Pathfinder 2E My Biggest Concern for Pathfinder 2e

[CapnZapp]

If PF2 fails, on what factual basis can you say "I told you so"?

You appear to labour under the delusion this discussion forum only accepts statements of provable facts.

It does not. It accepts opinions. Did you know you don't have to restrict your discussion topics to what could be objectively proven as factually correct? It might come as a shock to you, but it really is great - it means we can discuss many many more topics!

In other words, just stop with your ridiculous crusade against people whose opinions you don't agree with.

Thank you

 

[Aldarc]

Opinions are fine, and you are entitled to yours, but the problem is when those opinions are paraded around as if they were self-evident truths and/or factual statements but only serve to reinforce a preexisting narrative.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

I would want to discuss this in more detail, since "class design" could mean pretty much anything.

If Pathfinder 2 fails, I would point to some or all of the following factors:
1) Pathfinder 2 seemingly ignores that 5E succeeds because it abandons fiddliness
1a) two important factors where the jury is still out are caster-martial balance and ease of monster prep for the GM
1b) Paizo might completely underestimate how much people actually like bounded accuracy
2) Pathfinder 2 seemingly ignores the deep impopularity of the 4E-style design of lots of small options (yes, you could phrase this as "all options are balanced" or "no trap options", but players seem to like the existence of some options being better than others since that makes their decisions matter)

Still want that overhauled and fixed 3.5 type game.

I would argue 5E is the fix to 3E.

I believe there no longer exist a substantial market for a more direct descendant to 3E. The core engine of d20 simply is so broken it can't be fixed, or rather, that 5E proved it could be fixed, only that you had to really reassemble the fundamentals to do it.

Yes, 5E also adds a number of simplifications that has nothing to do with fixing 3E. Some of them are unnecessary or even outright dumb.

I remain impressed over just how thoroughly 5E solves many of the deal-breaking deficiencies that forced me to leave 3E. I honestly don't believe a more direct "create a 3.999 edition" would have had the courage and energy to truly uproot the core problems with the d20 engine, instead creating just another iteration in the 3.0 - 3.5 - PF chain that never came close to any of 5E's true fixes, so I think "that overhauled and fixed 3.5 type game" is mostly a pipe dream that could never have happened.

 

[CapnZapp]

Opinions are fine, and you are entitled to yours

Thank you!

Best Regards

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Opinions are just that, personal opinions. Opinions themselves do not cause problems - how people perceive them is what causes the problem.

Clearly, you have a problem with the idea that someone believes Pathfinder 2e is going to fail. That's your issue to deal with. I also believe Pathfinder 2e is on a rocky road - that's my opinion, it doesn't serve a pre-existing narrative and nobody can say to me my opinion is a problem.

I DM 5th edition because I burnt out running 3.5 due to heavy prep and cognitive overload as a result of rules complexity. For that reason I never ran Pathfinder 1e and, similarly, I'm not going to try Pathfinder 2e.

At this point 5e is the the Heavyweight champ of D&D, not perfect but the game all the newbies recognise. Good luck introducing new players to the overtweaked and constrained P2e let alone new GMs. If you are new to fantasy tabletop RPGs, what game are you going to adopt, the wildly successful brand name 5e which everyone is talking about and has massive social media exposure or the new game Pathfinder 2e which has proved divisive amongst its fanbase and which many people are not trying because of 5e.

I do actually wish Paizo good luck because competition is a good thing and more options for fantasy gaming is always better. However, I don't think the right strategy has been chosen here - at the moment it looks like all eggs are in one basket when it might be a good idea to develop for 5e as well.

 

[Aldarc]

Clearly, you have a problem with the idea that someone believes Pathfinder 2e is going to fail. That's your issue to deal with. I also believe Pathfinder 2e is on a rocky road - that's my opinion, it doesn't serve a pre-existing narrative and nobody can say to me my opinion is a problem.

Except that is "clearly" untrue. I take no issue with the opinion "I believe that PF2 will fail," but, rather, with the unsubstaniated narratives that some people construct around why it may or may not fail.

 

[miggyG777]

.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Except that is "clearly" untrue. I take no issue with the opinion "I believe that PF2 will fail," but, rather, with the unsubstaniated narratives that some people construct around why it may or may not fail.

Why is this 'clearly' untrue? By your own arguement you appear to imply that Pathfinder 2e is going to succeed but this is unsubstantiated. I don't take issue with that though as this is your implied viewpoint.

The 'narratives' that people put forward for why PF2e may or may not succeed are also part of their opinions. You might not like them, in which case you should put forward a counter arguement as to why those opinions are incorrect. You can't just keep saying 'I take issue with those opinions' because they rub you up the wrong way.

 

[CapnZapp]

I strongly suggest none of you fall into the trap of derailing the discussion.

If you start arguing over whose opinion is more valid, you are no longer discussing why PF2 might or might not fail, and the derailer have won.

 

[muppetmuppet]

I agree the 4e Christmas tree of magic items was silly. I tended to just play in a low magic item setting and use the natural bonuses. This way if they ever found a magic item I could make it something reasonably special and unique and not just +2 to hit gives you +1 damage if you happen to be standing on one leg with your eyes closed while wielding a ranseur.