A few questions about the future of paizo

[Finoan]

R3st8 wrote:

So the greatest obstacles is getting people into it and making them learning the rules right?

Not for me, no.

I know the rules for D&D3.5. I played it for several years. I'm currently playing a PF1 game - not because I like the system, but because I like the players I am with.

For me the greatest obstacle is that the mechanics and rules don't facilitate what actually draws me to play a TTRPG.

PF1 is about building an awesome character. There are quite a few to choose from. You can find builds for them online.

But that isn't what I want. That feels very limiting to me. I don't want to build an awesome character from a kit that I found online and then try to shoehorn my character concept on top of it. I want to build my character and have it be awesome. And while I can certainly build my character in PF1 rules, the character will almost certainly suck in comparison to someone who did do all the work of finding and picking the right options to build a character that is effective.

So with PF2 and its power caps and that feats generally add options, directions, and flavor rather than power - that fits what I am looking for a lot more. It is very freeing to me in character building that I can take my character concept, find build options that match, choose those options, and end up with a character that works and is effective. One that doesn't get completely outshone by some powergamer that read through a bunch of wikis and found more powerful chargen options.

Proactive Stormwind response:

The Stormwind fallacy is that the character built from a kit found online couldn't possibly be a fun and interesting role-play character. That is indeed a fallacy.

What I am saying instead is that this fun and interesting character built from the kit found online wouldn't be my character. That the build choices that I need to make to accurately represent my character are not powerful enough to make the character comparable to the other options.

That is not the Stormwind fallacy.

[Sanityfaerie]

R3st8 wrote:

So you can probably guess where I'm going with this I loved first edition but can't take this game is there any hope I will get what I enjoy or any viable alternative? I guess the answer to the first question is probably no but one can hope.

If PF1 is the edition you love, then play that. It really is that simple.

There's nothing new coming out for it, but that just means it's complete. We still have everything that PF1 has ever had - which pretty much by definition makes it a more developed game than it was at almost every point while it was still being developed.

The community has diminished, sure, but it's still out there. The PF1 boards still have a healthy degree of chatter on them. People are still starting up new PF1 games over in online games recruitment, and so forth. There are plenty of other people out there who still love this thing, and you can find them.

...and if you want more to add on that isn't there, there's a ton of third-party products still to sift through.

You've already heard that Paizo won't be remaking PF1, and they have good reasons. I'll also tell you that you're not going to get the thing you love from anyone else. Game systems have moved on. Now, that's not normally enough to utterly kill the possibility. There are people in the OSR community building and playing things that look a lot like 70s-era 1st edition D&D right now. The difference is that a lot of the draw of OSR is in the simplicity. In contrast a lot of the draw of PF1 was the massive pile of absolutely everything that accreted on. Over 100 classes, over 300 archetypes, over 2000 feats, and so forth. Building something like that takes time and money and a community that's willing to provide that money, and the demand just isn't out there anymore, and almost certainly never will be again. After all, if it *was* still out there, they'd probably still be producing it.

...but, you know, the game is still there. It's still available on Nethys. Heck - PFS1 is still there. Nothing's been shut down of closed off. It's a little quieter, and you maybe have to work a bit harder to find players and/or games, but it's entirely doable.

[Finoan]

To try and explain this another way:

There are players who like the feeling of accomplishment that comes from sifting through all of the options available and picking the best ones to build a powerful character. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that.

However, being able to sift through the options to pick only S- and A- tier build options relies on the existence of B-, C-, and D- tier options to sift through - a lot of them.

There are also players who like the feeling of being able to pick from among any of the available options when building their character. And still want their character to be as powerful as any of the other characters.

That, instead, relies on only having S- and A- tier options available.

It is not possible to build a TTRPG system that both does and does not have a large number of B-, C-, and D- tier character build options.

-----

And if you want to build a character that is 'powerful', I have to ask: powerful measured how? Powerful compared to what?

Because quite often it feels like the desire is: More powerful than my character. Is that the entire point?

[Sanityfaerie]

Finoan wrote:

And if you want to build a character that is 'powerful', I have to ask: powerful measured how? Powerful compared to what?

Because quite often it feels like the desire is: More powerful than my character. Is that the entire point?

I think I can answer this one.

No. Often it is not.

CharOp is a game. It is a game that is partially independent of the RPG that it's associated with, and it is a single-player game. The point is not to be more powerful than any specific other person, the point is to figure out the tricks and twist the rules up into pretty shapes and make the awesome fall out. It's figuring out how to make a wizard who can break the world, yeah, but it's also figuring out how to twist the rules hard enough to polish the truenamer up to shining mediocrity. Taking blatant handicaps and blatantly suboptimal premise and then using every trick you can find to try to crank those up to baseline can be as much fun as or more fun than just making the most powerful character you possibly can.

...or you can get together with two to four CharOpper friends and try to come up with towering spires of system mastery together, and maybe some fun little bits of party op on the side, and see how far outside of your intended CR you can swing. That's fun too.

Now, there are downsides that come with this. For one thing, CharOp isn't everyone's kind of fun, and (as you've noted) a game that's good for CharOppers often isn't good for anyone else. Also, given that a lot of the fun of CharOp comes from making yourself more powerful than the devs ever intended, and breaking the system and whatnot... well, it tends to break the system. There's a reason why 3.x campaigns didn't tend to make it to level 20. Also, yeah, there are some people who will use CharOp in unfortunate ways, try to lord their system mastery over their fellow players and gatekeep and all that BS. I'm not going to say that didn't happen. There are many good reasons why PF2 isn't PF1... but but it's not that 3.x CharOp was inherently or necessarily mean-spirited, just because there were folks out there using it badly.

[R3st8]

Finoan wrote:

And if you want to build a character that is 'powerful', I have to ask: powerful measured how? Powerful compared to what?

Because quite often it feels like the desire is: More powerful than my character. Is that the entire point?

there is assumption here that everyone who likes first edition want to create a overpowered character but that is simply not true, the highest jump in the world build isn't particularly powerful nor is a build focused on being able to carry a mountain but so long as you have freedom in a system there will always be a higher ceiling meaning there will be the possibility of making stronger characters,

but when I look at a ability to increase the jump height of a character I don't see a C tier feat I see a jump build feat, that perception may be a result of different player types, as I mentioned before in Bartle taxonomy of player types there are 4 types of players: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers

taking from wikipedia page on "Bartle taxonomy of player types"

Explorer Types:

Explorers, dubbed "Spades" (♠) for their tendency to dig around, are players who prefer discovering areas, and immerse themselves in the game world. They are often annoyed by time-restricted missions as that does not allow them to traverse at their own pace. They enjoy finding glitches or a hidden easter egg.[18][14]

Single-player appeal to the Explorer
Combat and gaining levels or points is secondary to the Explorer, so they traditionally flock to games such as Myst.[19] In these games, the player finds themselves in a strange place, and the objective is to find their way out by paying close attention to detail and solving puzzles. The Explorer will often enrich themselves in any back story or lore they can find about the people and places in-game.[18] Whereas an Achiever may quickly forget a gaming adventure; the Explorer will recall fond memories about their experience.[20]

Multi-player appeal to the Explorer
However, Explorers will often become bored with any particular MMORPG when they have experienced its content. They will tire quicker than other gamer types, and feel the game has become a chore to play.[21]

since I'm a explorer type I don't really care if someone is stronger than me in fact most of my characters tend to suck really hard because I focus of builds that are experiments like jumping as high as possible or trying to miniaturize myself and ride a raven familiar, in first edition most players would carry me through the game but in second edition where the math is so tight me trying to play a fire mage focused on elemental form might become a big burden to other players

its not like second edition doesn't have trap options it does its just easier to learn since its earlier and still doesn't have as many books and because the power ceiling has been lowered but that competitive mindset of placing importance in the power difference is something that is more common on killer types or achiever types

Killer Types:

Killers
Single-player appeal to the Killer
Killers, well-suited as "Clubs" (♣️), are, more than other player types, motivated by powergaming and eclipsing others.[28] They want to achieve first rank on the high score board or beat another speedrunner's time record.[29][30]

Multi-player appeal to the Killer
Causing mayhem among computer-controlled people and things may be fun to the Killer, but nothing amounts to the joy of pitting one's skills against an actual player-controlled opponent.[31] For most, the joy of being a Killer results from a friendly competitive spirit.[32]

For others, it's more about power and the ability to hurt others or the thrill of the hunt. One such example is "ganking" or "owning", a process where the Killer takes their strong character to a place where inexperienced or weaker characters reside, and proceeds to kill them repeatedly.[33]

Achiever Type:

Achievers
Also known as "Diamonds" (♦) , these are players who prefer to gain "points", levels, equipment and other concrete measurements of succeeding in a game.[13] They will go to great lengths to achieve rewards that are merely cosmetic.[14]

Single-player appeal to the Achiever
Every game that can be "beaten" in some way caters to the Achiever play style by giving them something to accomplish. Games that offer a 100% completion rating appeal to Achievers.[15]

Multi-player appeal to the Achiever
One of the appeals of online gaming to the Achiever is that they have the opportunity to show off their skill and hold elite status to others.[16] They value (or despise) the competition from other Achievers, and look to the Socializers to give them praise.[17] Microsoft's Xbox Live utilizes the Gamerscore to reward Achievers, who can get points by completing difficult "Achievements" in the various games they purchase. They can, in turn, compare themselves to other gamers from around the world.

also just for good measure here is the socializer type description

Sociializer Type:

There are a multitude of gamers who choose to play games for the social aspect, rather than the actual game itself. These players are known as Socializers or "Hearts". (♥) They gain the most enjoyment from a game by interacting with other players, and sometimes, computer-controlled characters with personality.[22] The game is merely a tool they use to meet others in-game or outside of it.[23] Some socializers enjoy helping others for the sake of altruism, while explorers help for the sake of discovering previously unattained areas, and achievers or killers want to help for the sake of an extrinsic reward such as points.[citation needed]

Single-player appeal to the Socializer
Since their objective is not so much to win or explore as it is to be social, there are few games that the Socializer enjoy based on their merits. Instead, they play some of the more popular games so that they can use the multi-player features.[24] However, there are some games designed with their play style in mind, which socializers may in particular enjoy. Games of the earliest video game generations seldom have longer dialogue trees, but 2000s games that offer significant player-NPC relationship interaction and development include the titles Fable, Mass Effect, and Knights of the Old Republic.

With the advent of the World Wide Web, gamers' association has partially moved online. Socializers are especially keen at sharing their gaming experiences on forums and social media. For instance, the procedurally generated game Dwarf Fortress, has a tight-knit community due to the game's unforgiving nature, unique scenarios and perplexing mechanics.[25] Video game streamers who interact with their audience are often socializers. One former popular form of gaming video is the Let's Play format, which has largely been replaced by live streaming on platforms such as Twitch and YouTube.[26]

Multi-player appeal to the Socializer
The online environment is very appealing to the Socializer, as it provides near limitless potential for new relationships.[citation needed] They take full advantage of the ability to join guilds or kinships in many online games.[27]

[Perpdepog]

R3st8 wrote:

Not exactly, I do have books from local stores but searching for information with a searching engine and checking years of discussions and tables already made by people in many online forums is way easier than flipping a pages in a book (they don't have ctrl F or filters). but you do make a fair point, maybe having things on a video format could make it easier to teach.

Ease of teaching wasn't Cap's point so much as pointing out that, in addition to the barrier to entry for new players needing to learn all this stuff, there is potentially an ever-growing financial barrier to entry as well. That is, assuming the goal is to also get those new players to support the game financially, which they'd need to in order for it to keep working.

[apeironitis]

You'll have to come to terms with the fact that Paizo already moved on from first edition, and many people did too. But hey, don't get discouraged. There's still people playing first edition and there's a lot of content for it available, more than a person could ever use in a lifespan.

PF1e was my first ttrpg so I'm fond of it, and I'm still in a 1e campaign ran by a friend who refuses to move on too lol, but I could never imagine putting myself through the torture that is GMing 1e for a group of experienced players.

[Captain Morgan]

R3st8 wrote:

so the greatest obstacles is getting people into it and making them learning the rules right?

I'm not sure it is the the greatest obstacle. It is just the first one. You've also got to contend with:

1. The sheer amount of content bloat to wade through.

2. Inter-party balance essentially requiring a gentleman's agreement on how far you optimize.

3. Linear martials, quadratic casters.

4. The huge variance in the floor and ceiling of builds makes it hard to write adventures for a wide audience. If the books are written for less skilled players, more skilled players will punch through them like wet tissue. If books are written for more skilled players, the less skilled players crash and burn.

5. Lots of rules are just... kinda dumb. PF1 had a lot of needless complexity. Like, why do saves, skills, and attack bonuses all run off such different mathematical progressions? Why do we need CMB and CMD when there's already 3 saves and 3 ACs? Why are there so many feat taxes and prerequisites? Why are non-mindless undead immune to mental spells?

6. You often need a feat to do a thing that players might very reasonably want to do because it fits their narrative expectations, like tripping someone or punching them in the face. PF1 rewarded hyper specialization but punished trying new things you didn't specifically build for.

Paizo's design team likes the idea that complexity is the currency with which you buy depth. But much like buying products, you can make good purchases with high value, and you can make bad ones. PF1 had a lot of bad buys in that regard, and most people find PF2 to spend its complexity much more wisely. There are things from PF1 I miss, usually for immersion but not balance. Touch AC springs to mind. But for every rule I miss, I can think of 3 more I'm glad are gone.

[Perpdepog]

Finoan wrote:

Not for me, no.

I know the rules for D&D3.5. I played it for several years. I'm currently playing a PF1 game - not because I like the system, but because I like the players I am with.

I wouldn't say I don't like the system, but I'm definitely in the same boat here. I have a group where the GM is pretty much going to exclusively run 3.5/PF1E forever. They bought all the books and want to keep using them, and it was the first system they really came to grips with and liked. I keep playing in that group largely because I really like the people I game with, not so much because of any particular love of the system.

It also helps that I'm not the one GMing. I did that once, ran Tyrant's Grasp all the way through, and I felt wrung out after the whole thing was said and done; keeping up with everything high-level monsters and characters could do was exhausting. (Which speaks back to the issues of GM burnout spoken about upthread. It takes a particular kind of person to tackle that sort of puzzle and that sort of work, and that pool of people is shrinking just like the pool of potential players.)

[Easl]

apeironitis wrote:

You'll have to come to terms with the fact that Paizo already moved on from first edition, and many people did too. But hey, don't get discouraged. There's still people playing first edition and there's a lot of content for it available, more than a person could ever use in a lifespan.

I just googled "pathfinder infinite 1e" and...well, let's just say there's a ton of stuff.

So if OP is looking for expanded material to buy, it's out there. And as I said before, if there's some 1E thing he'd like which *isn't* out there, I'd suggest he email one of the bigger infinite teams and see if they're interested in trying to develop it. Where there's a market for a $5 1E product, you might find an infinite developer willing to take it on.

The 1E forum also seems to be decently active. The 'product discussion' sub-board has a post from yesterday.

[Finoan]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

CharOp isn't everyone's kind of fun, and (as you've noted) a game that's good for CharOppers often isn't good for anyone else.

That, I would certainly agree with.

Like I said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Chargen type of fun. It just isn't the type of fun that I am going to be interested in playing. No matter how cool the video rules are or how cheaply the pdf rules are sold for.

R3st8 wrote:

there is assumption here that everyone who likes first edition want to create a overpowered character but that is simply not true

That, I don't agree with. The assumption is not that there do not exist players who would play PF1 for the storytelling. The assumption is that people who still play PF1 and prefer it over PF2 don't tend to do it for the storytelling.

I'm sure there are exceptions. But from all of the conversations I have seen or been involved in from the PF2 playtest, to the SF2 playtest, to this very thread - that has been my conclusion: people generally don't cling to PF1 because it is better for telling stories with your friends with than PF2 is.

[thenobledrake]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Paizo's design team likes the idea that complexity is the currency with which you buy depth. But much like buying products, you can make good purchases with high value, and you can make bad ones. PF1 had a lot of bad buys in that regard, and most people find PF2 to spend its complexity much more wisely. There are things from PF1 I miss, usually for immersion but not balance. Touch AC springs to mind. But for every rule I miss, I can think of 3 more I'm glad are gone.

Each of the things you mention besides point 1 is something that PF1 inherited from D&D 3.5. A fact I'm sure you personally already knew but that some people don't consider when looking at why the game came out the way it came out; because Paizo was trying to make something vaguely compatible at the time, and playtest feedback at the time pushed for staying closer to the prior product rather than drifting further for the sake of some other thing besides compatibility.

And the D&D 3.x line was basically a masterclass in how you can cover up a lot of genuinely bad design decisions and poorly executed math with hype. Which is why even though we can prove the math breaks down and is janky as heck, and show how things which were relatively balanced in AD&D had been inverted and skewed by the changes for 3.x, it's still a massively successful game that drove WotC to the top of the market (and has managed to keep them there despite further demonstrable low-quality offerings and bad decisions) because the hype of the OGL was just that powerful.

[R3st8]

Finoan wrote:

That, I don't agree with. The assumption is not that there do not exist players who would play PF1 for the storytelling. The assumption is that people who still play PF1 and prefer it over PF2 don't tend to do it for the storytelling.

I'm sure there are exceptions. But from all of the conversations I have seen or been involved in from the PF2 playtest, to the SF2 playtest, to this very thread - that has been my conclusion: people generally don't cling to PF1 because it is better for telling stories with your friends with than PF2 is.

I believe there may be some confusion regarding the difference between player agency and power. Player agency in a game does not always mean having excessive power, and balance should not be mistaken for GM control. In a game with high player agency, the actions of players can shape the narrative, requiring the GM to adapt, but this does not automatically make the player overpowered.

For instance, a character with a high acrobatics skill successfully jumping over a fence does not make them unbeatable at level 4. It simply demonstrates their effective use of their abilities. It can be frustrating to be labeled a power gamer when my characters actually have low stats in terms of AC, HP, DC, etc., making them vulnerable to weaker enemies.

Instead of viewing it as a power versus storytelling issue, it may be more accurate to think of it as mechanics versus storytelling. GM control should not be equated with balance, as certain abilities like "fly" may challenge the GM's control over the environment but are equally accessible to both players and NPCs. There are ways to counter such abilities, ensuring they are balanced in power while potentially disrupting GM control.

[Sy Kerraduess]

R3st8 wrote:

there is assumption here that everyone who likes first edition want to create a overpowered character but that is simply not true, the highest jump in the world build isn't particularly powerful nor is a build focused on being able to carry a mountain

If it's really about optimizing an idea with no regard for whether it's powerful, then 2e has plenty of opportunity for that. In your taxonomy I am pure distilled "Explorer" essence and am very happy with 2e.

You can make a character with 43 legendary skills; a Magus with 20 cantrips to spellstrike with in any given fight; a spellcaster with 3 different spell lists, with 10th, 9th and 8th level spells respectively. And those are just the first few that come to mind.

The only real difference with 1e is your character won't automatically suck if you try to do these weird builds.

[Finoan]

R3st8 wrote:

I believe there may be some confusion regarding the difference between player agency and power. Player agency in a game does not always mean having excessive power, and balance should not be mistaken for GM control. In a game with high player agency, the actions of players can shape the narrative, requiring the GM to adapt, but this does not automatically make the player overpowered.

For instance, a character with a high acrobatics skill successfully jumping over a fence does not make them unbeatable at level 4. It simply demonstrates their effective use of their abilities. It can be frustrating to be labeled a power gamer when my characters actually have low stats in terms of AC, HP, DC, etc., making them vulnerable to weaker enemies.

So describe specifically how PF1 does this better than PF2.

Because from my perspective I can build a character that has a high acrobatics skill. And one that can jump over a fence.

And those jumping/climbing PF2 characters don't have to pay for that level of competency by sacrificing their AC, HP, DC, etc., in order to get that.

And certainly in a well-run PF2 game, the actions of the players will shape the narrative. Why wouldn't they?

[WarDriveWorley]

R3st8 wrote:

...in first edition most players would carry me through the game but in second edition where the math is so tight me trying to play a fire mage focused on elemental form might become a big burden to other players

In my experience it's only a burden if you try and force a concept too hard.

PF2E is built way more on team building than 1E's character building so no party is made in a vacuum. Communication with your DM, with other players, and also session 0 are all important to 2E character gen. Way more than in 1E IMO.

But that doesn't invalidate the ability to build a niche or specialized character that YOU want to play.

I'll use someone from my game as an example. I'm running Abomination Vaults (AV) and plan on expanding beyond it and bringing the characters to 20th level. This is the first encounter with 2E most of my players have. AV is notorious for having some magic immune encounters (*cough* wisps *cough*) and one of my players was dead set on playing a Kineticist (fire/metal). As a GM I lean towards the interpretation that wisps are immune to impulses since they're magic and I talked with him prior to game to make sure he knew this and was ok with it. He was and when building his character he invested in medicine and also picked some impulses that more utility based.

So when we have those fights where he can't use his impulses he supports with melee attacks, aid checks, Battle Medicine, lore checks, and other tactics and he loves it. It makes him think about the encounter outside of what the default may be. He looks at the environment more, pays more attention to the other players, and explores his options more than he ever did with 1E or DnD and he loves it. The character is exactly as he saw it and it's engaging. It's a specialized character, but far from being something that drags the party.

2E is very good with allowing character concepts that are specialized, but have some diversified abilities.

[Kirtri]

To add to the sub-optimal specialized builds not being a hindrance in a Kingmaker (2e) I am a Metal kineticist Strix, and am focused on building Metal wing version Archangel from the X-Men so bi metal armor high strength and dex, I got the wrestler archetype and have weirdly ended up using athletics almost as often as impulses in fights. Even against things immune to magic or ppiercing/bludgeoning/slashing damage I still cam contribute and I can do a ton in exploration. Oh I also w/free archetype could take Dandy dedication too so I could better reflect the character. If all you care about is coming up with fun realizable concepts pf2e is just as good at it as pf1. And it doesn't start out by kneecapping you first.

[The Raven Black]

OP, I think there are still challenges for system masters in PF2. They are just way less obvious than in PF1.

Because there are fewer types of bonuses, because the 4 degrees of success is a thing, because the 3 actions system is a strong limitation.

And because the roll has a stronger impact in PF2.

But there are definitely ways, not all of them obvious, to steer the probabilities in the direction you aim for.

[Sanityfaerie]

Finoan wrote:

So describe specifically how PF1 does this better than PF2.

Because from my perspective I can build a character that has a high acrobatics skill. And one that can jump over a fence.

And those jumping/climbing PF2 characters don't have to pay for that level of competency by sacrificing their AC, HP, DC, etc., in order to get that.

And certainly in a well-run PF2 game, the actions of the players will shape the narrative. Why wouldn't they?

You are not a CharOpper. It's clear that you just don't play that game at all. The thing that you're talking about and the thing here are not the same.

PF2 is very good at letting you say "I want to be an X" for an extraordinarily wide variety of kinds of X, and then giving you something with labeling that will tell you it's an X that you can play at your table that will contribute usefully to your party.

In a lot of cases it's not great at giving you the kind of rules backup on that that will make you feel like you're actually an X, if you care about rules/lore harmony, but a lot of folks don't, so it's cool for them. If that means that a PC skeleton can be drowned? Well, I guess that means that a PC skeleton can be drowned.

What it really doesn't give you is a bunch of deep rules stuff that you can work with to do Interesting Things. PF2 has a lot of breadth, but that breadth tends to be pretty shallow. It's great if you walk in knowing what you want to play as and want a vague approximation of that thing. It's not great if what you want to do is spend a bunch of time digging through the rules and finding wacky things that you can make them do. Like... the jumplomancer. PF2 is never going to have a build that lets you jump from one side of a barony to the other in a single bound, making friends with everyone who sees you... and if it did, that would be an explicit power, rather than something that was carefully constructed out of bits with care and attention. It's never going to have a build that lets you play trollish lockdown games with opportunity-attack tripping and egregious reach. It's never going to let you tell different lies to different magical items so that you can punch for egregiously more damage than you have any right to. It's never going to let you attack six times per turn for level drain. It's never going to let you leverage multiple different prestige classes to be able to case heavily metamagicked cause wounds spells at will (because you're a halfling).

These are not the most powerful characters that you could build. If you're in the right crowd, they won't even be the most powerful characters in the party. The opp-attack tripper guy was going to be effectively obsolete not long after level 10. That wasn't the point. The point was that you could craft these little monstrosities and share them with your friends... or you could go wackier and pick things that were outright silly to the point of being nonfunctional and then optimize on them until they were functional again. It's the challenge of it all. The challenge itself is fun.

/**************/

By comparison, PF2 has some really tight limitations on what you can and cannot do. Likewise, most of the power that you get is power that they've handed you. This makes it a lot easier for GMs and adventure writers to plan around the party, because their possible abilities are well-known, but from the player side, for the rules portion of the character specifically, especially from someone who really loved the crazy stuff you could do with the system in 3.x, it can feel stifling.

The Raven Black wrote:

OP, I think there are still challenges for system masters in PF2. They are just way less obvious than in PF1.

Because there are fewer types of bonuses, because the 4 degrees of success is a thing, because the 3 actions system is a strong limitation.

And because the roll has a stronger impact in PF2.

But there are definitely ways, not all of them obvious, to steer the probabilities in the direction you aim for.

To be clear, this is true. You can run CharOp in PF2. It's there. It exists. It's not like early 5e, that just denied you the ability to play that game altogether, and would punish you if you tried.

It's a lot thinner, though. A well-optimized character in PF2 doesn't get nearly as much from that optimization as a well optimized character in 3.x does. Also, a lot of it isn't inherent to the character itself. It's all in tuning a character for the player skills that you personally have, and doing stuff with party optimization. There's a lot more space for party optimization than for personal optimization.

[Finoan]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

You are not a CharOpper. It's clear that you just don't play that game at all.

Yes. Guilty as charged.

I look at things like this:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

the jumplomancer. PF2 is never going to have a build that lets you jump from one side of a barony to the other in a single bound, making friends with everyone who sees you...

and immediately wonder if the character is actually playable in a game or if it is just built to prove that it can be done. Is the character able to do anything besides jump from one side of a barony to the other in a single bound and auto-succeed at diplomacy checks against any non-hostile NPCs? Any actual adventuring?

-----

Anyway, the OP asked if Pathfinder2e or future editions would ever be more like PF1. I think that was pretty thoroughly and authoritatively answered by Michael Sayre.

It seems that the popularity of PF1 wasn't because players like being CharOppers but because there were no real alternatives if you wanted to play at all. Now there are.

OP would probably be spending their time and energy better by looking for a group of players that do want to play that game rather than trying to convert me (or other PF2 fans) to become a CharOpper or agree that Pathfinder3e needs to support such playstyles (since as I noted earlier, the two playstyles are pretty clearly mutually exclusive).

[TriOmegaZero]

Finoan wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

So the greatest obstacles is getting people into it and making them learning the rules right?

Not for me, no.

Nor mine. The biggest obstacle is finding people with matching schedules to play regularly.

You honestly don't need to know the rules at all, as long as the GM can translate your choices into legal actions.

[Sanityfaerie]

Finoan wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

You are not a CharOpper. It's clear that you just don't play that game at all.

Yes. Guilty as charged.

I look at things like this:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

the jumplomancer. PF2 is never going to have a build that lets you jump from one side of a barony to the other in a single bound, making friends with everyone who sees you...

and immediately wonder if the character is actually playable in a game or if it is just built to prove that it can be done. Is the character able to do anything besides jump from one side of a barony to the other in a single bound and auto-succeed at diplomacy checks against any non-hostile NPCs? Any actual adventuring?

Many such characters are playable. Some are not. It depends on what you're building for, really.

[WatersLethe]

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

[Gortle]

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The issue is as much about defining the scenario(s) that you wish to optimise as anything else. There are too many variables.

[Perpdepog]

Gortle wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The issue is as much about defining the scenario(s) that you wish to optimise as anything else. There are too many variables.

That's why it'd be fun to watch someone try.

[pH unbalanced]

There are 3rd party companies that are still putting out PF1 content. Legendary Games put out a book with some interesting looking Prestige Classes *last week*. So if what you want is more PF1 material, it is definitely out there.

If you what you want is more Golarion stuff, a lot of the location and lore heavy stuff (like the recent Tian Xia World Guide) is pretty much system agnostic.

And, of course, converting stuff you like into the system you want to use is a venerable tradition. Welcome aboard!

[R3st8]

pH unbalanced wrote:

There are 3rd party companies that are still putting out PF1 content. Legendary Games put out a book with some interesting looking Prestige Classes *last week*. So if what you want is more PF1 material, it is definitely out there.

If you what you want is more Golarion stuff, a lot of the location and lore heavy stuff (like the recent Tian Xia World Guide) is pretty much system agnostic.

And, of course, converting stuff you like into the system you want to use is a venerable tradition. Welcome aboard!

While there are many third-party products available, it's important to note that some GMs may have restrictions on their use or prefer to review them case-by-case. Considering this, I might take the path of the eternal GM since it would make it easier to create a table.

In addition, in my previous comment, I should have called it "ease of GMing" versus "player influence." instead of "gm control" The introduction of chaotic elements into a system can make it more difficult to predict outcomes and this harder on the gm. However remember that is also one of tabletop RPGs strongest points, they have the advantage of not requiring the extensive development time of video games, allowing for spontaneous changes and adaptations in storytelling. If you are lucky enough to have a Super GM who can navigate emergent gameplay it can lead to truly memorable gaming experiences.

[Ruzza]

You don't need to sell or advocate for PF1 to us. Many of us here on the PF2 boards have played PF1 for many years and now play PF2. Accepting that official content is finished is your first step towards coming to peace with it. What I recommend now is that you should look for PF1 spaces - the PF2 boards is not the place for it.

Good news, there are still PF1 spaces all across the internet and in real life.

[Crouza]

I'm someone who might be considered a grognard by age, long in the tooth as it were. I've seen the entire systems where 3e exploded, 4e became a thing, pathfinder blew up, and then 5e took over everything. I've seen a ton of different systems go through edition changes and I have seen entire systems and settings razed to the ground to make way for a new thing. I'm going to give you a bit of advice that I think you need to learn to embrace.

The system you love will never die as long as you're willing to play it, but nothing is meant to last. Pathfinder 1e had it's time, it lasted long, and then it's time passed. That is the reality and nothing is changing that, and no throwback will happen to recapture that if it has not already happened. Hell, 2e will have it's time in the sun now, but even 2e will one day be left to slowly shrink. But, you will find a lot of people willing to keep it alive, to put in the work to do so.

There are people even now who think 1st or 2nd edition dnd was the best and keep it going within their own community. People who actively still work to keep 4th edition games running. Speaking of, 40k for example is currently in it's 10th edition but you can find small pockets of people willing to play 4th edition and aren't interested in newer rules. Warhammer fantasy was destroyed and ended for Age of Sigmar but people still play fantasy. Shadowrun is in its 6th ed but there are still dedicated die hards playing 3rd or 4th ed or 5th ed. Heck I'm pretty sure you can find a few people who even still play Chain mail.

You love pafhfinder 1e. Do not think your option is limited to what paizo is doing. You can find people out there who still want to play pathfinder 1e, and explore the decades of offical and 3rd party content to make new build horizons to discover. Just do not expect it to ever come back beyond that, and you will do fine.

[Jenner2057]

OP, all I can say is -as someone who is still playing PF1- I feel your pain, but I'll say just hold on and enjoy the ride. What do I mean? Well, I'm old enough to have played since 1e and BECMI. Then 2e... and 3e, 4e, PF1, 5e and PF2. Notice something there? All of them have different balances of crunch vs. easy of play. Don't like PF2? There's plenty of PF1 stuff to keep you occupied for YEARS. And I say that as someone who's been playing 3e and PF adventure paths with the same group since 2005... that's almost 20 years. And I bet I've still got another 10 years of stuff to go through at least before I start converting PF2 or 2e stuff to PF1. By then, there may be a PF3 or 6e. You might find those are systems are more similar to what you like. Or it might not be until PF4 when the player base and market want a more rules heavy version of the game. Or heck, there may not even be a Paizo by then. Who knows?
The point is versions change and you can take a look at them and decide if you want to play or not but enjoy the ride. Cheers!

[Finoan]

Perpdepog wrote:

Gortle wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The issue is as much about defining the scenario(s) that you wish to optimise as anything else. There are too many variables.

That's why it'd be fun to watch someone try.

Talk to Deriven Firelion about it. I'm pretty sure I have seen him posting things along this line before.

[Sanityfaerie]

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The problem is that you so rarely have that degree of actual control over anyone else's build. Like, if you're running PFS, and you're not bringing someone to the table with you, you get nothing. If you're in an ongoing campaign, then you can usually at least get your fellow players to tell you things like what class they're playing and maybe their rough general build, but they're not going to let you make any decisions for them. Sometimes you get one other person in the party who's willing to let you guide their character's development for whatever reason. Sometimes you get people who are willing to cooperate a bit. Sometimes.

...so while it might be vaguely interesting as an intellectual exercise to build out a full party, it's not practically something that you're ever going to be able to do in actual play... and building PF2 characters is nontrivial. Like, just for level 1, you've got ancestry, heritage, background, statbumps, ancestry feat, skills, class, generally a classpath, and then usually either a class feat or starter spells. That's a lot of decisions to make, even before you get to your gear.

Then you hit the point where everything is basically capped in all directions, which means that if you want to show off and it's *not* in actual play, then at best your'e talking about how much damage you can do to a standard CharOp block of tofu, because that's the only way to make it actual numbers that mean anything at all. You can't show off silliness in other dimensions because you're not allowed to have any. Like, in 4e, there was the Abductor. Not great at dealing damage, but in a single turn they could dash out from around a corner, move 20 squares, grab someone, and drag them back around the same corner to attend a curbstomp in their honor. (Hardcore optimization of the "push" action.) Nothing in PF2 is going to let you do anything like that.

Basically, that "lack of trivially solvable numerical problems", "especially if you're not playing with white room garbo" comes with a lack of easily definable goals to optimize for.

I agree we could do with some more theorycrafting on party optimization. That would be cool... but we're already at the "well, these things seem to go together well" vague handwaving level. What's the next step past that that we can actually reach?

[Darth Grall]

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The problem is that us Munchkins usually are competing with each other to some degree so you won't usually see that level of cooperation in concepting. That doesn't mean we don't like 2e though, just usually we're honing in on some pet mechanic, weapon, or feature and trying to optimize the heck out of it. For example, one of my characters is a fighter w/ gunslinger (& mauler next level) optimized around using a gun sword but it ends up being just fine due to 2e's tighter math & gun swords are a mid weapon to begin with. So the character ends up being only a decent switch hitter w/ some utility thanks to some specialty ammo & fake out. Another is our Monk who is optimized around athletics to jump well but he also has whirlwind throw & the feat to let them grapple on a flurry so they end up just being a good tank that's repositioning or disabling enemies.

All in all these disparate concepts create a group that feels about as optimal as the non-optimal groups which is fine for the most part. Though admittedly there's a bit of extra kick every now & then when someone's specialty gets time to shine. Or at least that's been my experience. But maybe there is some fantastic group out there who is capable of making parties capable of such a feat? I just doubt it XD

[Aeshuura]

Is there any PF1e support on Pathfinder Infinite? Maybe the OP could find their support there? It won't be "official" but there should be a decent amount of support there...

[arcady]

QuidEst wrote:

PF1 was also published at an unsustainable rate. A player handbook every month, a setting book every other... It wasn't a surprise when they had to slow down.

PF2E is getting dangerously close to that issue as well.

Hopefully the pace will slow down a bit after Player Core 2.

[GameDesignerDM]

arcady wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

PF1 was also published at an unsustainable rate. A player handbook every month, a setting book every other... It wasn't a surprise when they had to slow down.

PF2E is getting dangerously close to that issue as well.

Hopefully the pace will slow down a bit after Player Core 2.

I don't see how this is really true.

[Ruzza]

arcady wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

PF1 was also published at an unsustainable rate. A player handbook every month, a setting book every other... It wasn't a surprise when they had to slow down.

PF2E is getting dangerously close to that issue as well.

Hopefully the pace will slow down a bit after Player Core 2.

The consolidation of the "Lost Omens" line and the "Rulebook" line looks to make this much more manageable. If you check the release schedule, you'll see that we get monthly releases in the AP line and the PFS line. These certainly keep the lights on. The larger releases are still there, but not the constant flow of niche feats and options like we would get with the player supplements of PF1. It's much more accessible for casual or new players and controlled for those who look to get every monthly release.

[The Raven Black]

arcady wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

PF1 was also published at an unsustainable rate. A player handbook every month, a setting book every other... It wasn't a surprise when they had to slow down.

PF2E is getting dangerously close to that issue as well.

Hopefully the pace will slow down a bit after Player Core 2.

You cannot count the Remastered books there though. These were not originally in the planned release schedule.

[sophiechan]

Look at corefinder from legendary games, they are making a pf1.5E, but they are taking their time.

[HolyFlamingo!]

I don't think beloved TTRPGs ever truly die. Look at the OSR scene! Tons and tons of people are still playing what is basically just more/tweaked AD&D.

Even without official publisher support, there are libraries upon libraries of homebrew and third party content. I think you could feasilbly keep playing PF1 for decades if you wanted without running out of goodies to explore. Like, sure, it sucks a little bit without a big publishing house officially sustaining the hype cycle and evolutionary arms race between player options and GM tools, but if said publisher is no longer doing stuff you like, why stick around? No point wasting time and money on stuff you don't enjoy.

You just need a group. Given how controversial PF2 is among more classically-oriented fans, I don't think getting one together will be especially hard. Hell, if you get sick of your fellow grognards, I'll bet Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous CRPG fans will make good new converts.

[Deriven Firelion]

Finoan wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

Gortle wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The issue is as much about defining the scenario(s) that you wish to optimise as anything else. There are too many variables.

That's why it'd be fun to watch someone try.

Talk to Deriven Firelion about it. I'm pretty sure I have seen him posting things along this line before.

Someone starts an optimization thread, quite a few of us can contribute. PF2 is built for group optimization over individual optimization though individual optimization is a part of the group optimization since you want to build for your role. No one can build a character to do everything on their own any more, but you can build some brutal parties that make winning in combat very easy.

[OrochiFuror]

Party op as a whole should be more lively I think. Then you could at least talk with your group and when someone says they plan on doing this one thing you could look up builds that are synergistic with that.
Surprised I haven't seen any links to things like that. Specially since in a lot of cases "build" just means one of a handful of classes with a certain feat or two with plenty of room left over for your own ideas.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The problem is that you so rarely have that degree of actual control over anyone else's build. Like, if you're running PFS, and you're not bringing someone to the table with you, you get nothing. If you're in an ongoing campaign, then you can usually at least get your fellow players to tell you things like what class they're playing and maybe their rough general build, but they're not going to let you make any decisions for them. Sometimes you get one other person in the party who's willing to let you guide their character's development for whatever reason. Sometimes you get people who are willing to cooperate a bit. Sometimes.

...so while it might be vaguely interesting as an intellectual exercise to build out a full party, it's not practically something that you're ever going to be able to do in actual play... and building PF2 characters is nontrivial. Like, just for level 1, you've got ancestry, heritage, background, statbumps, ancestry feat, skills, class, generally a classpath, and then usually either a class feat or starter spells. That's a lot of decisions to make, even before you get to your gear.

Then you hit the point where everything is basically capped in all directions, which means that if you want to show off and it's *not* in actual play, then at best your'e talking about how much damage you can do to a standard CharOp block of tofu, because that's the only way to make it actual numbers that mean anything at all. You can't show off silliness in other dimensions because you're not allowed to have any. Like, in 4e, there was the Abductor. Not great at dealing damage, but in a single turn they could dash out from...

In my experience, if you go from the other end, people are more amenable to working with you-- if when you're starting a new campaign, you were to say "Actually I have this thing I wanna try, but we'd need to coordinate the party for it" its possible you could sell the synergy to them, ditto if you're willing to fill any given role in it yourself to accommodate people picking their favorite part, especially if it's a fun concept.

Its not a given, but sometimes it works out partially or completely, take the new Commander for instance, it would not be hard for me to talk someone else into playing a Giant Barbarian to leverage it, or getting the party interested in a full gun lineup for Ready Aim Fire, if I sold it to them as "wait look at this cool thing I could do"

YMMV though, depending on your friends.

[Finoan]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Finoan wrote:

Talk to Deriven Firelion about it. I'm pretty sure I have seen him posting things along this line before.

Someone starts an optimization thread, quite a few of us can contribute.

And to be clear, in case it wasn't already - that was a recommendation. Not me throwing shade.

[Calliope5431]

Crouza wrote:

I'm someone who might be considered a grognard by age, long in the tooth as it were. I've seen the entire systems where 3e exploded, 4e became a thing, pathfinder blew up, and then 5e took over everything. I've seen a ton of different systems go through edition changes and I have seen entire systems and settings razed to the ground to make way for a new thing. I'm going to give you a bit of advice that I think you need to learn to embrace.

The system you love will never die as long as you're willing to play it, but nothing is meant to last. Pathfinder 1e had it's time, it lasted long, and then it's time passed. That is the reality and nothing is changing that, and no throwback will happen to recapture that if it has not already happened. Hell, 2e will have it's time in the sun now, but even 2e will one day be left to slowly shrink. But, you will find a lot of people willing to keep it alive, to put in the work to do so.

There are people even now who think 1st or 2nd edition dnd was the best and keep it going within their own community. People who actively still work to keep 4th edition games running. Speaking of, 40k for example is currently in it's 10th edition but you can find small pockets of people willing to play 4th edition and aren't interested in newer rules. Warhammer fantasy was destroyed and ended for Age of Sigmar but people still play fantasy. Shadowrun is in its 6th ed but there are still dedicated die hards playing 3rd or 4th ed or 5th ed. Heck I'm pretty sure you can find a few people who even still play Chain mail.

You love pafhfinder 1e. Do not think your option is limited to what paizo is doing. You can find people out there who still want to play pathfinder 1e, and explore the decades of offical and 3rd party content to make new build horizons to discover. Just do not expect it to ever come back beyond that, and you will do fine.

Valid question. Has ANYONE actually played/run every pathfinder 1e adventure path all the way through? I've never heard of it just because of time constraints.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Valid question. Has ANYONE actually played/run every pathfinder 1e adventure path all the way through? I've never heard of it just because of time constraints.

I know people who could have, but ultimately people will generally have adventures they just bounce off of thematically and have no intent on ever running/playing.

With a good and organised group a PF1e AP can take 6-10 months of weekly games, if you have two weekly games (say play in one, run the other) then it is quite doable.

But again, don't know anyone who would want to. System burnout alone would make it a pointless endeavour imo. Even with something like PF2e I would get insanely bored of playing/running it and nothing else.

That said I have a feeling the OP more wants a thriving player options scene rather than caring too much about adventures.

[James Jacobs]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Valid question. Has ANYONE actually played/run every pathfinder 1e adventure path all the way through? I've never heard of it just because of time constraints.

I'd love to hear about it if a group has, for sure... but that said...

Has ANYONE actually watched every black and white horror movie ever made? No. But you don't have to watch every black and white horror movie to enjoy watching some of them, and filmmakers absolutely continue to make new black and white horror movies and succeed financially and creatively with them despite the fact that there's already a lot of them out there. But color horror movies are more viable in this age, so that's where most of the money is going.

It's 100% okay to only like black and white horror movies, or only color horror movies, or both (like me).

And by that metric, it's 100% okay to only play 1E Pathfinder, or only play 2E Pathfinder... or play both (like me).

[Gortle]

I play PF2 weekly. I've been going 18 months now on the Kingmaker campaign. We are only half way through. We are taking our time and having fun. We do add in new rules and classes as they come out.

So far as I can tell Paizo releases content several times faster than my main group plays it. Which is good as I can choose the adventure paths that interest us most.

So I think the concept of playing everything is only possible at the extreme end.

[thenobledrake]

Gortle wrote:

So I think the concept of playing everything is only possible at the extreme end.

I can't remember their name, but I remember interactions some years ago when I was picking up Pathfinder 1e after being burned out on trying to make D&D 4e work for my group with a poster that said their group was typically right on schedule with AP volume releases.

I remember the implication being that their GM would get the AP mid week, prep for the weekend, and they'd get together for a 4 hour session each weekend and be done with one book before the next came out.

It kind of blew my mind to imagine such a pace of stuff actually happening in a session. Cut to some time later and the same group I had been running in-person games with and feeling like our 4 hour sessions were difficult to feel like we did any meaningful progress during swapped to playing online because of Covid and how much stuff we actually get through in a session nearly doubled.

So I'm no longer all that shocked by the idea that a group that are actually focused on playing the game and decisive in their approach could keep up to the release schedule.

It's that whole thing where you can say "my group gets through 3 encounters in a session" and someone's going to think "why only 3?" while someone else is going to think "3? Every time? How do you play so fast?!"

[Perpdepog]

Yeah, the pacing of groups is pretty wild. I was running Tyrant's Grasp for my group, and someone in the same server as us started the AP after me, and then finished before we did. That bit about taking your time definitely comes into play with my group; we'd sometimes just have fun goofing around and rping for a session or two. Granted, we'd also have to miss weeks because of life obligations but still.