Could someone mathematically smarter than me, which I suspect, is just about everybody on the forum, explain to me what would have been the downside of making attack cantrips 1 action, since they're subject to MAP.
How would if affect balance?
Not all cantrips are spell attack roll spells.
Doing half damage on a miss - at range - for one action - with no resource cost...? Seems way out of bounds to me.
There are a couple of Witch Hexes that kind-of do this. But even they have limits. Clinging Ice can only do damage to a particular target once, and Buzzing Bites has to be sustained or the effect ends and can't be reapplied.
There are a couple of martials that can do some damage on a miss. Certain Strike is a 10th level feat, can only be used as a second or third attack, and does a lot less than half damage. Confident Finisher still does quite a bit less than half of a finisher's normal damage on a miss, but it is probably about equal to half of a regular hit's damage. But since it is a finisher, it also costs your Panache and requires an additional successful skill check in order to have the Panache to spend on it.
And if you are wanting to change the action cost of only the spell attack roll spells, how are you going to justify the difference in action cost considering that the two types of spells do the same damage on a hit?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a reminder, this is what Logan Bonner said about the idea of a class that was solely focused on blasting, when talking about the Kineticist:
Going all-in on single-target blasts can lead to extremely stagnant, repetitive play, so we aren’t planning to make that the sole focus. However, we will be exploring what room we have for boosting single-target damage as an option for those who want it, without making that the only role the class can fill.Personally I think it is very reasonable to assume the first sentence there speaks beyond the kineticist specifically and is saying they don't want to make a class that is going to be doing single target blasting as the class' one thing.
I feel like that's a really interesting sentiment because isn't that basically how martials function? Especially martials with heavily regimented action routines like Investigators, Magi, or Swashbucklers?
I wonder if those are considered mistakes too.
Could someone mathematically smarter than me, which I suspect, is just about everybody on the forum, explain to me what would have been the downside of making attack cantrips 1 action, since they're subject to MAP.
How would if affect balance?
The issue isn't math, it's action economy. One theoretical conceit of PF2 is making your action economy at least somewhat flexible.
YMMV on how successful they've been, but 1 action ray of frost would 'solve' spellcasting action economy too much for what Paizo's tried to do.c
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we say giving them anything is adding power than lets not make any new options to any class ever, that would be "adding power". By your logic even the mere act of many a new magic item for casters would be "adding power" because they have a new option, and that just sounds awful.
* Reframing the tiers of success does not add power. It makes it so people think they are actually being useful within the context of the system.
* Adding item bonus is controversial and I said as much in my post. It really depends on whether "dealing the same damage as a martial 2 times a day" really is "adding power".
* I specifically said "rebalance spells to be more successful and lower their effects, if you can't lower their effects make martials stronger". So tell me where is it that I am asking for casters to have more power?
* Martials get 101 ways to cheat the action economy (a bit of exaggeration but you get the point). How is giving casters more of them before level 10 more power? Are you saying that casters should never get ways to let them actually use the 3 action system. Because that sounds awful, literally cutting off half the classes from using one of the supposed selling points of the game.
* Did I say only caster feats should be fixed? No I said "class feat balancing issues". That applies to all classes, from fighter to alchemist to wizard and even bard.
* Martials are able to mix and match feats incredibly easily without any issues. How is casters being able to do the same with metamagic an issue? So what of they make a reach silent Shocking Grasp? Are you saying that is going to break the game? Heck it doesn't even add extra complexity when talking about prepared metamagic, you either have a spell prepared or your don't.
* Literally all new options will help the people with system mastery more than it will help the new people. That is the same in every single game ever. Its why its called having "system mastery". If we aren't allowed to make new things because people with system mastery will exploit it, then paizo might as well stop printing mechanics books.
- I didn't argue against the reframing. I don't necessarily think it's a good idea, because I feel like it's pretty much guaranteed to make everything more confusing in exchange for a largely cosmetic effect, but it's true that it doesn't break things.
- Adding bonuses is pretty much explicitly adding power. Pretty much any argument in favor of it would have to be of the form "casters are too weak, and ought to be stronger"... as, indeed, the little bit of argument you just tossed on there is. You can make that argument (and have been, repeatedly) but don't act like the "I want casters to be stronger overall" argument is the right solution to the "newbie casters get frustrated with the complexity" issue.- On your rebalance idea... I'll admit that I honestly misunderstood that on first read-through. I'm not sure how I feel about reducing randomness in casters (making success more likely but less impactful). I will say that I think doing that properly would require enough structural changes that it's not going to be something that gets done this late into PF2's development. I am generally opposed to the idea of just making everyone more powerful.
- "Ways to cheat the action economy" are direct power boosts. Yes, martials get a number of generally fairly limited ways to do this thing in many of their feats. It's a meaningful part of their power budget. Casters don't, because it's not a meaningful part of theirs. Giving casters the ability to spend feats to get action economy advantage would be a power upgrade. Martials lean more on their feats than casters do. Also, importantly, martials struggle with both actions and MAP, and often the feats offer a tradeoff on which one you're choosing to discount, where giving yourself a bunch of extra actions that you cant' use to hit anyone often has limited utility. Casters basically don't have to care about MAP, which means that action-efficiency boosts are worth more to them.
- You're making vague handwaving about "class feat balancing issues". Well... okay. I mean, I *thought* I knew what you were talking about and reacted accordingly. That's apparently not what you meant? What exactly *did* you mean? Also, how would fixing it help the poor frustrated/confused player who wanted to run a caster as their first? I know of a few very specific issues with individual feats, and if those were fixed I'd find it personally satisfying, but I don't think that those would really do much to help here.
- Martials aren't actually able to just mix and match feats. I've tried. A lot of martial feats that one might want to have stack do not, in fact, stack. You can often get two or three that work together, but for the most part once you've done that you then have to move on to feats that do something else somewhere else.
- Sure, people with system mastery can use anything... but if a given option is effectively training wheels, then no, it *won't* help those with system mastery more than it will the newbies. Moreover, a number of these things you suggested (metamagic stacking in particular, but action efficiency cheats as well) will help those with system mastery some, while doing little to nothing for those without. So don't pretend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people just don't like lots of fiddly bits. They want to make a martial that smashes. They want it to be simple because they enjoy it.
You can also make simple casters if you want to taking the most straightforward damage spells or abilities.
That's the thing, I don't really think you can build a simple caster. I mean, you can, in a strict sense, make a caster and only pick damage spells. But that's not a build. That's just a self-imposed restriction with no benefit. It's like doing a naked dagger run on Dark Souls. Sure, some people might like it, but many others would rather be able to play a blaster without feeling like they're doing some kind of challenge run.
The game assumes all casters are a versatile toolbox by default, and gives you no option to truly specialize to the detriment of vesatility, but with a focused power boost. Because of that, playing anything but a Treantmonk-brand super versatile caster is like buying a burger, paying full price, then throwing everything away and only eating the bread.
Neither of my players did that in a 1-14 campaign. Both were fine. The wizard really liked to blast (but had some other spells because they picked abjuration), while the druid mainly had polymorphs in their higher level slots and utility lower. Neither of them really tried to think about what the weak/strong saves were, thought about how to avoid incapacitation spells, or how useful the spell would be in a situation. The druid even prepped mariner's curse at one point in their second highest level slot, when we were on dry land.
What are they doing that yours aren't?
The biggest problem that I see with trying to make spellcasters 'simpler' instead of being a big toolbox character is that they always have access to the full tradition spell list. That will automatically give them access to the full toolbox. So buffing one particular aspect of that toolbox (damage being the one most commonly thrown around) makes the entire toolbox out of balance when compared to other characters that don't have the full toolbox.There might be a world where you could make a wizard with extremely limited school access... they kinda tried that with the Runelord but losing two schools for a mediocre focus spell is comically bad, and also it's Rare.
Randomly throwing out an idea here: a class archetype that gives a second school specialization, including the benefit of additional slots and the focus spell, but you can't cast spells that aren't within your two specializations? You'd get a pretty crazy number of top level spell slots with spell blending.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make that argument (and have been, repeatedly) but don't act like the "I want casters to be stronger overall" argument is the right solution to the "newbie casters get frustrated with the complexity" issue.
I mean they kind of are. Part of the complaint is about the functionality of highly specialized caster builds and the way they're constrained by hypothetical versatility (even if that versatility doesn't actually exist for the character).
Options that allow characters to specialize into those niches (i.e. make them "stronger") also opens up the possibility for simpler gameplay by allowing players to make decisions based on those specializations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Randomly throwing out an idea here: a class archetype that gives a second school specialization, including the benefit of additional slots and the focus spell, but you can't cast spells that aren't within your two specializations? You'd get a pretty crazy number of top level spell slots with spell blending.
Issues with that idea...
- Cutting yourself back to two schools seems like the sort of thing it would be way too easy to cripple yourself with if you didn't know what you were doing.- If you *did* know what you were doing, it might be a balance issue, especially if you were functioning within a relatively tight level range.
- I love Paizo, and I have a lot of confidence and trust in them to produce good, viable, useful stuff... except for Class Archetypes, which are (in my experience) invariably lousy. I dunno. Maybe there are some half-decent ones out there that I just personally haven't looked into? Anyway, at least as far as I can see, any practical solution that starts with making a class archetype is basically dead on arrival.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
- I love Paizo, and I have a lot of confidence and trust in them to produce good, viable, useful stuff... except for Class Archetypes, which are (in my experience) invariably lousy. I dunno. Maybe there are some half-decent ones out there that I just personally haven't looked into? Anyway, at least as far as I can see, any practical solution that starts with making a class archetype is basically dead on arrival.
To be fair, I think the issue with class archetypes has consistently been that they're so afraid of making them too strong or cheesable that they end up making them too weak instead. And that issue could be solved by... not being so damn conservative.
The biggest problem that I see with trying to make spellcasters 'simpler' instead of being a big toolbox character is that they always have access to the full tradition spell list.
Just go back to writing bespoke lists for new caster classes and use the tag system to automatically give them new spells as more books are released. Now you can make a class that isn't so flexible, still casts spells, and can specialize in that area without breaking things. Boom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that could also make spell casting feel better would be to have all spells interact fully with the 3-action system. We have this idea that you can snap cast a spell for a lesser effect or charge it for a bigger one, but this is hardly ever used. Why?
Just like we have martial characters who get to ignore most of the 4DoS mechanics but do get to play with actions. Martial characters using maneuvers should get the full 4DoS experience where they're balanced around failing and have to play a minigame of picking if they should power attack (Fort Save), attack quickly (Reflex Save), or do something tricky (Will Save). Then we can see how people like being told they fail, but... all game long.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem that I see with trying to make spellcasters 'simpler' instead of being a big toolbox character is that they always have access to the full tradition spell list.Just go back to writing bespoke lists for new caster classes and use the tag system to automatically give them new spells as more books are released. Now you can make a class that isn't so flexible, still casts spells, and can specialize in that area without breaking things. Boom.
Paizo got away from this for very good logistical reasons. Can't even imagine how much page space is being saved by just listing a spell as being "arcane, occult, divine" rather than having to list every non-druid spellcaster that has been created, and also back adding existing spells to the list of every new spellcaster.
Randomly throwing out an idea here: a class archetype that gives a second school specialization, including the benefit of additional slots and the focus spell, but you can't cast spells that aren't within your two specializations? You'd get a pretty crazy number of top level spell slots with spell blending.Issues with that idea...
- Cutting yourself back to two schools seems like the sort of thing it would be way too easy to cripple yourself with if you didn't know what you were doing.
- If you *did* know what you were doing, it might be a balance issue, especially if you were functioning within a relatively tight level range.
- I love Paizo, and I have a lot of confidence and trust in them to produce good, viable, useful stuff... except for Class Archetypes, which are (in my experience) invariably lousy. I dunno. Maybe there are some half-decent ones out there that I just personally haven't looked into? Anyway, at least as far as I can see, any practical solution that starts with making a class archetype is basically dead on arrival.
Two schools is already being generous to people who want to just cast fireball all the time. A class archetype actually makes sense for this since you would actually want archetype exclusive feats that boost the power of your more limited spell selection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two schools is already being generous to people who want to just cast fireball all the time. A class archetype actually makes sense for this since you would actually want archetype exclusive feats that boost the power of your more limited spell selection.
Hmmm.
Might actually do better if they specified the two schools in the archetype itself (or at least one of them). Less flexibility to try to balance around on their side, and less likelihood of someone picking something basically unworkable on the other.
I agree that it would make sense as a class archetype. I continue with the general expectation that any actual implementation based on class archetypes is going to be disappointing, and it'll take them doing a few right before I shift on that.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have class archetypes out there that weren't lousy. There are a number of things I'd like to see as class archetypes of one form or another... bot for right now, the outcomes aren't looking great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo got away from this for very good logistical reasons. Can't even imagine how much page space is being saved by just listing a spell as being "arcane, occult, divine" rather than having to list every non-druid spellcaster that has been created, and also back adding existing spells to the list of every new spellcaster.
Oh noes, think of all the electrons that might be wasted on the PDF and AoN versions of the rules if we dared to make custom spell lists again! It might even take up a whole text column per new caster class!
In all seriousness, if they wanted to streamline page counts they wouldn't have made this new feat system that makes every class take up many times the page space of classes in older systems. Then added archetypes that do the same thing where we used to have a single page of rules for multiclassing.
EDIT: They also made it so they need to make multiple copies of any fixed DC magic item to waste even more ink.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh noes, think of all the electrons that might be wasted on the PDF and AoN versions of the rules if we dared to make custom spell lists again! It might even take up a whole text column per new caster class!
In all seriousness, if they wanted to streamline page counts they wouldn't have made this new feat system that makes every class take up many times the page space of classes in older systems. Then added archetypes that do the same thing where we used to have a single page of rules for multiclassing.
EDIT: They also made it so they need to make multiple copies of any fixed DC magic item to waste even more ink.
Well, it sounds like you already know exactly how to fix it all. So why are you wasting time arguing with people here. Being a 3rd party publisher couldn't possibly be that hard for someone as expert at writing as you are.
Well, it sounds like you already know exactly how to fix it all. So why are you wasting time arguing with people here. Being a 3rd party publisher couldn't possibly be that hard for someone as expert at writing as you are.
The issue isn't writing a good system. It's marketing and distributing said system in a crowded indy scene with no unified storefront and very low, lower than Steam or the Apple Store, levels of discoverability. It's not worth the time to write a better system unless you have a load of funds to ensure people actually see it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no way they will just backlog invalidate every bit of printing they have done just to buff your idea of where a caster should function
What you are looking for is new classes and new class archetypes
Base casters are the baseline
You have to give something up to turn everything into a nail with your Kabooms
That likely means giving up a ton of access to other spells permanently (like shadow caster gives up light spells).
Likely means giving up some basic core features (like wizard school extra slots or something)
Like, I think it's possible to be done, but just as some complain that they think every wizard is a toolbox wizard. Your Kaboom wizard will never be anything more than those Kabooms.
Also just a side comment, saw someone say thru feel paizo pushes turret gameplay for martials and I don't really see it. Unless you go out of your way to build and play that way.
Who cares if other people see it. If its easy to do, you could just make it for yourself and your games. Most tables have some sort of house rules
I already do use my own house rules at my table, I just don't play much PF2 because it's more work to make PF2 do what I'd like it to do than it is to make D&D 5e work well enough. I'd like it if that changed so I could stop supporting WoTC but the Paizo team seems to want to carve out a small niche rather than aiming for the top.
You have to give something up to turn everything into a nail with your Kabooms
Sure, like full access to the spell list via the creation of a blast class that uses a bespoke list of available spells. Technically you could do this by making a domain-like system where you pick domains that grant spells known and focus spells while giving up access to the general list that your casting tradition would normally grant you. Then your feats could focus on providing meaningful buffs to your very limited selection of spells without risk that unforeseen interactions will crop up.
Also just a side comment, saw someone say thru feel paizo pushes turret gameplay for martials and I don't really see it. Unless you go out of your way to build and play that way.
Gunslinger and Ranger have builds that can function as DPS turrets, Magus is better as a ranged class than in melee, and Investigator does better at range. It sure seems like Martials often get a lot of incentives to stay back and deal damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you only build how you think you are incentivized I can see how you'd routinely be upset with this self imposed limitations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you only build how you think you are incentivized I can see how you'd routinely be upset with this self imposed limitations.
And if the players at your table are only incentivizing dealing damage, I can see why spellcasters are seen as subpar.
But none of that is a game balance problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be quite sad if pf2e just became a 5e clone
I left 5e for many reasons that pf2e fixed for me
If you only build how you think you are incentivized I can see how you'd routinely be upset with this self imposed limitations.
And if the players at your table are only incentivizing dealing damage, I can see why spellcasters are seen as subpar.
But none of that is a game balance problem.
That is far from the only incentive.
Investigator gains increased DaS flexibility if they are built to fight at range.
Magus gains reliability on their spell strike when built to fight at range.
Gunslinger gains better defenses by going with the Way of the Sniper.
In a game where many monsters lack strong ranged attacks range is always going to be incentivized Paizo recognized this as they cut many iconic spells down to 30ft range and when they made baseline movement 25ft per action.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say, "I dislike PF2, and I hope to complain loud enough that Paizo stops making it and starts making something that's more like these other games that I like" is certainly an interesting take for the PF2 board.
I gotta say, "I dislike PF2, and I hope to complain loud enough that Paizo stops making it and starts making something that's more like these other games that I like" is certainly an interesting take for the PF2 board.
It's less that and more me saying, "I dislike certain aspects of PF2 and would like to see them dialed back when you're all but forced to release a new edition to compete with One D&D."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's less that and more me saying, "I dislike certain aspects of PF2 and would like to see them dialed back when you're all but forced to release a new edition to compete with One D&D."
That's not actually how it works, though. PF2 is running strong, and, indeed, has just gained a flood of new people who are becoming increasingly invested in it. It's got at least 5 more years in it easy, regardless of what One D&D brings to the table. It's not like a gaming system where wen the opposition moves you must move as well. If anything, changing systems too quickly would alienate their playerbase, and "devoted fans" is one of their major advantages.
I'm not saying that there wont' ever be a PF3. There will... eventually. It's not going to be any time soon, though.
It's less that and more me saying, "I dislike certain aspects of PF2 and would like to see them dialed back when you're all but forced to release a new edition to compete with One D&D."That's not actually how it works, though. PF2 is running strong, and, indeed, has just gained a flood of new people who are becoming increasingly invested in it. It's got at least 5 more years in it easy, regardless of what One D&D brings to the table. It's not like a gaming system where wen the opposition moves you must move as well. If anything, changing systems too quickly would alienate their playerbase, and "devoted fans" is one of their major advantages.
I'm not saying that there wont' ever be a PF3. There will... eventually. It's not going to be any time soon, though.
One D&D isn't set to launch fully until 2025, Paizo will likely respond by opening a PF3 playtest in late 2025 with PF3 launching in 2027.
Paizo doesn't really compete with D&D. Not really. No one competes with D&D.
PF1 did. PF1 was ahead of D&D 4e for the majority of its lifespan and had strong sales until 5e came along and killed it. Paizo could have grown its market instead it chose to retreat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo doesn't really compete with D&D. Not really. No one competes with D&D.PF1 did. PF1 was ahead of D&D 4e for the majority of its lifespan and had strong sales until 5e came along and killed it. Paizo could have grown its market instead it chose to retreat.
That's certainly an interpretation of how things played out.
Another one is that PF1 was published in 2009 and the last book published in 2019. That's a 10 year run. In that time the devs had kind of written everything they wanted to mechanically for the system, I mean there is a ton of PF1 content. But the system showed it's age, and had a lot of rough spots inherited from D&D 3.5 that served as it's basis.
Paizo wanted to attempt to fundamentally change the system and improve on a lot of rough parts of the game. They have improved on a lot of parts. Some parts various people would argue are steps back but if nothing else PF2 is definitely different from D&D 3.5, or 5E and PF1.
That's certainly an interpretation of how things played out.
Another one is that PF1 was published in 2009 and the last book published in 2019. That's a 10 year run. In that time the devs had kind of written everything they wanted to mechanically for the system, I mean there is a ton of PF1 content. But the system showed it's age, and had a lot of rough spots inherited from D&D 3.5 that served as it's basis.
Paizo wanted to attempt to fundamentally change the system and improve on a lot of rough parts of the game. They have improved on a lot of parts. Some parts various people would argue are steps back but if nothing else PF2 is definitely different from D&D 3.5, or 5E and PF1.
I won't argue that the edition wasn't long in the tooth and in need of a refresh. I will argue that they chose a path that has, without a doubt, alienated their former fans and sent them to competitors in a way that a less complete reworking on the system would not have.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One D&D isn't set to launch fully until 2025, Paizo will likely respond by opening a PF3 playtest in late 2025 with PF3 launching in 2027.
I honestly don't get your logic here. Why would Paizo need to respond to One D&D in any way? I'm nto saying that One D&D wont' affect them - it'll shake up the situation, especially if it's poorly done - but I just don't understand why you'd think it would make Paizo more inclined to immediately update their own system. Paizo's going to be running PF2 until it starts meaningfully running out of steam, because that's the obvious thing to do both financially and from a playerbase support perspective... and One D&D coming out isn't likely to change that all that much. I can almost guarantee that the people who strongly prefer PF2 to 5e will continue to strongly prefer PF2 to One D&D.
I won't argue that the edition wasn't long in the tooth and in need of a refresh. I will argue that they chose a path that has, without a doubt, alienated their former fans and sent them to competitors in a way that a less complete reworking on the system would not have.
They did alienate a decent number of fans. They certainly upset a fair number of fans. There are absolutely people out there who are really very bitter that Paizo isn't publishing new PF1 books. At the same time, that major rework produced a game that's stronger overall in a lot of ways and (at least by the reports that they tell us) that's bringing in quite a lot more money than PF1 was. PF2 has been able to draw people away from 5e in ways that PF1 never would have managed, even before the recent legal stuff.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't please everyone, better to not try and do the thing you want to do instead.
But the issue is you take your opinion as not only objective fact, but also some majority to be listened to.
You'd be better off designing pf2e home brew
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't get your logic here. Why would Paizo need to respond to One D&D in any way? I'm nto saying that One D&D wont' affect them - it'll shake up the situation, especially if it's poorly done - but I just don't understand why you'd think it would make Paizo more inclined to immediately update their own system. Paizo's going to be running PF2 until it starts meaningfully running out of steam, because that's the obvious thing to do both financially and from a playerbase support perspective... and One D&D coming out isn't likely to change that all that much. I can almost guarantee that the people who strongly prefer PF2 to 5e will continue to strongly prefer PF2 to One D&D.
You do it because the One D&D launch is essentially an advertising blitz for the whole industry. You want to cast your net when the fish are biting and WotC will have the ocean boiling with fish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One D&D isn't set to launch fully until 2025, Paizo will likely respond by opening a PF3 playtest in late 2025 with PF3 launching in 2027.I honestly don't get your logic here. Why would Paizo need to respond to One D&D in any way? I'm nto saying that One D&D wont' affect them - it'll shake up the situation, especially if it's poorly done - but I just don't understand why you'd think it would make Paizo more inclined to immediately update their own system. Paizo's going to be running PF2 until it starts meaningfully running out of steam, because that's the obvious thing to do both financially and from a playerbase support perspective... and One D&D coming out isn't likely to change that all that much. I can almost guarantee that the people who strongly prefer PF2 to 5e will continue to strongly prefer PF2 to One D&D.
So long as one DND is reverse compatible with 5e I fail to see why anyone should pay it any mind
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't please everyone, better to not try and do the thing you want to do instead.
But the issue is you take your opinion as not only objective fact, but also some majority to be listened to.
You'd be better off designing pf2e home brew
I'm better off designing 5e homebrew which has more earning potential and sees more play at my table. I'm better off posting about it here though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm better off designing 5e homebrew which has more earning potential and sees more play at my table. I'm better off posting about it here though.Can't please everyone, better to not try and do the thing you want to do instead.
But the issue is you take your opinion as not only objective fact, but also some majority to be listened to.
You'd be better off designing pf2e home brew
That's off topic, cross promotion and is expressly against forum rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do it because the One D&D launch is essentially an advertising blitz for the whole industry. You want to cast your net when the fish are biting and WotC will have the ocean boiling with fish.
5e in general has been an advertising blitz for the whole industry. That's why 5e has been dominating the marketplace - because it made the marketplace. Also, I kind of doubt that One D&D is going to do more for the industry than, say, Covid did. That said... releasing a new version two years later isn't the kind of thing that's going to let them meaningfully capitalize on whatever marketing bump One D&D has to offer.
You know what will? A whole bunch of happy, satisfied customers who talk with random newbies about how awesome their PF2 games are... and part of what makes *that* happen is you let the players that join you (like, say, the recent and ongoing ingest) have time to settle in and enjoy the game they paid for rather than trying to swap everything out in a money grab to chase some second-order marketing blitz.
That's the thing about Paizo. It has its own stable foundation of players, and the people in charge of it have learned how to cultivate that appropriately. Paizo doesn't have to go chasing the temporary and ephemeral wins. It's not even a good idea. Instead, they focus on building a reputation for high quality in a number of ways, and developing and expanding their own niche, and make their money off of the people who appreciate that quality and really like that niche.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's off topic, cross promotion and is expressly against forum rules.
Which is why I haven't posted any links or rules here. I've just mentioned that I make them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd be better off designing pf2e home brew
I'm quite certain that I already suggested that. And was told that wasn't possible because Slacker 2.0 doesn't actually know how to generate market interest in a product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite certain that I already suggested that. And was told that wasn't possible because Slacker 2.0 doesn't actually know how to generate market interest in a product.
I know how to market a product, it's just that the TTRPG space is a very difficult market for an independent entity to gain market share in. It's why I haven't published either of the systems I've been tinkering with over the years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know how to market a product, it's just that the TTRPG space is a very difficult market for an independent entity to gain market share in. It's why I haven't published either of the systems I've been tinkering with over the years.
But plenty of other people are successful at it. That is why it is a ... "crowded indy scene" as you put it.
Are you sure that the problem isn't just that your ideal of what a TTRPG system should be doesn't actually match up with what TTRPG players want?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weren't you planning on dropping things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But plenty of other people are successful at it. That is why it is a ... "crowded indy scene" as you put it.
Successful is a tough term to nail down. I know some indy devs who've published and successful to them only meant that it didn't cost more than it made and that it might have a tail over a long enough timespan. They're not living off their work by any stretch.