Take up of Second Edition


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,069 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Dirtypool, I'm pretty sure your "strange alchemy" is exactly Midnightoker's "paradigm shift", and you two are arguing over nothing but semantics.

Except of course that “strange alchemy” is a poetic turn of phrase and “paradigm shift” is a specific term with a specific meaning that relates to the changing of a pattern and he continues to use it about the refinement of the existing pattern. If something is blue but I call it purple because I like the way purple sounds, the thing is still blue.

That’s not semantics.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dirtypool wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Dirtypool, I'm pretty sure your "strange alchemy" is exactly Midnightoker's "paradigm shift", and you two are arguing over nothing but semantics.

Except of course that “strange alchemy” is a poetic turn of phrase and “paradigm shift” is a specific term with a specific meaning that relates to the changing of a pattern and he continues to use it about the refinement of the existing pattern. If something is blue but I call it purple because I like the way purple sounds, the thing is still blue.

That’s not semantics.

Perhaps not, but it seems like a silly argument to have. You are arguing over definition of terms instead of anything meaningful. If someone insists on calling blue purple, but the real question at hand is "does this color look appealing on this dress?", it doesn't really serve the discussion much to try and "correct" the other person...

Put another way, if I could post images on this forum I would be posting the "someone is wrong on the internet" XKCD right now. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:

Hit points and experience points have a purpose.

If you remove hit points, people are invincible. If you remove experience points, people don't get better.

There are other ways to deal with these things. In Harnmaster, for example, there are no hit points and no experience points. Instead there are injury points that directly reduce your skill at doing things, including combat. When you do something well, or periodically (about once a month) you get skill development rolls that allow you a chance to improve your skills. System works just without hit points or experience points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont see what dirtypool is doing as arguing semantics but as trying to properly apply definitions and trying to separate Objective truth from Subjective feelings. Paradigm shift as originally coined, is when the methods and thoughts of the past are fundamentally changed/replaced.

In PF1 and PF2 the paradigm shift comes in how feats, features, and skills work. The change of features being less prominent but feats having stronger uses is considerably different, as is the idea of increasing skills by tiers instead of the small ranks. Ignoring the fact that many of the PF2 systems were developed as alternative systems for PF1.

But however when considering the genre as a whole, PF2 is more of a tale of rediscovering and reapplying older techniques. Dedications, 3 action economy, skill changes (at least in what they do), and changes to items progression were all originally created in Pathfinder Unchained. Things like tiers are a variance of bounded accuracy. Backgrounds are a more mechanical form of those created in 5e. Many parts appear to be related to 4e. Some belong to much older systems most people dont know about. Hence its hard to say at least at this point whether its a paradigm shift.

However, this does not mean PF2 doesn't deserve praise or acknowledgement. The writers developed something that is fun, and used many things from the past as inspiration (even if unknowingly) so the game should be praised for managing to make those systems work in a way that originally failed or didnt get enough recognition.

Whether the game is "totally new", "a new take on the past", or something inherently different doesn't decide if its objectively good or bad. That can only be told by the test of time; Certainly not when people still have the old system in their heart, or while some are only after the shiny new object in their sights.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Isn’t it a little hyperbolic to say that the paradigm has been changed?

I can't speak for your point of view.

To me simply saying you roll D20 and add a number and then look at a target is a massive failure to perceive the relationship between mechanics and the experience role-playing.

It is a total paradigm shift to go from a system that built those modifiers on narrative identities (one example among many many options: choice of armor and how that impacts AC) to one which built those modifiers on gamist balance (all L8 characters will have an AC is a certain target range, narrative elements may fine tune this).

No claim about any individual's preference or the merits of liking one over the other. The PF2 approach is an instant no-sell to me, and that is relevant to me and nobody but me. And I absolutely respect that other DO see it the opposite. That is cool and makes a great diverse world.

But IT IS a paradigm shift of major significance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
This thread took a weird turn.

Yes, this has become a tiresome argument over semantics. Can we please return this thread to the take-up of PF2 and not some posters' egos? *yawn*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is very weird to me, because from my perspective, most of these things look like fairly minor tweaks to basically the same approach, not huge paradigm shifts.

Within a focus just on D&D and close derivatives like PF, I can almost see it.

I'd say the biggest paradigm shift in D&D history was the introduction of the "build game" in 3.0, with precursors in late 2E. That was a fundamental shift that many today can hardly conceive of playing without.

Outside of that focus, narrative mechanics like those in Dungeon World are a huge paradigm shift.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'd say the biggest paradigm shift in D&D history was the introduction of the "build game" in 3.0, with precursors in late 2E. That was a fundamental shift that many today can hardly conceive of playing without.

Totally agree that 2E to 3E was a HUGE shift.

I have been assured by some that the post Skills and Powers era of 2E was a big step in the 3E direction. But I had already abandoned 2E for "better" games.....

As to whether or not PF2E is also a huge shift, I am honestly boggled that anyone can claim a move from "look at each item and add up the impacts based on what they are" to "+ level puts you in the right 'balance' area" as a major objective change. It is.

Again (again, again, again) I have ZERO claim on the subjective merits of this to any other person anywhere. But it IS funny to me when someone else will simultaneously tell me that it is WAAAAY better and then turn around and tell em that it is unreasonable to see it as different once I explain why *to me* it is unappealing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BryonD wrote:
But IT IS a paradigm shift of major significance.

No it isn’t. A paradigm shift is defined as a fundamental change in approach. It means that the old pattern or modality has been greatly altered.

I build a character on attributes that then derive modifiers that then add with skill characteristics to create an overall modifier that adds to a D20 which I compare with a Target number. If it’s an attack roll that Target number is called AC. Damage is rolled on a die type determined by the weapon.

Which iteration of the D20 game did I just describe? If PF2 represented a paradigm shift then that very minimalist description would not be an accurate depiction of the core of the game, and yet it is.

I’m not arguing against this game, I’m not saying anything bad about this game, it’s my favorite iteration of the D20 fantasy game.

What I’m saying is let’s start talking about the reality of this game instead of user over the top analyses like calling it a “paradigm shift” to pat ourselves on the back for having correctly chosen “the superior game.”

There is plenty of awesome in this edition to discuss without having to blow this smoke constantly. People who are on the fence, and people who disagree could see the kind of over the top praise we keep using and think we’re all in the tank and dismiss us outright.


This is the internet man, hyperbole is the language of the land.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have time to read through 20 pages of you guys discussing a game I'm loving playing because I'm either too busy playing or reading my fancy new GMG.

Pathfinder 2E is awesome.

5E is a good stepping stone into RPGS but way too simple for my taste.

Therefore for me 2E is superior.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my own little slice of anecdotal xp, all my gaming buddies are still playing pf1. We're all in the middle of multiple pf1 adventure paths and homebrew campaigns that will likely take another year or two to finish. Maybe after that we'll play pf2, but as of now there's only been a handful of pfs2 games run in the area that I know of.
I'm also curious how well it has done overall. I hope it is doing well, but so far here it seems to be another book on the shelf next to all those other rpgs we never play.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BryonD wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'd say the biggest paradigm shift in D&D history was the introduction of the "build game" in 3.0, with precursors in late 2E. That was a fundamental shift that many today can hardly conceive of playing without.

Totally agree that 2E to 3E was a HUGE shift.

I have been assured by some that the post Skills and Powers era of 2E was a big step in the 3E direction. But I had already abandoned 2E for "better" games.....

As to whether or not PF2E is also a huge shift, I am honestly boggled that anyone can claim a move from "look at each item and add up the impacts based on what they are" to "+ level puts you in the right 'balance' area" as a major objective change. It is.

Again (again, again, again) I have ZERO claim on the subjective merits of this to any other person anywhere. But it IS funny to me when someone else will simultaneously tell me that it is WAAAAY better and then turn around and tell em that it is unreasonable to see it as different once I explain why *to me* it is unappealing.

Bryon, I don't know which is more surprising, that you are still around or that I completely agree with you for once. :)

I know we've argued before but honestly it is good to know you are still hanging around these parts.


I'd also say that a game can be good without huge innovation or a paradigm shift. Sometimes recombining or tweaking existing ideas can produce something better than than their original uses. Or a paradigm shifting idea can be introduced in one place, but not take off until someone else picks it up and uses it in a different setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'd also say that a game can be good without huge innovation or a paradigm shift. Sometimes recombining or tweaking existing ideas can produce something better than than their original uses. Or a paradigm shifting idea can be introduced in one place, but not take off until someone else picks it up and uses it in a different setting.

Thanks, this is far more useful than the texas sharpshooter language match we've been watching.

I wouldn't call PF2 a huge change from standard TTRPGs, but combining modularity, and rejection of simulationism in favor of game balance does seem pretty new.

GURPS is an amazing game if you want modularity and simulationism, but you need to make a balance pass on the game based on the type of game you're running to avoid must have advantages and freebe disadvantages. I don't really like telling players they need to buy off disadvantages before they can buy anything else, but that's how the game works. It's hard to say that a moderately succesful 36 year old game didn't catch on though. There's too much screen side work involved for it to blow up like other games in the genre, but it's not on the short life cycle of other rpgs.

Pf2 is probably great for people who wish ttrpgs were more like video games, or people who don't like simulationism or in game inference from real world data.


ErichAD wrote:

Pf2 is probably great for people who wish ttrpgs were more like video games, or people who don't like simulationism or in game inference from real world data.

It's not exclusive to those parties.

I don't personally want TTRPGs to be like video games, nor does our table abandon the standard concepts from simulationism (we enjoy acting out our roles and exhibiting our characters).

The game can be appreciated for structure/implementation without wanting either of those things. Sometimes a recipe for success is just a recipe for success. It's not one single ingredient, it's the combination and execution.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I generally prefer games to steer away from video games. But honestly Pathfinder was bad at that anyway so leaning into it and perfecting it was the way to go in my eyes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Ok, someone lay out the disagreement for me and I'll settle it.

[edited because I realize I shouldn't fan the flames.]

________________________________________________________________

Moving on, I think we can all agree Pathfinder 2e is probably objectively superior for some players, while objectively inferior for others, and that ultimately as a game, how it compares to others games is indeed subjective... but that we can absolutely discuss our positions on it's quality secure in the knowledge that our fellow posters will understand the context in which we are speaking.

I'm eager to see how additional options, especially the APG in July, affect the take up of the game- between people's campaigns drawing to a close in other games, and the fact that the game is moving (very quickly, in all reality) out of it's infancy with each book, we should get a fairly large injection of new players, and the swell of word of mouth and all the gradual conversions will likely continue.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm eager to see how additional options, especially the APG in July, affect the take up of the game- between people's campaigns drawing to a close in other games, and the fact that the game is moving (very quickly, in all reality) out of it's infancy with each book, we should get a fairly large injection of new players, and the swell of word of mouth and all the gradual conversions will likely continue.

I am actually equally as intrigued by what might change based on what's to come.

I realize it's different this pass, but the original PF1 CRB did pique my interest.

But when I saw the APG, it floored me. A group that had been using 3.5 material for years (and we had like every book) suddenly didn't feel so crippled for options from 3.5->PF1 as we did with the CRB alone. It made the choice to actually convert existing campaigns we were still in over to PF1 a no brainer for our group.

I feel like this time it's going to be just as impressive to myself, but unlike when I read the PF1 CRB, the PF2 CRB feels a LOT less stifling in terms of converting concepts over due to MCD's and general options out of the gate (personally feel, current PF2 Monk eats PF1 CRB+APG's lunch in options).

What I wouldn't do for a little peek at some coming APG stuff...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm eager to see how additional options, especially the APG in July, affect the take up of the game- between people's campaigns drawing to a close in other games, and the fact that the game is moving (very quickly, in all reality) out of it's infancy with each book, we should get a fairly large injection of new players, and the swell of word of mouth and all the gradual conversions will likely continue.

I am actually equally as intrigued by what might change based on what's to come.

I realize it's different this pass, but the original PF1 CRB did pique my interest.

But when I saw the APG, it floored me. A group that had been using 3.5 material for years (and we had like every book) suddenly didn't feel so crippled for options from 3.5->PF1 as we did with the CRB alone. It made the choice to actually convert existing campaigns we were still in over to PF1 a no brainer for our group.

I feel like this time it's going to be just as impressive to myself, but unlike when I read the PF1 CRB, the PF2 CRB feels a LOT less stifling in terms of converting concepts over due to MCD's and general options out of the gate (personally feel, current PF2 Monk eats PF1 CRB+APG's lunch in options).

What I wouldn't do for a little peek at some coming APG stuff...

Right? I'm hoping Paizo gives us a longer window of previews for this one, I need info to hype over and I'm worried it'll be July itself before they start doing the blogs, like for the previous few books.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm eager to see how additional options, especially the APG in July, affect the take up of the game- between people's campaigns drawing to a close in other games, and the fact that the game is moving (very quickly, in all reality) out of it's infancy with each book, we should get a fairly large injection of new players, and the swell of word of mouth and all the gradual conversions will likely continue.

I am actually equally as intrigued by what might change based on what's to come.

I realize it's different this pass, but the original PF1 CRB did pique my interest.

But when I saw the APG, it floored me. A group that had been using 3.5 material for years (and we had like every book) suddenly didn't feel so crippled for options from 3.5->PF1 as we did with the CRB alone. It made the choice to actually convert existing campaigns we were still in over to PF1 a no brainer for our group.

I feel like this time it's going to be just as impressive to myself, but unlike when I read the PF1 CRB, the PF2 CRB feels a LOT less stifling in terms of converting concepts over due to MCD's and general options out of the gate (personally feel, current PF2 Monk eats PF1 CRB+APG's lunch in options).

What I wouldn't do for a little peek at some coming APG stuff...

Right? I'm hoping Paizo gives us a longer window of previews for this one, I need info to hype over and I'm worried it'll be July itself before they start doing the blogs, like for the previous few books.

They teased the playtest I think a bit earlier but I guess that’s a bit different.

I feel like an archetype driven book could definitely drop some stuff in advance. A great couple of candidates IMO would be the cavalier and pirate that made an appearance during the playtest, since we already have an idea of them and can potentially see how they’ve iterated on the concepts since then.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm eager to see how additional options, especially the APG in July, affect the take up of the game- between people's campaigns drawing to a close in other games, and the fact that the game is moving (very quickly, in all reality) out of it's infancy with each book, we should get a fairly large injection of new players, and the swell of word of mouth and all the gradual conversions will likely continue.

I am actually equally as intrigued by what might change based on what's to come.

I realize it's different this pass, but the original PF1 CRB did pique my interest.

But when I saw the APG, it floored me. A group that had been using 3.5 material for years (and we had like every book) suddenly didn't feel so crippled for options from 3.5->PF1 as we did with the CRB alone. It made the choice to actually convert existing campaigns we were still in over to PF1 a no brainer for our group.

I feel like this time it's going to be just as impressive to myself, but unlike when I read the PF1 CRB, the PF2 CRB feels a LOT less stifling in terms of converting concepts over due to MCD's and general options out of the gate (personally feel, current PF2 Monk eats PF1 CRB+APG's lunch in options).

What I wouldn't do for a little peek at some coming APG stuff...

Right? I'm hoping Paizo gives us a longer window of previews for this one, I need info to hype over and I'm worried it'll be July itself before they start doing the blogs, like for the previous few books.

They teased the playtest I think a bit earlier but I guess that’s a bit different.

I feel like an archetype driven book could definitely drop some stuff in advance. A great couple of candidates IMO would be the cavalier and pirate that made an appearance during the playtest, since we already have an idea of them and can potentially see how they’ve iterated on the concepts since then.

Yup, and in general I would love for them to hype this book up way more- if I'm not mistaken its properly releasing at gen con, so it would be perfect to make it a big deal.

They also have a lot to share- those of us from the class playtest forums are super excited to see what they've done with the classes with the feedback they got, spells archetypes, ancestries- there's loads.

1 to 50 of 1,069 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Take up of Second Edition All Messageboards