Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

Remathilis · Jul 20, 2019

Saelorn said:
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.

Its anecdotal, but of all the DMs I still keep in contact with.

Two (myself included) bailed on PF the minute 5e came out and haven't looked back. FWIW, I looked to see if there was anything from PF2 that I could use in my 5e game, but decided most of it was too incompatible and not worth conversion.

One played PF up to 2e, but is giving up on it for 5e.

Another is not converting to 2e and will continue to use 1e. For the record, he dislikes 5e as well.

So just from my informal sample of four, PF2 got 0 converts based on the playtest. The plural of ancedote is not data, but amongst the conversations I've had, no one was excited for the game. I hope Paizo can find new converts (possibly 5e players who want something crunchier) but no one in my circle is keen to support them. Best of luck to them.

Parmandur · Jul 20, 2019

Saelorn said:
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.

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to make something different enough to justify a new edition, bit any changes that threaten compatibility will run afoul of part of the community. A backwards compatible game would service the old edition users well, but would not sustain a robust publishing schedule. So they went with not backwards compatible: time will tell if enough people will switch, or new people get brought in, to make it a successful move.

CapnZapp · Jul 20, 2019

Remathilis said:
FWIW, I looked to see if there was anything from PF2 that I could use in my 5e game, but decided most of it was too incompatible and not worth conversion.

FWIW, I've had good use out of the PFSRD in one (specialized) area:

Inspiration for more 5E items, and especially suggestions on market price.

(As some of might know, I've readded back into 5E a proper magic shoppe economy even if WotC was of zero help)

CapnZapp · Jul 20, 2019

Parmandur said:
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to make something different enough to justify a new edition, bit any changes that threaten compatibility will run afoul of part of the community. A backwards compatible game would service the old edition users well, but would not sustain a robust publishing schedule. So they went with not backwards compatible: time will tell if enough people will switch, or new people get brought in, to make it a successful move.

Sorry but sticking to 3E/PF compatibility is a complete dead end imo. To me it's obvious Paizo must and will target new consumers, meaning 5E players, and I don't see a single one of them playing such a game more than once.

5E is a sea change when it comes to updating d20 and truly fixing it's issues! Sure it has drawbacks and weaknesses, but a PF 1.5 (or 3.875E

) would mean giving up a large amount of very sweet things for very clunky and cluttery old versions.

PF2 will be a hard enough sell, but at least we can hope it means regression in far fewer areas...

Parmandur · Jul 20, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Sorry but sticking to 3E/PF compatibility is a complete dead end imo. To me it's obvious Paizo must and will target new consumers, meaning 5E players, and I don't see a single one of them playing such a game more than once.

5E is a sea change when it comes to updating d20 and truly fixing it's issues! Sure it has drawbacks and weaknesses, but a PF 1.5 (or 3.875E ) would mean giving up a large amount of very sweet things for very clunky and cluttery old versions.

PF2 will be a hard enough sell, but at least we can hope it means regression in far fewer areas...

Yeah, I don't see that they would have much hope with a continued backwards compatibility in business terms. But I don't know how well they will do moving away from that...

CapnZapp · Jul 21, 2019

Parmandur said:
Yeah, I don't see that they would have much hope with a continued backwards compatibility in business terms. But I don't know how well they will do moving away from that...

No, personally I believe they should have positioned their game as "the game for those who love 5E but want more" and made sure their game contains all the things 5E bring (LFQW and the cleaned-up spells with no scry-teleport or detect evil or charm person or... or... or other cheese, easy DM prep, strong heroes that heal easily, Dex supremacy so you can play little sh*** for emo snowflakes

, etc etc and just give up what you need for the deliciously crunchy PC charbuild Paizo is renowned for, like advantage obviously, a bit of bounded accuracy (but not all of it), and probably something I haven't even considered...)

Parmandur · Jul 21, 2019

CapnZapp said:
No, personally I believe they should have positioned their game as "the game for those who love 5E but want more" and made sure their game contains all the things 5E bring (LFQW and the cleaned-up spells with no scry-teleport or detect evil or charm person or... or... or other cheese, easy DM prep, strong heroes that heal easily, Dex supremacy so you can play little sh*** for emo snowflakes , etc etc and just give up what you need for the deliciously crunchy PC charbuild Paizo is renowned for, like advantage obviously, a bit of bounded accuracy (but not all of it), and probably something I haven't even considered...)

There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.

Zardnaar · Jul 21, 2019

It won't be Paizos 4E. If it flops it will be for a different reason, it's possible there's nothing Paizo can do to compete at least at the levels they want.

Tony Vargas · Jul 21, 2019

Parmandur said:
There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.

IDK. Would the existing PF fanbase be offended if their system were positioned as Advanced D&D (w/1e UA & 2e Complete & Option books), to 5e's Basic D&D?

Parmandur · Jul 21, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
IDK. Would the existing PF fanbase be offended if their system were positioned as Advanced D&D (w/1e UA & 2e Complete & Option books), to 5e's Basic D&D?

Based on my reading of PF fan boards, yes, because doing so would involve integration of mechanics the PF base dislikes. Not everyone, certainly, but people who like PF and 5E don't seem interested in crossing those streams, either.