D&D 4e was noted for selling a lot of the first 3 books at first then having the sales drop off a cliff after that. I don't think there's been a lot of backlash against the quality of PF2 (there was for 4e), but there has been some. No way to tell the outcome yet - there were a lot of puff pieces published or recounted for 4e, Lisa's quote might be similar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roll20 is missing some support for PF2 that you get for PF1. I could see DMs holding off on running online PF2 games till there's a drag and drop bestiary available. Since monsters don't use PC rules, you need to reverse engineer npcs somewhat in order to get their stats to read right in the only available character sheets. You could probably build a workaround in the abilities section, but it would be a pain. The lack of a drag and drop spell list is also a pain in the butt.
I'm not saying that completely accounts for the difference, but it's worth mentioning. It's hard to give up conveniences you're used to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So who hear still playing Pathfinder 1st Ed, play together in person(not online) with your gaming group?
Me.
I have three different groups with varying degrees of gaming frequency, all currently playing PF1 (we do play other game systems, they are just currently aligned that way).
I’m willing to bet more than half the players involved have never played TTRPGs online. We’re old and set in our ways.
I guess as a publisher, Paizo only cares about book sales. If book sales are fine, then good for Paizo.
I think they care about more than that. But in terms of making hard, financial decisions like printing more books, hiring staff, etcetera...one would have to think that sales (or more accurately, projected sales) would have the most significant weighting.
Averaging a couple games of PF1 per week with a mix of groups, none of which has shown any appetite to switch.
Have played a few PF2 sessions - keep trying it and trying to like it but so far the jury is still out for me. Think that makes me the most pro PF2 person at any of those tables.
Speculating whether Paizo is doing well with 2e is not the point of this thread and kind of pointless. If the 2e line fails, they won't go back to 1e. My guess they'll start producing D&D 5e products and do 2e on the side. But that's just more the same kind of speculation that I just called out.
I'm a hypocrite, so what?
I've said before (on this thread) that I like PF2e well enough, but I haven't honestly invested in anything beyond the CRB and Age of Ashes. I'm more likely to spend my money on 1e products than 2e, though the advanced player's guide is a definite exception.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off specific Thread topic but still -- Paizo was in a difficult position. I sympathize. *ANY* more Pathfinder product other than Campaign setting material and adventures would have sourly sucked swamp donkey sweat. ....A Bestiary 7? Really? ...Another Book of bloated Classes? .... No. Pathfinder could only put out new Campaign setting material and adventures. No more Crunch. Ever.
So they decided to do PF2.
Not a bad decision, hoping that they could attract new players and keep building their brand. Really make PF2 their own and still sell their old Pathfinder product until it's gone. ....And PF2 doesn't suck. It's just that sooo many of us have played two decades of d20, starting with Monte Cook and Skip Williams and going all the way to Jason Bulmahn. But it's hard to switch and, anyway, why should we?
But it's hard to switch and, anyway, why should we?
I suspect that for many, it's because of burning through all of the content. If you've already played every AP, module and scenario, then you are a voracious kind of gamer. If you play at that rate, you're probably playing multiple kinds of games at the same time anyway just to keep things fresh. These are the kinds of gamers that are probably playing PF2 now.
But someday, even us holdouts will probably tire of PF1. Given enough time we will have seen and done almost everything. Third party products may prolong this day, but we will never have the kind of output that we had several years ago.
I do wonder if anyone will ever pick up the mantle of redoing the rules of 3.x. I could think of lots of ways to improve those rules by using lessons learned from Pathfinder. For instance, take the 3.x fighter and give him a 4 skill points per level, and a more talent based system for either taking or dealing damage. Maybe baseline a few feats like power attack and decrease how deep some feat chains. If you were really ambitious, you may even tackle action economy and martial vs caster disparity. But you have to be careful, because every thing you've "fixed" is something you've changed. And the more you've changed, the more people will complain.
|
|
But someday, even us holdouts will probably tire of PF1.
.
This is what I kinda predict will happen to me, too. I didn't switch from AD&D to 2Ed until a couple years in. I didn't switch from 2Ed to 3.0 until about a year or so in.
Nowadays though, I dunno, it still feels as though it could be years before I'm done with all my d20 content. Only time will tell.
(Maybe I'll start making annual donations to Paizo instead of product!)
But someday, even us holdouts will probably tire of PF1..
This is what I kinda predict will happen to me, too. I didn't switch from AD&D to 2Ed until a couple years in. I didn't switch from 2Ed to 3.0 until about a year or so in.
Nowadays though, I dunno, it still feels as though it could be years before I'm done with all my d20 content. Only time will tell.
(Maybe I'll start making annual donations to Paizo instead of product!)
There's like a decade of material in AP's alone
|
There's like a decade of material in AP's aloneBut someday, even us holdouts will probably tire of PF1..
This is what I kinda predict will happen to me, too. I didn't switch from AD&D to 2Ed until a couple years in. I didn't switch from 2Ed to 3.0 until about a year or so in.
Nowadays though, I dunno, it still feels as though it could be years before I'm done with all my d20 content. Only time will tell.
(Maybe I'll start making annual donations to Paizo instead of product!)
There's like a fifty years of material in AD&D 1e, yet people moved on to 2e, then 3e, etc etc.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
2E and 3E were both pretty big improvements to the game. Almost everything that came after 3E was either worse or not much better. 5E is basically just dumbed down 3E with the advantage system tacked on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet people moved on all the same.
As that conversation began, we will almost all move on eventually. As fun and varied as playing an Oracle is, given enough games you will eventually have done everything with it you ever wanted to do. And the same goes for every other combination that you actually want to try/play. Most of us just don’t play at such a pace as to hit that point yet.
Maybe, people play elsewhere than Roll20 and Warhorn?
I'm sure they do, but the ratio's are unlikely to be different.
r/LFG also has fewer PF2e games/player's looking for games, and that is saying something since ~90% of the posts are for 5e.
r/Pathfinder_RPG is similar. Almost all discussions are for for 1e, with only maybe 10%-15% of discussion thread being flagged for 2e.
Living World campaigns on Discord are also far more likely to be 1e, with only a handful of 2e games.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet people moved on all the same.
.
That's the love of the game!
We love gaming so much we Want to buy product; we want new material. How many bookshelves do each of us have with how many dozens or hundreds of books that we bought, voraciously looked at for a few weeks -- and then never opened up again?
So who hear still playing Pathfinder 1st Ed, play together in person(not online) with your gaming group?
Me. We have one player who plays remotely, but he started in-person and moved away. We use Roll20, but 4/5 of the players are in the same room.
I'm still playing (and running) 1st Edition; I don't think my group's going to move on to 2E until someone else volunteers to run a 2E game.
(Like we're still going through Paizo's APs. I completed running Hell's Rebels about 2 weeks ago and am starting running Strange Aeons once I'm over the nasty cold I came down with. I'm also currently playing in Skull & Shackles.)
|
|
For that matter how many games do we have on those shelves we never play anymore?And yet people moved on all the same..
That's the love of the game!
We love gaming so much we Want to buy product; we want new material. How many bookshelves do each of us have with how many dozens or hundreds of books that we bought, voraciously looked at for a few weeks -- and then never opened up again?
For me, 3.5 and WFRP.
So who is still playing first ed? Are you currently playing? If so, what are you playing(AP, Module, Home brew, etc.)and what race and class are you and your group playing?
Our current AP is Strange Aeons.
I am playing a Spiritualist(Phantom Blade)(M)
The rest of the party is a Aquatic Elf Swashbuckler(F), Human Barbarian(F), Ratfolk Witch(M), and Human Gunslinger/Alchemist(Gun Chemist)(M).
Still playing PF1E with House Rules for a Sinster Secret of Saltmarsh Campaign and a Shattered Star AP. I am looking at opening up a new campaign for a smaller group as well.
I have no intention of moving over and DMing 2E at present. One of the main reasons I pulled away from AD&D while I was using 3.5 was the move to 4.0 was horrible and I promised myself I would not move again. The rule set as I see it is fine with PF1E. Any changes I want or desire I can house rule and modify as I did with AD&D, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 in past. I just prefer to stick with something and use it and let it grow with House Rules and mods for the specific groups I game with. PF1E has a tremendous amount of content and when you factor in all the 3.5 content (and older 3.0/2.0 content) I just don't see a reason to go to more PF focused rule set that will never have that sort of content available in the foreseeable future. My two cents...not that it means very much.
Jack
2E and 3E were both pretty big improvements to the game. Almost everything that came after 3E was either worse or not much better. 5E is basically just dumbed down 3E with the advantage system tacked on.
3.5 was a good improvement on 3.0 but the rapid change and drop of support of 3.0 to 3.5 by WotC in just three years is what miffed a lot of people who bought all the 3.0 material. Overall 3.5 cleaned up classes, feats, skills, and spells that were problematic in 3.0. The additions and modifications were solid but 3.0/d20 was a solid advancement of the AD&D rule set when WotC purchased D&D and moved away from 2.0 (which had a lot of flaws).
Jack
My group is still playing 1E, we have all tried 2E and think there are some great system changes in 2E, but feel that the 1E shouldn't have been revised as great as it was. So we've stuck to 1E which there is a ton of material for. Also with almost two dozen AP's there is so much of a variety to play that we haven't touched yet and that's not even counting homebrews.
That said PF1E needs some cleanup/elimination of redundant or broken builds due to massive rules bloat but a lot of this can be fixed by a GM in a home game. Houserule the stuff you don't want in your game.
The new edition did make some unintended changes, my players have been buying a lot of 1E stuff now that it is cheaper (more than 70% off) and 3 of them now GM so that's a big plus - means we play more AP's-faster.
Since an AP takes us 18 months to 2 years to completed we figure we have 5 or 6 years to go before we run out of stuff we want to play. By then DnD 6.0 and maybe PF2.5 or 3 will be out.
I'm all for house rules but I have to restrain myself because at some point there will be alterations to just about everything, and I don't feel my players should have to double check everything in case there are some relevant house rules.
I really struggle with this too. There are lots of things I want to do to make the game "better", but some of those things could really confuse players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for house rules but I have to restrain myself because at some point there will be alterations to just about everything, and I don't feel my players should have to double check everything in case there are some relevant house rules.I really struggle with this too. There are lots of things I want to do to make the game "better", but some of those things could really confuse players.
Been putting together a "House Rules book" for my table. Mostly it's minor spell errata and things like putting all the Poisons into Unchained Rules and such. Main point is just to have a written copy of what we have agreed to on the table for everyone to look at.
|
|
I've got a page of Houserules that has evolved over the years -- years of 3.0/3.5/PF.
What I find tricky is that, half of the Players with whom I game -- and maybe half of the new Players that will be joining when current Players move away or change work schedules -- rely not on books, but rather d20PFSRD or AoN. It would be so much easier if they weren't so reliant on a webpage whereon they can search through 3 billion, 426 million, 100 thousand, 77 Feats and Spells. Mostly because, after having perused the 3,426,100,077 Spells to find the two they want to add when Leveling-Up, they are unable to spend a massive 1.4 seconds to check the source from where the Spell is published to see whether it's legal. And another 1.1 seconds to check the Houserule page.
Despite this, though, we don't have any problems in game. As DM, I can roll with the punches in-game and just ask the Player to swap out the Spell or Feat or Equipment item for the next session.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every GM that runs a house game has a set or collection of house rules of some sort. I have maybe less than ten official house rules, but there are a variety of other guidelines such as starting point buys, number of allowed traits and so on and so forth.
I make a point to run a mostly open table, but I do have to regulate some third party material as there is just so much out there that it is not all of the same design quality.
I like it when GMs/DMs are open to allowing options into the game. It's part of what makes it fun and exciting. I try to do the same at my table.
Like W E Ray and PFRPGrognard, I have relatively few houserules, and allow pretty much anything at the table. I'm wearing my big boy pants, so if something turns out to be truly broken, I'll deal with it.
Mostly our rules are campaign expectations, not "rules", too. Things like "25 point-buy, no more than one stat at 18, no stat below 10 after racial adjustment" or "you get two traits" or "use unchained background skills rules". Strangely, the game works pretty darned well as written if you let it.
The only house rules I have have been ruling I have made on the Revised Action economy.
Thou I would suppose the way we each, in turn, interrupt rules and how we handle situations over time become defacto house rules.
Like W E Ray and PFRPGrognard, I have relatively few houserules, and allow pretty much anything at the table. I'm wearing my big boy pants, so if something turns out to be truly broken, I'll deal with it.
Mostly our rules are campaign expectations, not "rules", too. Things like "25 point-buy, no more than one stat at 18, no stat below 10 after racial adjustment" or "you get two traits" or "use unchained background skills rules". Strangely, the game works pretty darned well as written if you let it.
True. Most of ours have been spell changes or rulings, what optional rules are being used and a few minor things like; Getting stuff from pouches.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve found adding house rules is just more complexity for unnoticeable gain.
Banning stuff generally reduces complexity. : )
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but my Houserules are pretty commonly used ones:
Greg Vaughan and I let PCs reroll 1s on HP healing.
James Jacobs and I change the name of "Breath of Life" to "Cure Deadly Wounds" (making it a Spontaneous spell for Clerics)
Gary Gygax and I have nat 20s always Crit -- no f'ing confirmation on nat 20s
Monte Cook, Skip Williams and I still have the DR5-/ DR10-/ DR15- chart from 3.0
And a few others. PCs with max HP every level and an admittedly altered Skills consolidation quite similar to Unchained. Um, call it PF1.1
And I ban a large amount of stuff but try to be open as possible for exceptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I ban a large amount of stuff but try to be open as possible for exceptions.
For me its always been, before you take this niche archetype/race/class/feat/build i get to look it over and google "X option broken builds" before it gets the ok.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
no stat below 10 after racial adjustment"
So every small size character has to buy off their str penalty, every dwarf has to buy off their cha penalty, etc? Seems unnecessarily harsh.
I'm all for house rules but I have to restrain myself because at some point there will be alterations to just about everything, and I don't feel my players should have to double check everything in case there are some relevant house rules.
I stick to clean up and consolidation for my house rules. When my players run into one that they need to know about, it's usually along the lines of granting them additional feats, expanding the use of something, or restricting the use to a higher or more advanced version of something.
I've also started explicitly allowing very metagame uses of abilities so that players know they can do something with an ability that would require extensive knowledge of game mechanics to realize you could do otherwise. I've also considered writing up a few complicated multiclass builds as a single class so it's more accessible to players and can be tuned a bit, usually to make them less front heavy.
The temptation to go through and do a heavy rewrite is there, but there's a lot of effort there. Making sneak attack a power attack like ability for rogues and making them full BAB is simple enough, but reworking creature type based benefits to be creature shape based benefits would result in a massive rewrite for all monsters. I'd rather start from scratch so I didn't have artifacts from the original game pop up.
no stat below 10 after racial adjustment"So every small size character has to buy off their str penalty, every dwarf has to buy off their cha penalty, etc? Seems unnecessarily harsh.
Considering I've given them 25 points to play with... not even almost harsh.
Coming up with two points out of 25 isn't remotely onerous. The reason we do this is because it allows a wide variety of stats, and I frequently see high-Int fighters at my table because of it (for instance). If I were to just run a 15-point do-what-you-want game, we'd have a lot of 18 Str, 14 Dex, 10 Con, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 10 Cha... and then racial penalty builds. Instead I usually only see one or two 10 scores, and I then get characters investing in skills somewhat outside the expected. Together with traits that make various skills class, it really, really increases variety without things getting really max/min.
Keep in mind, I also play using these rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
House Rules I like.
-Max HP per Level
-All skills are class skills.
-Better starting stats.
-Better stat progression(and no stat boosting items except maybe Str).
-All magic weapons, armor, and shields always have some special ability/trait so they are not just plain "+" items.
-Adding 1/2 your character level to AC/CMD, no need for Amulets of Natural Armor and Rings of Protection.
House Rules I am fine with.
-No Traits(if all skills are class skills)
-No Favored class bonuses(if you get max HP per level)
-Getting rid of some "problem" spells.(Especially anti-magic field)
-No Cloaks of Resistance(if you have good stats and stat growth).
House Rules I don't like.
-Not allowing classes.
-Not allowing races that are not over powered.
-Nerfing spells and magic in general.
-Any rule that favors one class(or classes) over another(others).
-Any rule that favors one race(or races) over another(others).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reminds me of one of my convoluted house rules. Variable point buy. You get to choose from 3 point buy options:
25 point, but you can’t buy a score above 15 or trade below 8
20 point, but you can’t buy a score above 17
15 point, no extra limit
The intent was to balance point buy between SAD and MAD builds. But these days, I just use cooperative rolling, where everyone rolls a stat array and you can pick from anyone’s array. You just have to keep the arrays on hand in case you need to add a character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would prefer a set stat array like 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 that you can place where ever you want.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
House Rules I don't like. -Not allowing classes.
.
I disallow Gunslinger completely.
And I disallow Occult Adventures mostly because I haven't learned the system. Eventually I'll be in the mood to really read it in depth, build a few PCs, and introduce an NPC or two in my campaign. Then, once I know the rules a bit for OA, I can allow it.
The little that I've seen in play -- two character builds I saw in different games when visiting other groups -- were quite unbalanced.
But the little OA perusing I've done shows good balance. .... So I assume it's mostly balanced but, as with several gaming books across the decades, there's a few things here and there that are 'too good to be kept.'