D&D 5E Could Paizo go 5e?

[darjr]

I think there is another lesson from Green Ronin. Notice any new 5e product from them? There isn't any.

 

[Mallus]

2. 5e rules are more elegant than Pathfinder rules. More designed to be house-ruled. They're the perfect way to roll out Pathfinder 2, or whatever.

This is the sticking point. My experiences are that Pathfinder players don't want elegance/streamlining. They like the complexity and crunch-level of a 3e-derived system. A 5e-based system is going to be too light for them. It's not going to deliver what they've proven they want.

Pazio dipping into 5e-compatible AP's and/or supplements? Maybe. But a redesign of the Pathfinder core along the lines of 5e? I don't see that happening.

edit: as for 5e - I like it & it's what I'm running now. But I don't see how I could use to give hard-core Pathfinder players the sort of technical play experience that characterizes Pathfinder play (in the same way I couldn't use 5e to give 4e fans the different sort of technical play they prefer).

 

[Morlock]

We are privy to them. Paizo have given their reasons.

You aren't privy to Paizo's data and their thinking. You're privy to what they tell you. Which has nothing to do with what I was referring to, obviously.

No you didn't. And please don't put words in my mouth.

Debunked the bunk thoroughly, though.

And please don't falsely accuse me of putting words into your mouth.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And please don't falsely accuse me of putting words into your mouth.

Um, isn't that exactly what you did? You quoted him, except you changed the words he wrote. Adding a four-letter acronym afterward doesn't change the fact that you altered what you "quoted"...

 

[Morlock]

When PF 2e comes along, and it will at some point, it will need to be backward compatible with PF 1e or they risk losing many costumers. Althought when they do the switch, 5e will be older, more used. Maybe PF 2e will attract players who want something else.

Yes, lack of backward compatibility would be a legitimate con for a PF2(5e).

I know some people that love the detailed, granular system of PF, they precise tactical battles and the highly strategic build subsystem.

Right, but none of that really recommends 3e, so much as it does Pathfinder. Paizo can do all of that with a PF2(5e), as well. Or they could stick to the existing streamlined 5e approach, it's really up to them.

This is the sticking point. My experiences are that Pathfinder players don't want elegance/streamlining. They like the complexity and crunch-level of a 3e-derived system. A 5e-based system is going to be too light for them. It's not going to deliver what they've proven they want.

Well, there's nothing that demands you play with all of that crunch. I'm sure there are some people playing without it. I bet it seems pretty light that way, compared to playing with all of PF's crunch. A 5e-based PF with no crunch would be too light for people who love all of PF's crunch, but, there's no reason a 5e-based PF would need to come without crunch.

Pazio dipping into 5e-compatible AP's and/or supplements? Maybe. But a redesign of the Pathfinder core along the lines of 5e? I don't see that happening.

Not saying I see it happening, either. But I bet Paizo finds it tempting.

edit: as for 5e - I like it & it's what I'm running now. But I don't see how I could use to give hard-core Pathfinder players the sort of technical play experience that characterizes Pathfinder play (in the same way I couldn't use 5e to give 4e fans the different sort of technical play they prefer).

I don't really know what a system that couldn't be made crunchier looks like. Maybe it's 5e, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Morlock]

FIFY is adult for "Fixed It For You," i.e., I changed your original quote to something accurate.

Mod Note: Please see my post below. ~Umbran

 

[Kramodlog]

FIFY is adult for "Fixed It For You," i.e., I changed your original quote to something accurate.

So, you put words in his mouth...

 

[Staffan]

The chances of Paizo abandoning Pathfinder to go 5e are slim to none. What we might see (but I still think the chances are low) are one or both of:

- dual-statting adventure paths (possibly along with a Golarion for 5e book - though I'm not sure what would be needed other than domains), or

- Paizo making an adventure for Wizards.

I don't think either of these is likely, but they're possible.

 

[Krachek]

The situation got reversed. A few years ago Wotc was sad and Paizo happy.
Now Paizo should be concerned.
Some poster on Paizo forum consider Dnd5 as PF 2ed. PF could evolve, but he miss the train. DnD5 is now live.
DnD5 attracts new players, retired players, and certainly some 3.5/PF players who want some changes.
The new OGL and DM guild hit Paizo right in the soft spot.
Paizo could not produce material for 5ed, without risk.

 

[Reynard]

It occurs to me that much like in the world of comics with DC and Marvel, WotC and Paizo are competitors but the people that make them up are friends and colleagues. i don't think either company wishes the other harm. If people at paizo wanted to play in the 5E sandbox they would probably create a new company to do so (to protect their TMs and IP) and use as many WotC freelancers as Paizo ones.