Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7626037" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>I don't think Paizo is under any delusions about catching lightning in a bottle twice, especially given the success of 5e. I suspect they are hoping that 2nd edition is a sustainable success while also being something fresh and new that they themselves enjoy playing with and designing for. They will probably hope that they get the majority of their playerbase from PF1, maybe some new players who are dissatisfied with 5e, and possibly some new players who are new to TTRPGs. Pathfinder 1 was a stopgap measure to prevent Paizo from going-under that turned into a huge success. Pathfinder 2 is more about Paizo going forward. </p><p></p><p>Sure, but over a decade, Paizo kept adding to and patching up the 3.5e system. There was an increased bloat of options (e.g., classes, archetypes, feats, etc.). There was some unelegant design decisions that they were not happy about (e.g., CMB/CMD). Jason Bulmahn flat out calls CMB/CMD - which he himself designed, by the way - "bad design." </p><p></p><p>But when you look PF2 and compare it to PF1, you can see how one is congruent with the other. PF2 represents a desire to build (mostly) from the ground-up their system into a more cohesive system. They wanted to make alchemy a valid branch. They wanted to streamline actions and the math. They wanted to better integrate three subsystems that were performing similar functions: e.g., multiclassing, archetypes, prestige classes. A lot of class and racial abilities (and subrace features) have been turned into feats. They wanted to reduce the complexity of the action economy. But at the same time, they still wanted to preserve the deep player customization options that Pathfinder was famous for. </p><p></p><p>You will undoubtedly hear dissatisfaction with some PF1 diehards, but from what I can tell, a lot of news and playtest reports surrounding PF2 has been positive. The new three-action economy, for example, has received tremendous praise. A lot of people have reported that it plays quicker than PF1 at similar levels. A number of groups reported that it's easier to run than PF1 while still giving easy-to-make monsters cool things to do. </p><p></p><p>It's likely a confluence of factors: players migrating to 5e,* growing dissatisfaction from both players AND Paizo with the rules/option/book bloat, and Paizo wanting to evolve the game. I think that this last point often gets understated. When you listen to comments from Paizo, many reflect (independently) that they are not the same company as they were in 2008-2009. They LOVE Pathfinder, but I think that many wanted to improve on its design. Many wanted to tinker and play with something new. Many employees wanted to expand it beyond a 3.5E with a new coat of paint and some replacement parts. So this is really one of the first times where we see Paizo getting to say "This is the system that we built!" </p><p></p><p>* Some just wanted to play D&D but were dissatisfied with 4e, so Pathfinder was the best popular alternative. So 5e was "good enough" for people to return back to D&D. </p><p></p><p>It looks more like a jump from 3e to a more complex 5e with some awareness of 4e's strengths.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7626037, member: 5142"] I don't think Paizo is under any delusions about catching lightning in a bottle twice, especially given the success of 5e. I suspect they are hoping that 2nd edition is a sustainable success while also being something fresh and new that they themselves enjoy playing with and designing for. They will probably hope that they get the majority of their playerbase from PF1, maybe some new players who are dissatisfied with 5e, and possibly some new players who are new to TTRPGs. Pathfinder 1 was a stopgap measure to prevent Paizo from going-under that turned into a huge success. Pathfinder 2 is more about Paizo going forward. Sure, but over a decade, Paizo kept adding to and patching up the 3.5e system. There was an increased bloat of options (e.g., classes, archetypes, feats, etc.). There was some unelegant design decisions that they were not happy about (e.g., CMB/CMD). Jason Bulmahn flat out calls CMB/CMD - which he himself designed, by the way - "bad design." But when you look PF2 and compare it to PF1, you can see how one is congruent with the other. PF2 represents a desire to build (mostly) from the ground-up their system into a more cohesive system. They wanted to make alchemy a valid branch. They wanted to streamline actions and the math. They wanted to better integrate three subsystems that were performing similar functions: e.g., multiclassing, archetypes, prestige classes. A lot of class and racial abilities (and subrace features) have been turned into feats. They wanted to reduce the complexity of the action economy. But at the same time, they still wanted to preserve the deep player customization options that Pathfinder was famous for. You will undoubtedly hear dissatisfaction with some PF1 diehards, but from what I can tell, a lot of news and playtest reports surrounding PF2 has been positive. The new three-action economy, for example, has received tremendous praise. A lot of people have reported that it plays quicker than PF1 at similar levels. A number of groups reported that it's easier to run than PF1 while still giving easy-to-make monsters cool things to do. It's likely a confluence of factors: players migrating to 5e,* growing dissatisfaction from both players AND Paizo with the rules/option/book bloat, and Paizo wanting to evolve the game. I think that this last point often gets understated. When you listen to comments from Paizo, many reflect (independently) that they are not the same company as they were in 2008-2009. They LOVE Pathfinder, but I think that many wanted to improve on its design. Many wanted to tinker and play with something new. Many employees wanted to expand it beyond a 3.5E with a new coat of paint and some replacement parts. So this is really one of the first times where we see Paizo getting to say "This is the system that we built!" * Some just wanted to play D&D but were dissatisfied with 4e, so Pathfinder was the best popular alternative. So 5e was "good enough" for people to return back to D&D. It looks more like a jump from 3e to a more complex 5e with some awareness of 4e's strengths. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
Top