Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

The Crimson Binome · Jul 19, 2019

CapnZapp said:
What about the calls for crunchier player character generation and build options?

As you say, crunchier PCs are incompatible with easy NPCs, if they both use the same rules. You have to choose your priorities.

Where Pathfinder 1 succeeded was that they chose the exact same priorities as 3.5 (complex characters, NPC symmetry, lots of work for the GM), which meant nobody had any reason to stick with 3.5 instead of moving to Pathfinder. With Pathfinder 2, they're going with different priorities than either Pathfinder 1 or D&D 5E, which means somebody is going to be left behind no matter what. That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.

MoonSong · Jul 20, 2019

Saelorn said:
Where Pathfinder 1 succeeded was that they chose the exact same priorities as 3.5 (complex characters, NPC symmetry, lots of work for the GM), which meant nobody had any reason to stick with 3.5 instead of moving to Pathfinder. With Pathfinder 2, they're going with different priorities than either Pathfinder 1 or D&D 5E, which means somebody is going to be left behind no matter what. That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.

Speaking of this, wasn't there a PF1 clone of some sort in the works? I heard something about it in passing, but never got any details.

CapnZapp · Jul 20, 2019

Saelorn said:
That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.

I fear you're not seeing the woods for all the trees.

The real risk is staying with the 3.x/PF system, since just about everyone that can't stand it's complexities have bailed for other games.

It would simply attract very few new customers.

My whole point is that Paizo will fail unless they're ready to accept that Pathfinder 1 doesn't cut it anymore. Why? Because 5th Edition has truly showed the people you CAN solve it's shortcomings (in a way that keeps the spirit of the game; without branching off into a completely new direction like 4E)

I believe 5E has "poisoned the well", as it were, for games that can't or won't adress LFQW and NPC complexity.

Zardnaar · Jul 20, 2019

I think you can make a fixed 3.5 drawing in a bit of ISR/2E concepts to fix it. PF2 seems to have doubled down on the complexity.

My idea of a fixed 3.X game would be Star Wars Saga Edition with overhauled math.

Matrix Sorcica · Jul 20, 2019

MoonSong said:
Speaking of this, wasn't there a PF1 clone of some sort in the works? I heard something about it in passing, but never got any details.

Porphyra or something like that. Being designed by purple duck games. AFAIK, it's not a clone but a genuine PF heartbreaker.

MoonSong · Jul 20, 2019

Matrix Sorcica said:
Porphyra or something like that. Being designed by purple duck games. AFAIK, it's not a clone but a genuine PF heartbreaker.

Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.

Parmandur · Jul 20, 2019

MoonSong said:
Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.

There is probably not a sufficient market for a full clone: anybody who wants to keep on playing 3.x/PF1 has several lifetimes if material at their disposal.

Remathilis · Jul 20, 2019

MoonSong said:
Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.

Seeing as that the PF SRD is not going away and is loaded with 90% of the stuff made for Pathfinder, there is even less of a need for a clone rulebook than there was for 3.5.

Parmandur · Jul 20, 2019

Remathilis said:
Seeing as that the PF SRD is not going away and is loaded with 90% of the stuff made for Pathfinder, there is even less of a need for a clone rulebook than there was for 3.5.

The big thing continuing players would want at this point is new adventures, and I am certain that companies such as Kobold Press will continue to offer Pathfinder versions of Kick-started Adventures, etc.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 20, 2019

CapnZapp said:
The real risk is staying with the 3.x/PF system, since just about everyone that can't stand it's complexities have bailed for other games.

It would simply attract very few new customers.

Not that there's any way for us to know for certain, but I would wager that a PF2 that was just an updated PF1 would sell a lot more than the PF2 that they ended up with. I mean, it's not like those players originally went to PF1 because they were sick of 3.5 or anything; they went to PF1 because they liked 3.5, but PF1 was better. Ergo, that audience would happily switch to a better version of the same thing.

If PF2 only targets the people who bailed on PF1, then that's a much harder audience to capture, because there were lots of different reasons for them to quit. For every GM who gave up on PF1 because of NPC complexity, there's a player who gave up on PF1 because of PC complexity, and two more who gave up on it because of balance issues. There is no possible product that will bring all of those players back, but there is a possible product that would get their existing audience to buy more books.