. What I think happened is that they tried very hard to make it easier to write adventures(probably GM too) and as a result took all of the tools away from the players, putting everything in these neat little boxes so you wouldn't have to work so hard to manage it. Not necessarily unreasonable thinking at it's core due to how they conduct business. Though I have always considered their adventures severly under par at best, they seem to be popular and that is what really counts from paizos POV.

They are courting a completely different crowd imo, at the very least the demographic that I fall into. Let the rules lite crowd have their own games there is more choice of systems for than ever. And to make matters worse PF2 is in this akwards middle spot that doesn't really cater to either camp, it is needlesly complex for the depth it manages, so it won't really be competing for the rules lite people. And it lacks the depth and sophistication to get the people who don't mind investing more time on the mechanical part of the game if that results in added depth. To use an analogue of videogames, to me it seems more or less that paizo were modders and pretty good at it too, but then they tried to make their own game and failed hard. Again to me it seems they needed that scafolding of 3.5 to work off.

But when you consider paizos past it isn't really that surprising. Look at all the kneejerk erratas/faq, they nuke from orbit if something is problematic. Now they just took that attitude to the entire system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Go4TheEyesBoo wrote:
Why do you assume "PF1.5" would have those things you don't want to deal with? The people clamoring for PF1.5 want exactly that: the removal of fiddly bits and broken things. It would be a system change, not PF1 with bandaids/mods. The only difference is that they want minimal addition of "new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics" or "needlessly limiting character options/flexibility". For instance, there's little reason to minimize character choices by locking people into "role boxes" of feats behind class gates. Or Resonance. Or "level bonus to everything". PF1.5, as people desire it, would have none (or less) of the things you complain about. It'd probably strap on most of the Unchained changes, simplify the grapple mechanic, fix the move/Full-Attack static combat issues by going to 3-action system, rework/rebalance some spells, fix multiclass progression issues, etc, etc. I don't know why you feel a "PF1.5" would be as fiddly as PF1. I know for a fact PF1 wasn't as fiddly as D&D 3.5. PF2, as currently proposed, feels the same as what happened when D&D went from 3.5 to 4E. Namely, in...

I don't think a simple cleanup, as you describe it, would be good enough to fix the problems with PF1. While PF1 is and remains a great game, its age shows, and things that were OK-ish 10 years ago are due for a fix. Namely:

- The game must be made much simpler, in order to be more attractive to prospective new players and would-be GMs. In particular, building a character must be a lot easier.
- The game must become much better balanced at high levels, in order to offer a full experience. It must also become much easier to play and to design adventures for at high levels.

The need for a simpler game is evidenced by 5e's success. It doesn't mean 5e is the only solution, but PF1 evolved too far on the side of complexity.

The need for a fix to high-level play can be shown very easily by checking this page of Paizo + 3rd party adventures. The numbers there are telling: You can buy 993 adventures for levels 1-7, 259 for levels 8-13, and 37 for levels 14-20. This clearly indicates what's selling well, and what's not. The only plausible reason is that, to the majority of players, the game is a less enjoyable experience after level 7-8, and dramatically less after level 12-13.

I believe these two core goals drive several key system changes that take the game away from a PF1.5 iteration:
- Simplicity in character building: 100s of traits replaced by 10s of backgrounds; 1000s of feats replaced by 10s of class feats, separate for each class (putting them all in the general feat bucket would increase the number of choices back to the 100s); spells reduced from the 1000s to the 100s. Of course these numbers will increase with the final CRB and again with future books, but hopefully by less than a full order of magnitude. If and when that happens, then it means it's time for PF3.
- Fixing high-level play mandates at least 2 things, IMO: Much tighter math (can't have a difference of 20+ between 2 characters' key combat stats ie AC, attack bonus, saves), and significant nerfing of spells (no automatic per-level effect progression, rarity mechanism, toned-down save-or-suck spells, much reduced long-duration buffing).

If the new edition could achieve these 2 key goals while qualifying as PF1.5, then that would be fantastic. Unfortunately, I can't see how that would be feasible.


Fumbles_suck wrote:

As someone from the PF1 guard that took a look at the playtest and it imidietly came clear that I wouldn't be joining up. Hell I was fairly sure that would be the case when I saw some of the preview blogs. (This is to give POV for the post.)

What paizo did was make a completely new game with only superficial resemblence and slapped on PF2 name. It isn't a second edition in anything but name. You could have just as well take a hypothetical situation of 4e dnd (or 5th) didn't exist in their current forms and have that game and slap PF2 on the cover and it would have as much to do with the first edition of pathfinder as what the playtest showed.

What I saw was dumbing down the mechanics, without even getting rid of complexity just changing how it is complex. Any real depth is gone. What I think happened is that they tried very hard to make it easier to write adventures(probably GM too) and as a result took all of the tools away from the players, putting everything in these neat little boxes so you wouldn't have to work so hard to manage it. Not necessarily unreasonable thinking at it's core due to how they conduct business. Though I have always considered their adventures severly under par at best, they seem to be popular and that is what really counts from paizos POV.

They are courting a completely different crowd imo, at the very least the demographic that I fall into. Let the rules lite crowd have their own games there is more choice of systems for than ever. And to make matters worse PF2 is in this akwards middle spot that doesn't really cater to either camp, it is needlesly complex for the depth it manages, so it won't really be competing for the rules lite people. And it lacks the depth and sophistication to get the people who don't mind investing more time on the mechanical part of the game if that results in added depth. To use an analogue of videogames, to me it seems more or less that paizo were modders and pretty good at it too, but then they tried to make their own game and failed hard....

I'm not sure I get your point? If you are saying that it's like D&D moving into a new edition like the difference between AD&D and 3e or 3e and 4e or 3e and 5e then sure, but isn't that pretty much the reason for it to be called PF2 instead of PF1.5?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Lot of people did not/do not consider 4th edition dnd, actual dnd outside of the name, if people are right about that is a matter of opinion. But the point was that it isn't a second edition of a game. It is a new game with a name tagged on and some superficial similarities. It isn't an evolution/continuation of the same game. So it really isn't the next edition it is something else.

Also note that I spesificly did not use the pre 4th edition changes between editions as an example that was very delibarate.

If it makes it easier to understand, consider early editions checkers, PF1 as chess and then PF2 comes out and instead of say 3d chess or changing how the pieces move we got sink the battleship.

Note: I am not here to edition war, so leave the statements made at facevalue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
The need for a fix to high-level play can be shown very easily by checking this page of Paizo + 3rd party adventures. The numbers there are telling: You can buy 993 adventures for levels 1-7, 259 for levels 8-13, and 37 for levels 14-20. This clearly indicates what's selling well, and what's not. The only plausible reason is that, to the majority of players, the game is a less enjoyable experience after level 7-8, and dramatically less after level 12-13.

I do wonder how different that would be for any level based system. Even if the game plays equally well across levels, most campaigns start at 1st and many end for other reasons before hitting the limit.

I wonder what a similar breakdown would look like for 5e.

101 to 150 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Can Someone Explain What's Going On? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.