| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have often wondered lately when Paizo may consider releasing a new ruleset for Pathfinder. Do they consider PF2 to be successful enough that there is no need to revamp their rules anytime soon? 5E ran for ten years but 4E only lasted six and playtesting started for 5E after only 4 years of 4E because it was not very profitable. I'm curious if Paizo sees PF2 as so good they are near the upper limit of their profitability or if they feel it's actually underperforming compared to what they expected. Pathfinder 2E is coming up on it's 4 year anniversary and I'm sure it has performed well the previous quarter thanks to WOTC basically shooting themselves in the foot. The question is how much it suffers if WOTC corrects course and fixes many of the issues in 5E 2024 that drive people to play PF2. Would it be time to start the designers of the next edition then?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
2E just came out, so no thank you please.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is less than 4 years old currently. What's the rush?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is such a stable system compared to its predecessor that I can see it adopting a rolling edition change like Call of Cthulhu. Editions where all the content remains compatible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The system is only a few years old, why start someting new when this one is working and is only growing in popularity and people playing the system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 was launched Aug 19, 2009. It is still in print. PF2 was launched Aug 1, 2019. It took them about 3 years longer just to get most of the PF1 classes, ancestries, etc published in their PF2 versions.
In January 2023, they sold out of what was expected to be an 8-month supply of the Core Rulebook hardback in about 2 weeks. I don't think you will see them start over again any time soon.
They aren't chasing WotC, and they don't plan their business around WotC's release schedule. They aren't going to suffer if WotC puts out yet another edition of DnD.
I noted in my statement that the OGL mistake by WOTC caused the increase in sales the first quarter of this year. Even Paizo concedes this caused the spike, not the community suddenly switching systems because they had major problems with the rules of D&D.
Pahtfinder 2E is a great system for the veteran player. The Beginner Box for 2E is also an amazing product for new players. The problem is the transition of a new player from a nice Beginner Box to a huge 640 page Core Rulebook. The D&D Player's Handbook is half the size and half the price. I believe Paizo should make all three options:a player's guide, a game master's guide, and an all-in-one game guide. Also, I think Paizo missed out on quite a few sales when the OGL scandal hit because they would have had more inventory to sell if they printed three options for the base rules of the game.
If I use a complexity scale of 1-10 for RPGs, I would put 4E D&D around 9 and PF2E at about 7. In contrast, I would put 5E D&D right around 4. Should they consider starting a playtest in 2025 to revise PF2E to move a little further down that scale?
I think 2025 would be a perfect time to start an update of PF2E because it takes quite a few experienced designers to even revise an established system. Many of them are developing the new systems that spun off 5E because of the OGL. Usually, it's very hard to find one designer with the experience of rebuilding an entire system. But when the 5E clone projects are completed, Paizo will have an overabundance of designers available with this valuable experience looking for their next challenge. Paizo should probably start contracting them for that time frame now if they have given any consideration to revising PF2E. These designers will have information on what options worked in 2019 but need updated or removed now because of changes in player preferences. They can also bring new ideas to evolve the game and make it even better. It would be wise of Paizo to take advantage of this golden opportunity.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, a random guy online knows better how to run a business than people who are running it, that's new.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Golden opportunity”
Killing an edition prematurely does nothing but piss off the playerbase.
There’s a saying, “strangling the golden goose to force an egg”. P2 is doing well, people are invested in it, throwing that all away “just cause” is ridiculous.
I am no fan of pf2, but even I would find it odd if a new edition were to come out now. It hasn't even been 5 years yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, a random guy online knows better how to run a business than people who are running it, that's new.
That's a good point. I definitely am not a business analyst. I don't have access to their KPI, sales trend, or profit analysis reports.
Determining when a set of rules is performing poorly enough that it needs updated has to be an incredibly difficult decision. I am merely suggesting that if their analysts look at the numbers in 2025 and decide it may be time to bring in designers to look at the rules then I think many of the top ones might have an opening for a project then. I would still not really expect for the new rules to come out until 2027 or 2028.
A lot can happen between now and 2025-26, and it will be interesting to see the future of Pathfinder. Paizo could one day be challenging Wizards for the top spot in the industry instead of being a very distant second, but I don't know if they can achieve that if they use a conservative business philosophy and cater mainly to entrenched players who prefer more complex rules.
They've been there before because they are very good business people. It would be refreshing to see it again.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. In any capacity.
DnD sold by Hasbro isn’t number 1 due to any flaws in Pathfinder or Paizo, it’s number 1 cause its DnD. There’s nothing Paizo could hope to do to ever take that number 1 spot, and they’ve repeatedly stated they have no intention of trying to do so.
“They've been there before”
No they haven’t. In one sales quarter they outsold DnD, that was it.
Also DND has non-compete clauses and higher pay for their workers, so good luck seeing them come back or freelance for Paizo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. In any capacity.
DnD sold by Hasbro isn’t number 1 due to any flaws in Pathfinder or Paizo, it’s number 1 cause its DnD. There’s nothing Paizo could hope to do to ever take that number 1 spot, and they’ve repeatedly stated they have no intention of trying to do so.
“They've been there before”
No they haven’t. In one sales quarter they outsold DnD, that was it.
Also DND has non-compete clauses and higher pay for their workers, so good luck seeing them come back or freelance for Paizo.
I tell you Rysky, if I win that ridiculous billion dollar lotto jackpot, Freehold Inc is gonna make some changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo is a small company and it's an open secret that most of its employees work two jobs because Paizo salaries can't meet the cost of living in the Seattle area. If there's some kind of disruption that ends 2E prematurely it doesn't mean a 3rd edition is coming it means Paizo is going out of business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe don't advocate for premature actions then.
To be fair, I think that's kind of... wrong.
Most importantly, people should be free to advocate for whatever they want to see. I understand your intention, but in fact you're suppressing harmless expression.
Of lesser concern, there's a little hubris in concluding the idea is premature. And assuming the OP should've been able to recognize that. It's pretty much like saying "maybe don't express ideas I think are bad." The person wanting to express them clearly didn't think the idea was bad.
But, assuming that's just a pre-coffee post or something, there's still some thought to be given here. We're closer to four years since PF2's launch date, but... remember there was a pretty long play-test cycle, and it was understood that Paizo had been working on PF2 internally for a couple years, partially in parallel to Starfinder. Point being that the decision to work on a new edition may have been in the realm of seven-ish years after PF1 release. By that history, PF2 may be more than halfway to triggering a similar decision.
But wait, there's more. A few people have invoked the Great WoTC OGL Snafu of 2023 and the "we sold out eight months of PF2 Core in a couple weeks" thing. Well, that's an event that is entirely external and can't be counted on to repeat. It's not a sign of a fiscally healthy system. While some of those purchasers may have become long-term customers, it's more likely most of it was hype-buying and tire-kicking.
Finally, there's no particular reason to assume PF2 can or will have the same lifespan as PF1. RPGs inevitably decline in popularity, and we simply don't know what the curve looked like for PF1's relatively massive 3.5e fan-base. Sure, PF2's honeymoon phase made Paizo happy. Which means booting the new edition put subscriptions above where their PF1 figures were at. Great. But we're completely clueless what the numbers look like today. Different product, different curve. Subscriptions could be declining faster then PF1's curve, or slower.
My collective point being that it's not a ridiculous thing to think "hey, maybe it's time for a new edition". As in, the idea is not deserving of ridicule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder2e is doing well on its own, even before the OGL disaster.
"Despite the fact that PF2 has been blowing past pre-existing performance benchmarks since the day of its release, the online discourse hasn't always reflected its reception among consumers."
quoted from:
Link .
|
|
“Of lesser concern, there's a little hubris in concluding the idea is premature.”
It’s absolutely an act of Hubris to suggest a company should ditch their current-still-new system that is doing well and thus pissing off their customers “just cause”.
“My collective point being that it's not a ridiculous thing to think "hey, maybe it's time for a new edition". As in, the idea is not deserving of ridicule.”
It is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its an easy trap to fall into to find a game/publisher/product one likes and to leap to the conclusion that the other people who also like it are "like me".
Creative endeavours work best when they capture a disparate audience, imo. Nothing paizo puts out will ever be perfect for me, no matter how much I admire their stuff. But theyre not tailoring their books to me - theyre trying to appeal to loads of tastes, many diametrically opposed to mine.
Its best to avoid thinking of the market as a horde of "average consumers".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's likely a balance here. I'm sure that the creative team has ideas on what 3rd edition might look like. There's probably some benchmark telling Paizo when they need to put pen to paper on that game.
At the same time, there's no need to leave sales on the table. If 2nd edition is doing as well as it seems, it would be foolish to put a lot of resources into a new edition until things start flagging. And pushing out a new edition because of what WotC is doing with D&D seems to be a recipe for failure, especially since it looks like D&D will continue to chase an audience that is different from Pathfinder and Starfinder.
I'm sure that there are ideas in-house about what the next edition might look like. Putting those ideas into active development would mean taking resources away from a successful game right now, though, which would be sacrificing known sales for a maybe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... going to add my voice to the solid drubbing this idea is getting. PF1e had a long, long lifespan before PF2e, even longer if you consider it was functionally an expansion on DnD 3.5. PF2e is notably more stable than 1e and exceptionally accessible. With WotC intent on periodically tanking its reputation as they're trying to push their new 'totally not 6e', Paizo would probably most successful in doing exactly what they did as 4e and 5e came out, ignore WotC and keep on keeping on.
Talking about a hypothetical PF3e now is incredibly premature.
|
|
That is a good point about PF1e being an expansion on DnD 3.5. Thinking along those lines, PF2e could have a shelf life of 16 years.
A big advantage PF2E has over PF1e is how characters in PF2e grow more horizontally than stacking abilities vertically. That makes it much easier to develop new material over a long period without messing up the game balance.
Golarion is so big Paizo didn't even have time during PF1e to cover it all in detail. With a more stable system, we might see Golarion fully developed in PF2e.
I don't think about when 3e will come out, but if and by how much, can PF2e break all records for longest running RPG system.
The problem is the transition of a new player from a nice Beginner Box to a huge 640 page Core Rulebook. The D&D Player's Handbook is half the size and half the price.
And is also half the story Because that "huge 640 page Core Rulebook" is more than a Player's Handbook, it also has information for running a game like a DM's Guide. So if you're just playing you don't need all 640 pages.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like pf1e is dead. I mean I'm still playing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like pf1e is dead. I mean I'm still playing it.
How dare. /s
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, I still see game ads for 3.5 on the various PBP sites.
I would get excited, but I don't want to get beaten up for encouraging edition warring.
|
|
The problem is the transition of a new player from a nice Beginner Box to a huge 640 page Core Rulebook. The D&D Player's Handbook is half the size and half the price.And is also half the story Because that "huge 640 page Core Rulebook" is more than a Player's Handbook, it also has information for running a game like a DM's Guide. So if you're just playing you don't need all 640 pages.
The D&D Player's Handbook is not half the price. It's only 10$ cheaper, not 30$, so the PF2e core book is a better value for the amount of content. For the price, the PF2e core rule book is equal to 1.6 D&D 5e player handbooks.
The GM section is only 38 pages. Without it's still a 602 page book.
The section on treasure is 88 pages. It would be hard to convince me players don't like treasure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to see the new Pathfinder of a few years ago be an upgrade of 1st Edition(*) to Pathfinder 1.5 Edition(**) rather than a Pathfinder 2.0(***). But now that Pathfinder is on Edition 2.0, I'd like to see upgrades be incremental, and reintroduce some of the flavor and options of 1st Edition.
(*)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.75.
(**)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.875.
(***)Corresponding conceptually to . . . that's a silly place -- let's not go there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to see the new Pathfinder of a few years ago be an upgrade of 1st Edition(*) to Pathfinder 1.5 Edition(**) rather than a Pathfinder 2.0(***). But now that Pathfinder is on Edition 2.0, I'd like to see upgrades be incremental, and reintroduce some of the flavor and options of 1st Edition.
(*)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.75.
(**)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.875.
(***)Corresponding conceptually to . . . that's a silly place -- let's not go there.
Yes, but have you managed to play either edition at any point?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to see the new Pathfinder of a few years ago be an upgrade of 1st Edition(*) to Pathfinder 1.5 Edition(**) rather than a Pathfinder 2.0(***). But now that Pathfinder is on Edition 2.0, I'd like to see upgrades be incremental, and reintroduce some of the flavor and options of 1st Edition.
(*)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.75.
(**)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.875.
(***)Corresponding conceptually to . . . that's a silly place -- let's not go there.
Yes! Yessss....
One of the reasons that PF2 was introduced was that the folks at Paizo had been hearing rumors for years about the coming OGL debacle, so they wanted to come up with a game that was not dependent on WotC playing nice. The only missing step in this process is to replace the OGL license with the ORC license.
Another reason, and the one that was known to the general public, is that they had accumulated years worth of rules problems that could only be fixed with a new edition. I think they are still years away from that point, assuming that nothing happens to force the issue in the near future. As I recall, their PF2 errata has been limited to relatively small stuff compared to other similar games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to see the new Pathfinder of a few years ago be an upgrade of 1st Edition(*) to Pathfinder 1.5 Edition(**) rather than a Pathfinder 2.0(***). But now that Pathfinder is on Edition 2.0, I'd like to see upgrades be incremental, and reintroduce some of the flavor and options of 1st Edition.
(*)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.75.
(**)Corresponding conceptually to D&D 3.875.
(***)Corresponding conceptually to . . . that's a silly place -- let's not go there.
Yeah, that is what I also wanted and expected to get looking at the Starfinder rules. Ah, well.
While I agree that we won't be seeing a new edition for another five years or so, I also hope that when they get to it, they put just a little of the "oomph!" back into the magic system.
I'm still unhappy about the unnecessary Prestidigitation nerf and Dimension Door group utility nerfs (although I totally understand that it needed to be nerfed as an offensive tool) as well as making a blaster caster so unappealing. OTOH, I perfectly understand why they burned the whole "buff caster" system to the ground and salted the earth. What they did to the poor Alchemist from 1E to 2E really was dire.
It's not that there aren't complaints about 2E by its players, which I've noted since getting at least a little bit interested in the system. I say only "Witch" and "Oracle". ^^ So there's definitely room for improvement for a new edition way down the line, especially since Paizo remains stingy with their class errata.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'mma honestly kinda glad we didn't get 3.895 edition because I was really sick of 1e's crap by end of my wrath of the righteous campaign :'D
Freehold will not hear this heresy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'mma honestly kinda glad we didn't get 3.895 edition because I was really sick of 1e's crap by end of my wrath of the righteous campaign :'DFreehold will not hear this heresy.
"the fact that PF1s systemic issues did not manifest at your table does not mean that they didn't exist" ep. 4355.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'mma honestly kinda glad we didn't get 3.895 edition because I was really sick of 1e's crap by end of my wrath of the righteous campaign :'DFreehold will not hear this heresy.
One person's heresy is another person's doctrine
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you didn't encounter problems while playing Mythic you were probably not playing it the way the rules were written, whether by accident or intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'mma honestly kinda glad we didn't get 3.895 edition because I was really sick of 1e's crap by end of my wrath of the righteous campaign :'D
Well, that campaign is traumatizing for the GM (it was for me, for sure), so that's maybe not the best mental space to base any decisions upon. ;)
I am a big fan of Mythic Adventures, but maybe that's because I could never find a GM to run Wrath of the Righteous for me. lol
I am still working through my library of Pathfinder First Edition books, but I must say that I am a big fan of the Lost Omens line for Second Edition. I really love the continuing lore. Absalom is my favorite sourcebook so far.
I would rank it alongside other classic city books like the City-State of the Invincible Overlord. It has everything I want to see from a proper fully-detailed city, and it features the City at the Center of the World, so yay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Yes, but have you managed to play either edition at any point?
Since you insist on prying into this: Yes, I did get to play a bit of Pathfinder 1st Edition (an odd PbP that unfortunately died a fast death), which left me wanting a LOT more. I did a lot of studying of this system to prepare for more that I could never get. Before that, I have more experience with much earlier editions of (A)D&D, which left me very much wanting something extremely similar to Pathfinder 1st Edition.
{. . .} they had accumulated years worth of rules problems that could only be fixed with a new edition. {. . .}
I disagree that rules problems couldn't have been solved without a totally new edition. I think an Edition 1.5 that was to Edition 1.0 what D&D 3.5 was to D&D 3.0 could have done it. (This does not mean that the Tower-Dwellers of the Shoreline did everything right in that transition, but it looks like an honest and fairly successful attempt that was only made to look lacklustre after Pathfinder 1st Edition came out.)
|
|
I'mma honestly kinda glad we didn't get 3.895 edition because I was really sick of 1e's crap by end of my wrath of the righteous campaign :'DWell, that campaign is traumatizing for the GM (it was for me, for sure), so that's maybe not the best mental space to base any decisions upon. ;)
Thing is, 1e's high level bs was present in all other campaigns too, full mythic just makes it exponentially visible :'D
If I ever run 1e high level again, its going to happen again where players will start winning everything super easily and everytime I try to homebrew something to make things more interesting, multiple hours of work will die in one or two rounds
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Yes, but have you managed to play either edition at any point?Since you insist on prying into this: Yes, I did get to play a bit of Pathfinder 1st Edition (an odd PbP that unfortunately died a fast death), which left me wanting a LOT more.
10k posts of theorycraft, 1 game of PF1 that died, no games of PF2. Tsk tsk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I ever run 1e high level again, its going to happen again where players will start winning everything super easily and everytime I try to homebrew something to make things more interesting, multiple hours of work will die in one or two rounds
I can't imagine that homebrewing is that more easy in 2E, although of course the enemy building rules seem somewhat easier on the GM. ^^
Also, from my own experience, homebrewing mostly is about writing something coherent, enemies I can mostly plug and play from Combat Manager, with some adjustments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'll have to take your words on it. :)