|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty confused about the "do you remember how to do Calculus the way you did it" anecdote, specifically because I did my graduate research on nonstandard analysis which is primarily useful as a heuristic tool, so in a very real way I got a lot better at knowing how to do Calculus than I was before I went to grad school (despite doing very little Calculus there.)
The point is, "do you remember how to do things you haven't done in X years", which is very much analogous to RPG retraining. You've let one skill degrade in favor of others. It's quite abstracted because no one wants to track every little bit of minutia but still grounded in reality.
Maybe that's why Harnmaster is such a niche game. :-)
Then there's the local ban on gaming books at used book stores to contend with.
You could probably attribute the differences to variation in local gaming cultures. They could streamline PF2 for squad based wargaming or a board game and do well up here though.
Ban on gaming books? What is that about?
Bookstores don't want to carry product that won't sell.
Ah. The d20 glut and die off. Early 2000s crap wave eh?
And if they don't have an employee familiar with the market, they risk buying a lot of out of date/shovelware that no one will buy and just takes up inventory space.
It's not just bookstores. I've seen LGS who deal in the stuff taking in old bad ttrpg books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I *cleaned up* at the used book store with my 3.5 books when I took them in to sell them shortly after Pathfinder 1e launched. I heard one of the employees telling the other as I left the sell counter, "Get these on the shelves right away because they're going to go fast." Apparently, 3rd edition was popular in my area during the early 4e era.
Predator's Pounce is a level 12 feat, so you already have Mighty Rage at that stage.
And at level 12, not raging for a Barbarian means being quite in trouble as most (if not all) of your abilities are only activated while raging.
Good catch, entirely missed mighty rage. I would still say that it isn't a straight upgrade and I can think of many situations where you would want to be wearing medium armour as an animal barbarian or where you would want the flexibility to do it outside of rage. But being able to rage as a free action does make it far more niche.
Tell that to ShadeRaven finally upto 5th level spells after as many months of updates. It is not at all that easy otherwise he would have knocked it out in the first week; if it was that easy devs would include manual fixing of unparsed spells as part of the release. And you would still be stuck with the roll vs. DC spells/skills because that is not in the ruleset
I respect what shaderaven is looking to do regarding automation, I do not agree that they have gone about it in the most efficient means. Nor are they just focusing on automating spells.
I will concede that I was being exaggeratory with my initial timeline, but the reality is that within what the ruleset is capable of it isn't difficult to automate spells and create a module (or better yet, create an extension to do it via xml overrides which is how I did it for 5e).
I wasn't talking about changing the ruleset functions though, that is something that takes more knowledge. I have however created extensions for 5e that check against "passive" skill DCs for some houserules I like to run. So it is doable.
HOWEVER, just because something is easy doesn't mean that Trenloe (the ruleset developer) is going to implement them. Look at the theme, it has horrible tiling issues, very easy to fix but still there because it is low priority. Or auto counting ammunition, I made an extension to do that in no time, but it is also not included.
The biggest issue with the PF2e ruleset in FG is that the developer chose to build on the PF1e ruleset from what I can see, there is heaps of dead or repurposed code. It is getting better with the changes over time, but it horribly messy and I don't envy having to work with it. I am guessing this is a result of wanting to get the ruleset ready for the playtest in a hurry.
But yes, again, I stand by my original statement that it isn't difficult to automate spells and make modules with them. I have one player who has taken the workload out of my hands for his character and does it idly while we play and each level before the players reach it. Level 1 was a bit of a slog thanks to having to do all the cantrips and level 1 spells but after that it has been pretty easy going.
Good catch, entirely missed mighty rage. I would still say that it isn't a straight upgrade and I can think of many situations where you would want to be wearing medium armour as an animal barbarian or where you would want the flexibility to do it outside of rage. But being able to rage as a free action does make it far more niche.Predator's Pounce is a level 12 feat, so you already have Mighty Rage at that stage.
And at level 12, not raging for a Barbarian means being quite in trouble as most (if not all) of your abilities are only activated while raging.
Of course, I agree that they don't completely overlap. But I think the situations where you would prefer Sudden Charge may be many in number but nearly non existent in occurrence. The movement type being the only valid one for me.
Not raging is a very bad idea, as it would reduce your damage to half and remove most of your defensive abilities. And you can retrain Sudden Charge for Moment of Clarity if you really want to be able to switch.Wearing a medium armor will never occur if you take Predator's Pounce as it's a prerequisite.
I *cleaned up* at the used book store with my 3.5 books when I took them in to sell them shortly after Pathfinder 1e launched. I heard one of the employees telling the other as I left the sell counter, "Get these on the shelves right away because they're going to go fast." Apparently, 3rd edition was popular in my area during the early 4e era.
In my area used 3.5e books still sell quite well. I have a recent group that just started playing 3.5e in the last year or so, and that's 7 people looking for used 3.5 PHBs now. I continually scan used bookstores for some of the gems I foolishly dumped some time ago.
My local used book store gladly deals in game books. Unfortunately, I already had a copy of everything that had available for sale, and I don't have anything in that category that I am ready to sell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...a few more thoughts on PF2 after Gm'ed my first table last weekend:
* I have even more appreciation for the 3 action economy than I did as a player. They really nailed this aspect of the system.
* The game looks to scale to high levels much better than 1E, so that's one 3.5/P1 bugbear slain.
* Many things that used to happen "automatically" are now reactions, which (for example) Orc Ferocity won't work if you've already spent your reaction for the round. I'm not sure how I feel about this...it creates some really interesting choices in combat, but also creates some really odd outcomes.
* Parts of the system could have used a little more time in the oven. For example, the way ongoing damage interacts with dying is awkward. If you're dying 3 with ongoing damage, you make a recovery roll that will be meaningless 70% of the time (because you'll die anyway if you fail the subsequent DC 15 flat check).
PFS is still the best OP campaign out there, and Paizo makes great accessories, but overall my experience just reaffirmed my belief that I'm not really the target market for 2E. I'll happily play it occasionally to hang out with friends, but the game remains too fiddly for my taste. In fact, it doesn't seem less fiddly than 1E...just differently fiddly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a game in this genre that isn't fiddly in some way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a game in this genre that isn't fiddly in some way?
Everything exists in a spectrum, I certainly wouldn't say that because every system has fiddly bits somewhere that every system is fiddly.
PF2e has a lot of fiddly bits to keep track of in play and situational rules. It isn't nearly as irritating to run RAW as PF1e is (so many bespoke rules to keep track of).
It is certainly fiddlier than a lot of RPGs out there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...but the actual play is unlikely to include so many things to keep track of.
You mean like the medicine skill and battle medicine skill feat, where my warpriest had to keep track of up to 10 separate timers for a party of 4 and an animal companion? ;)
Even our GM was a little irritated (and perhaps also a little annoyed) by my constant queries about the passing of time...
Is there a game in this genre that isn't fiddly in some way?
Dungeon World
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but the actual play is unlikely to include so many things to keep track of.You mean like the medicine skill and battle medicine skill feat, where my warpriest had to keep track of up to 10 separate timers for a party of 4 and an animal companion? ;)
Even our GM was a little irritated (and perhaps also a little annoyed) by my constant queries about the passing of time...
The cleric I GM for said she's going to start using a laminated sheet of paper with the party's names on it to keep track of who she's used Battle Medicine, Treat Wounds, and Guidance on.
Battle Medicine, Inspiring Boosts, these kind of abilities are a pain to track, I don't understand why they created one in 2E, too...
Battle Medicine, Inspiring Boosts, these kind of abilities are a pain to track, I don't understand why they created one in 2E, too...
I believe I get the intent: Make parties less dependent on having a cleric.
However, I find Battle Medicine to too effective. In the table I ran, it far, far outshone actual healing magic when there was a cleric present.
Another thing I like: The way multi-classing works. Seems like a good balance of investment/reward (though of course this is mostly an assumption on my part -- I've not seen this in play).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Medicine, Inspiring Boosts, these kind of abilities are a pain to track, I don't understand why they created one in 2E, too...I believe I get the intent: Make parties less dependent on having a cleric.
However, I personally find Battle Medicine to be a bit too effective (in addition to requiring a per character "timer"). In the table I ran, it far, far outshone actual healing magic when there was a cleric present.
Maybe at low levels, but the moment the party hits level 3 and the cleric has 2-4 free 2d10+16 heals they get their chance to shine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I get the intent: Make parties less dependent on having a cleric.
However, I find Battle Medicine to too effective. In the table I ran, it far, far outshone actual healing magic when there was a cleric present.
.
* Healing via spells is the regular in-combat healing.* Battle medicine is some kind of emergency in-combat healing, which is open to anyone, especially non-spellcasters.
* Treat wounds is out of combat healing.
Maybe at low levels, but the moment the party hits level 3 and the cleric has 2-4 free 2d10+16 heals they get their chance to shine.Battle Medicine, Inspiring Boosts, these kind of abilities are a pain to track, I don't understand why they created one in 2E, too...I believe I get the intent: Make parties less dependent on having a cleric.
However, I personally find Battle Medicine to be a bit too effective (in addition to requiring a per character "timer"). In the table I ran, it far, far outshone actual healing magic when there was a cleric present.
Makes sense...I'm pretty sure the cleric at my table was only level 2.
I believe I get the intent: Make parties less dependent on having a cleric.
However, I find Battle Medicine to too effective. In the table I ran, it far, far outshone actual healing magic when there was a cleric present.
.
* Healing via spells is the regular in-combat healing.
* Battle medicine is some kind of emergency in-combat healing, which is open to anyone, especially non-spellcasters.
* Treat wounds is out of combat healing.
I understand. I should have written "it far outshone actual healing magic for in combat healing, even when there was a cleric present."
Though as has since been pointed out by Salamileg, that may have been because the cleric in question was only level 2 (still isn't great, but much less of an issue if it only exists before level 3).
I understand. I should have written "it far outshone actual healing magic for in combat healing, even when there was a cleric present."
Though as has since been pointed out by Salamileg, that may have been because the cleric in question was only level 2 (still isn't great, but much less of an issue if it only exists before level 3).
Yes, it is mainly a level 1 to 2 thing, where battle medicine does 2d8 points of healing (9 average) versus the clerics 1d8+8 (12.5 average). So in large groups (more than 4 players) BM can easily outheal the average 3 heals the cleric comes equipped with (36+ vs 37.5).
At level 3 and 4 a regular heal spell does 2d8+16 (25 average) and the BM still does 2d8 (9 average) unless you are going for risky rolls. So for a party of 4 that BM is still at 36 vs 75 from 3 heals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I get the intent: Make parties less dependent on having a cleric.
Think their complaint was less about Battle Medicine existing and more about the cooldowns.
PF2 was supposed to do away with a lot of the fiddly math of 1e and while it succeeded in some ways, tracking various immunity timers is pretty tedious and fiddly too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, honestly kind of surprising they didn't find something else considering that standardizing durations/usages was a "big thing" in 2E, as you say. Really a simple change (that one could houserule) is changing it's usage limit from "1 day later" i.e. 24 hours to "1/ day" i.e. after your next daily rest and preparation you can now do it once more... even though that de facto almost always works out to a shorter duration than RAW, it seems like it largely serves same metagame purpose... with less fiddly discrete tracking of "exact" time of day, which most people aren't otherwise tracking for game events.
I used to think the healing from the Medicine skill was maybe a bit strong, too, until I saw what a high level Cleric can actually do.
My players are currently 7th level and just had a really nasty fight (they actually ran away from it). At one point the cleric had 15-ish hit points left and instead of retreating decided to spend two actions dropping a heal on himself - this recovered 55-ish hit points, bringing him almost back to full health and completely undoing the damage he took in the last two turns.
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a while! PF2 CRB has now 501 ratings at Amazon while the PF1 CRB has 951. So, we're over a half a number accumulated over 10 years in 7 months.
The PF2 Bestiary has 136 ratings, compared to PF1 Bestiary at 118. I didn't expect that! Then again, monster design is something that's one of the strongest aspects of PF2, so I can even see PF1 people plundering the PF2 bestiary for ideas on how to spice things up.
And before Quark Blast pops in to remind everybody of 5E numbers - yes, we know that 5E lives on another planet. Nobody cares, as long as Paizo pays the salaries and hires new people, which is probably the only metric of economic success the entire political spectrum can agree on ;-)
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also been gradually catching up in rating. It's at 4.5 Stars to PF1's 4.7 now (up from the 4.3 it was at in early December due to the initial wave of 1 star reviews).
The Bestiary comparison is even closer, with the PF2 Bestiary hitting 4.6 to the PF1 Bestiary's 4.7, and having a higher percentage of 5 star ratings (there's also, unsurprisingly, more 1-2 star ratings, hence the lower total rating...but 81% give it 5 stars, up from 79% for the PF1 Bestiary).
5E has also undergone a massive increase in number of ratings during this time (up to over 8500, and a total rating of 4.7), which seems an interesting side note, but as Gorbacz notes, has nothing directly to do with PF2's popularity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
5E has also undergone a massive increase in ratings during this time (up to over 8500, and a total rating of 4.7), which seems an interesting side note, but as Gorbacz notes, has nothing directly to do with PF2's popularity.
That's 8,500 future converts! ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC is clearly threatened by Paizo's growing success, and is obviously using bad actors to make fake reviews to stay well ahead. /tongue-in-cheek
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's 8,500 future converts! ;)
5E has also undergone a massive increase in ratings during this time (up to over 8500, and a total rating of 4.7), which seems an interesting side note, but as Gorbacz notes, has nothing directly to do with PF2's popularity.
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but really, the better 5e does the more opportunity pathfinder has in the long run, since 5e is mostly targeted at new players and has proven adept at growing the hobby.
Even if only a relatively small percentage of 5e players ever make the jump to the more customization and mechanics centric system, that's a huge windfall for paizo overall.
I honestly like the idea of letting 5e fill the market niche of basic DND, with Pathfinder 2e being thought of as the modern advanced equivalent. It suggests that there's a real path where some 5e players who grow into their tastes over time, will find that 2e is a superior system and make the jump. There are so many players who started in the last 3 years or so, and at least some of them are going to grow into the kinds of players 5e doesn't handle all that well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but really, the better 5e does the more opportunity pathfinder has in the long run, since 5e is mostly targeted at new players and has proven adept at growing the hobby.
Even if only a relatively small percentage of 5e players ever make the jump to the more customization and mechanics centric system, that's a huge windfall for paizo overall.
I honestly like the idea of letting 5e fill the market niche of basic DND, with Pathfinder 2e being thought of as the modern advanced equivalent. It suggests that there's a real path where some 5e players who grow into their tastes over time, will find that 2e is a superior system and make the jump. There are so many players who started in the last 3 years or so, and at least some of them are going to grow into the kinds of players 5e doesn't handle all that well.
I agree 100%.
While all of those 8,500 are unlikely to convert, those 8,500 reviews draw more people to the hobby.
It's like when someone first starts playing guitar, they might get a Yamaha or a Fender Squire, or maybe they start with some super basic off-brand that's remniscent of the two described. Now ultimately, I find guitarists move on from those guitars once they know what they enjoy about playing guitar. I would say the same is true for TTRPGs in a sense.
The bottom line is PF2 is a great game. Really great. My favorite edition ever actually, and I've played several editions (some that aren't even traditional medieval+knights+magic versions).
Once people adopt the hobby, they will at least hear about "the other brother" (Paizo) eventually. And I would be surprised if they didn't give it a chance, and even more surprised if most of them didn't love it.
Not to mention, I really think this edition is a Juggernaut. Once it gets more material and builds up APs, it's going to be unstoppable.
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but really, the better 5e does the more opportunity pathfinder has in the long run, since 5e is mostly targeted at new players and has proven adept at growing the hobby.
Even if only a relatively small percentage of 5e players ever make the jump to the more customization and mechanics centric system, that's a huge windfall for paizo overall.
I honestly like the idea of letting 5e fill the market niche of basic DND, with Pathfinder 2e being thought of as the modern advanced equivalent. It suggests that there's a real path where some 5e players who grow into their tastes over time, will find that 2e is a superior system and make the jump. There are so many players who started in the last 3 years or so, and at least some of them are going to grow into the kinds of players 5e doesn't handle all that well.
I agree 100%.
While all of those 8,500 are unlikely to convert, those 8,500 reviews draw more people to the hobby.
It's like when someone first starts playing guitar, they might get a Yamaha or a Fender Squire, or maybe they start with some super basic off-brand that's remniscent of the two described. Now ultimately, I find guitarists move on from those guitars once they know what they enjoy about playing guitar. I would say the same is true for TTRPGs in a sense.
The bottom line is PF2 is a great game. Really great. My favorite edition ever actually, and I've played several editions (some that aren't even traditional medieval+knights+magic versions).
Once people adopt the hobby, they will at least hear about "the other brother" (Paizo) eventually. And I would be surprised if they didn't give it a chance, and even more surprised if most of them didn't love it.
Not to mention, I really think this edition is a Juggernaut. Once it gets more material and builds up APs, it's going to be unstoppable.
Agreed completely, I'm actually a bassist and you could say PF2e is the Washburn to my Squier... as that's literally what I upgraded to after a couple of years with the Squier.
I also agree that this game is a juggernaut, I think as word of mouth propagates, more people end their 5e and pf1e campaigns, and more material releases, it'll continue to become a force in the hobby. Especially if it's community stays hype, we'll naturally attract more people who want to give it a try... that's the real reason I do those AMA's over on reddit when my subscription books come in, its to give every release the feeling of being an event and keep the game boiling in people's feeds- make some of the people who said they wanted more material for it to be conscious every time there's a content drop.
While I think you're basically right about 5E's success being good for PF (and the rest of the RPG field in general), I really don't like the framing of PF2 as the "superior" system that some players will "grow into".
More like different systems for different tastes and PF2 caters to a smaller niche of the market. Not necessarily a more elite one, just a different one.
Some people may actually play and enjoy both, quite possibly along with other different games. And while 5E has definitely picked up a lot of new players, it also is played by plenty of long time experienced gamers as well. By all reports, it's a damn good game. Not to everyone's taste of course, but nothing is.
I think you could be right, but we can't really say this early can we?
For years, Internet Explorer was the dominant browser.
That didn't mean it was the superior browser, and in fact, over time as FireFox took market share, it became pretty obvious that it wasn't the superior product.
And then Chrome came from behind and even overtook FireFox.
And now Edge has converted it's model to use Chromium, since both FireFox and Chrome proved that it was the superior model.
While I can only speak from personal preference, in a world where people seeking that feeling of uniqueness (not even speaking TTRPG), that is something that PF2 has over 5E, being able to play something entirely unique.
The game is 7 months old in a few days, it took FireFox and Chrome years to take market share, despite nothing fundamentally different changing between those products (outside chrome introducing OS's that did not start with IE).
I also agree that this game is a juggernaut, I think as word of mouth propagates, more people end their 5e and pf1e campaigns, and more material releases, it'll continue to become a force in the hobby. Especially if it's community stays hype, we'll naturally attract more people who want to give it a try... that's the real reason I do those AMA's over on reddit when my subscription books come in, its to give every release the feeling of being an event and keep the game boiling in people's feeds- make some of the people who said they wanted more material for it to be conscious every time there's a content drop.
What is hype may never die!
But in essence, I do love how much we have all stayed very into PF2 and they said the APG PT had almost as much feedback as the core rules (which is promising).
Time will tell!
That's 8,500 future converts! ;)
5E has also undergone a massive increase in ratings during this time (up to over 8500, and a total rating of 4.7), which seems an interesting side note, but as Gorbacz notes, has nothing directly to do with PF2's popularity.
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but really, the better 5e does the more opportunity pathfinder has in the long run, since 5e is mostly targeted at new players and has proven adept at growing the hobby.
Even if only a relatively small percentage of 5e players ever make the jump to the more customization and mechanics centric system, that's a huge windfall for paizo overall.
I honestly like the idea of letting 5e fill the market niche of basic DND, with Pathfinder 2e being thought of as the modern advanced equivalent. It suggests that there's a real path where some 5e players who grow into their tastes over time, will find that 2e is a superior system and make the jump. There are so many players who started in the last 3 years or so, and at least some of them are going to grow into the kinds of players 5e doesn't handle all that well.
While I think you're basically right about 5E's success being good for PF (and the rest of the RPG field in general), I really don't like the framing of PF2 as the "superior" system that some players will "grow into".
More like different systems for different tastes and PF2 caters to a smaller niche of the market. Not necessarily a more elite one, just a different one.
Some people may actually play and enjoy both, quite possibly along with other different games. And while 5E has definitely picked up a lot of new players, it also is played by plenty of long time experienced gamers as well. By all reports, it's a damn good game. Not to everyone's taste of course, but nothing is.
The inflection of my comment was on it being a superior system for certain "kinds" of players, not overall. Namely players who want heavy customization and way more options, players who are more invested in the character building metagame, players who enjoy a faster release schedule, etc. The "growing" is some portion of 5e's newbies to the hobby developing a set of tastes and realizing they want those things enough to switch over to something that does it better.
Anecdotal evidence: the 5e players I know (and still play with, even though I dislike the system)
One is hard core into 5e, and doesn't want to switch, partially an 'I don't like change' reaction, partially a 'I'm also playing a 3.5 campaign and don't want any sort of mechanic heavy system' reaction.
Two would probably play, but are in 5e campaigns, and don't want to play more campaigns, plus are paper type players and don't want to spend the money.
One would play any system, but isn't into the mechanics of any system, they're just social.
Another loves their 3.5 and traveller and is hesitant to do anything else, only grudgingly playing 5e at all.
The others I play with tend to play whatever I'm running (and therefore have only played SF, PF2, and a little bit of PF1), and some of them are still unaware there's a difference between PF2 and 5e, but hopefully PF2 leaves an impression.
Anecdotal evidence: the 5e players I know (and still play with, even though I dislike the system)
One is hard core into 5e, and doesn't want to switch, partially an 'I don't like change' reaction, partially a 'I'm also playing a 3.5 campaign and don't want any sort of mechanic heavy system' reaction.
Two would probably play, but are in 5e campaigns, and don't want to play more campaigns, plus are paper type players and don't want to spend the money.
One would play any system, but isn't into the mechanics of any system, they're just social.
Another loves their 3.5 and traveller and is hesitant to do anything else, only grudgingly playing 5e at all.
The others I play with tend to play whatever I'm running (and therefore have only played SF, PF2, and a little bit of PF1), and some of them are still unaware there's a difference between PF2 and 5e, but hopefully PF2 leaves an impression.
The commonality I see among them is all of them haven't actually played a PF2 game.
Is that the case? or has there been a few that have played it and just don't like it?
Anecdotal evidence: the 5e players I know (and still play with, even though I dislike the system)
One is hard core into 5e, and doesn't want to switch, partially an 'I don't like change' reaction, partially a 'I'm also playing a 3.5 campaign and don't want any sort of mechanic heavy system' reaction.
Two would probably play, but are in 5e campaigns, and don't want to play more campaigns, plus are paper type players and don't want to spend the money.
One would play any system, but isn't into the mechanics of any system, they're just social.
Another loves their 3.5 and traveller and is hesitant to do anything else, only grudgingly playing 5e at all.
The others I play with tend to play whatever I'm running (and therefore have only played SF, PF2, and a little bit of PF1), and some of them are still unaware there's a difference between PF2 and 5e, but hopefully PF2 leaves an impression.
The commonality I see among them is all of them haven't actually played a PF2 game.
Is that the case? or has there been a few that have played it and just don't like it?
Sadly they have, the hardcore 5e guy, the 3.5/traveller guy and the social butterfly. The first two were unimpressed by the one shot, but it was the 3.5 guy running it and was only at level 1, which can and did lead to iffy comparisons. I've trying to tempt them into a fall of plaguestone/similar, but alas, to no avail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think when it comes to these two games we need to stop using words like “superior.” The implication of “objective” truth that hides behind that word and it’s siblings is just too heady. Even in a pro PF2 environment like this last dozen posts in this thread it was read wrong by someone.
Both are now simplified iterations of the D20 system, built with consistent math fueling a chassis onto which one can easily attach unique subsystems. That is a narrow enough design space where some players are going to like the chocolate version and others are going to like the peanut butter version and some people like them interchangeably.
Neither is superior to the other, but one is absolutely more someone’s taste than the other.
I guess it depends on how you want to define "superior". Some things are viewed subjectively, and some things aren't viewed subjectively, but even subjective things can be viewed objectively.
Once someone posed me the question:
"If you could live in the Star Wars Universe or the Star Trek Universe which would you pick?"
Which is a relatively subjective question. But then they posed this solution:
"The answer is actually Star Trek, because you can use the Holodeck to simply create an exact replica of the Star Wars universe."
Which when I heard that, seemed relatively unrefutable (barring some kind of Matrix scenario where being in the Holodeck is some kind of "trapped" issue). I'm not saying PF2 and 5E fall into this scenario, but things are only really subjective, until, well, they aren't subjective because it's too hard to deny what one offering brings to the table over the other.
This is more or less the same as the Browser situation:
- "I don't have to install anything, IE is already there!"
- "I don't even use the internet that often, why do I even care what browser I use?"
- "I don't see the appeal of Chrome, why would I ever want 'extensions'?"
Those are all valid things to say.
And yet, IE is definitely the worst browser on the market (in function, in form, in capability, speed, usability, etc). I do not believe saying that is a subjective opinion.
Familiarity is all it has.
When would PF2 be undoubtedly considered 'superior', if such a thing is even possible?
No one knows the answer to that, but I do think it is possible for such a thing to become true/accepted by the general population.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is a relatively subjective question. But then they posed this solution:
"The answer is actually Star Trek, because you can use the Holodeck to simply create an exact replica of the Star Wars universe."
Which when I heard that, seemed relatively unrefutable
That in no makes the subjective choice of Star Trek objectively better or more preferable than Star Wars. It just reframes the argument in a way that persuades you his subjective opinion aligns with yours.
And yet, IE is definitely the worst browser on the market (in function, in form, in capability, speed, usability, etc). I do not believe saying that is a subjective opinion.
Sure, but in the analogy where we use browsers as stand ins for games, neither 5e nor PF2 are the proverbial Internet Explorer.
No one knows the answer to that, but I do think it is possible for such a thing to become true/accepted by the general population.
Ten years did not bring about consensus over whether D&D or PF1 were “superior” so I doubt a decade of PF2 will fare any better in that regard. It will remain a subjective choice that some will turn into tribalism.