Pathfinder 2E My Biggest Concern for Pathfinder 2e

[CapnZapp]

There definitely is a portion of the market that wants a complex, highly tactical game with tons of fiddly bits.

In this case there seems to be a fair bit of difference between two things "portions" might want:

* A game with tons of build choices (including spells and magic items, so "build" here means "everything before combats") that really matter - to the point where the actual game can be trivialized by making the "right" such choices

* A game with a ton of build choices that secretly don't matter that much, and instead open new tactics during play. It is by making tactical choices during play you make the game easier or harder, but only slightly (compared to the first type of game)

If 3E is the first kind of game it can be argued 4E is the second.

If the reports are true PF2 could be much more of the second type of game than the first.

The problem here might be that players might say they love lots of build choices, but actually don't want choices (including buffs cast pre-combat, and magic items you select as gear) that don't have a large impact on their character's power level...

The problem might be if Paizo have created a game for the second audience, despite their existing fans liking the first.

In this case we can end up with a game nobody* likes; PF1 fans for the lack of impactful build choices, 5E fans for the scary levels of fiddly.

*) Except surviving 4E fans maybe

 

[Markh3rd]

After building my ranger out to level 20 I would have to vote it feels more like option 2 than 1. There were times I felt I had found some nice synergy, but other times it felt like I was just picking something that would have some minor effect and wasn't interesting in itself or just choosing between very situational abilities that may never come into play.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

* A game with tons of build choices (including spells and magic items, so "build" here means "everything before combats") that really matter - to the point where the actual game can be trivialized by making the "right" such choices

What we consider to be "the actual game" is kind of the point here. It's not that we want to build over-powered characters that can stomp all over combat. It's that we want to build characters who have some control over which combats they are able to handle and which ones they should avoid.

I want to build a character with real strengths and weaknesses, so I can participate in "the actual game" of finding a path where my strengths shine and my weaknesses are protected. I want to build a high-AC character, and then try to only fight fighting-type enemies, under full awareness that I can't handle spellcasters; and then I want to avoid fighting spellcasters as much as possible.

The interesting part of the game, to me, is what happens at the table before you roll initiative.

 

[CapnZapp]

After building my ranger out to level 20 I would have to vote it feels more like option 2 than 1. There were times I felt I had found some nice synergy, but other times it felt like I was just picking something that would have some minor effect and wasn't interesting in itself or just choosing between very situational abilities that may never come into play.

I only played 4E from launch up until Player's Handbook 2 (so pre-Essentials). The main thing I remember as a Fail with a capital F was the incredibly bland and mediocre magic items, with circumstantial bonus that had little effect.

I ended up combining two items into one and STILL my players simply forgot to use them or plain ignored them.

If PF2 items and feats resemble that (unlike 3E or 5E magic items which are generally great and desirable) it will be Paizo's undoing, mark my word.

But we're still only three sessions in, and 1st level feats aren't normally that bland, so I have nothing definite to say yet..

 

[CapnZapp]

What we consider to be "the actual game" is kind of the point here. It's not that we want to build over-powered characters that can stomp all over combat. It's that we want to build characters who have some control over which combats they are able to handle and which ones they should avoid.

I want to build a character with real strengths and weaknesses, so I can participate in "the actual game" of finding a path where my strengths shine and my weaknesses are protected. I want to build a high-AC character, and then try to only fight fighting-type enemies, under full awareness that I can't handle spellcasters; and then I want to avoid fighting spellcasters as much as possible.

The interesting part of the game, to me, is what happens at the table before you roll initiative.

My only immediate comment is that while I'm not sure this is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, I don't disagree.

 

[Parmandur]

My biggest concern is three weeks into sales on Amazon and the PF2 core book has dropped to below #1200 in All Books (#1208). This, despite selling as low as $35.99 on Amazon (retails for $47.99).

For context, we're now in the first week of year SIX for 5e, and the Player's Handbook is still ranked in the top 100 for All Books (#94).

I know both companies make digital sales, and of course store sales as well. But still, these are some shocking numbers to me. The disparity is on a scale that I can't justify based on "it must be digital sales" or "it must be direct sales" or "Amazon numbers are biased".

I also heard they did not sell out at GenCon. Which was planned, but I have never heard of planning to ship a near mountain of extra book inventory back home with you (which is what reports from GenCon were of what was left, and that sales were very light on Sunday with no lines).

Maybe this is unfounded unease on my part. It goes against my bias - I genuinely assumed PF2 sales would be extremely strong out the gate, and do well long term. But I am starting to be (at least mildly) concerned that it's not hitting the expected sales numbers.

This isn't something we'd hear in any official capacity. I think we heard glowing reports from Paizo about the MMO right up until they laid off most of the staff for that project and missed their targets, and I don't think we're going to get any data from Paizo other than "It's doing better than expected". Which I guess I don't blame them for, as that's the job of public relations. But it makes figuring out the real situation kinda difficult for a fan.

I hope I am wrong on this one. Paizo is a good company, they make some great RPG products, their employees are some of the best in the industry, and it's good for the industry to have that competition for WOTC. (And from a personal bias, I use some Pathfinder adventures to convert to 5e).

I'm fairly astounded at the GenCon surplus: I thought that would be ground zero for their core audience.

 

[Aldarc]

My first advice, Mist: stare at sales numbers less, play and enjoy your game more.

That said:

Paizo had the chance to learn from 5E's success. They chose to disregard its improvements over both PF1/3E and (somehow) 4E to create a very involved yet restricted game with open eyes.

Or at least eyes that could have been open if Paizo only lifted their gaze and exited their own bubble.

It's premature to say "I told you* so", so I'll wait.

*) Not any individual, more the forum at large

I gave you a like due to the initial good advice, but then reversed it once I got to the "that said" portion where you fell back on old unsubstantial garbage criticisms.

 

[CapnZapp]

I gave you a like due to the initial good advice, but then reversed it once I got to the "that said" portion where you fell back on old unsubstantial garbage criticisms.

Feel free to never again explain to people why their posts do not deserve your likes.

 

[Aldarc]

Feel free to never again explain to people why their posts do not deserve your likes.

If PF2 fails, on what factual basis can you say "I told you so"? How could you actually substantiate that its failures have anything to do with your speculation? How would it not be riddled with your confirmation bias?

 

[Zardnaar]

If Pathfinder 2 fails it's probably because of 5E or their class design.

Still want that overhauled and fixed 3.5 type game. PF2 is hard.