[PF2] Cleric class preview + spells per level

[Charlaquin]

Not sure why Pathfinder needs to stop being DnD.

Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.

 

[zztong]

Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.

Very true.

This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D" and D&D 5e to be something else. Now PF2e doesn't seem like "D&D" either, and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names.

Or maybe I'm just full of... silver pieces.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Really? Things like Concentration feel straight anti-DnD to me, rather than "DnD in all it's glory".

Concentration has been in the game in one form or another for a long time, in 1e, it was necessary to concentrate to cast any spell at all, and some required it throughout (possibly with severe consequences for breaking it), and any damage broke concentration, automatically. 3e had a concentration skill that could be optimized to the point you'd rarely face a meaningful chance of it breaking.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.

No, Pathfinder is a fix for broken or abandoned D&D.

If they keep that in mind, and skip the hyperbole and hubris, Paizo will do alright.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, Pathfinder is a fix for broken or abandoned D&D.

That’s what Pathfinder was. When, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 4e had abandoned them, Pathfinder stepped in to offer them a way to keep playing D&D. But like it or not, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 5e is D&D. So Pathfinder can no longer survive on the promise of “keep playing D&D” because D&D is offering that again, and doing a better job of it because it can actually have beholders and mind flayers and Drizt and all that other D&D stuff. Pathfinder’s fan base is dwindling because the majority of people who adopted PF1 as an alternative to 4e have moved on now that 4e is dead and 5e has returned D&D to form in their eyes. And nobody coming into the hobby for the first time is going to start with PF1 when 5e is so popular unless they’re brought into it by a dedicated PF1 fan. So Pathfinder has not only lost a significant portion of its existing fan base, it also isn’t bringing in enough new blood. Simply being D&D just isn’t enough any more. Pathfinder needs to find its own identity or it is going to fail. Paizo knows that, which is why PF2 is looking so unappealing to the people who just want it to be D&D. Especially to the ones to whom “being D&D” means being a direct evolution of D&D 3e’s design.

Very true.

This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D" and D&D 5e to be something else. Now PF2e doesn't seem like "D&D" either, and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names..

Indeed, the fall of 4e and the rise of PF1 proved that “D&D” is more than just a brand name. But the rise of 5e and the fall of PF1 is proving that the brand name does contribute to what makes D&D, as do its proprietary settings and monsters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D"
...and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names.
Or maybe I'm just full of... silver pieces.

That's not weird at all. PF1 was an outright clone of D&D 3.5, it was D&D in all but name.

It's funny because for decades, the conventional wisdom was that D&D was the big fish in the small TTRPG pond because of it's hallowed 'First RPG' status in the hobby, and because it was the only TTRPG with mainstream name recognition, that the D&D name, alone, allowed it to consistently beat out the many 'fantasy heartbreakers' that were essentially like D&D, but better in some ways (and no worse in others, generally), not to mention the many games that were far better as games, but quite different, all in spite of D&D being a backwards dysfunctional imbalanced system far behind the times.

That conventional wisdom was wrong in one small but significant detail: "...in spite of..."

What 4e (D&D name, balanced mechanics) & PF1 (imbalanced D&D mechanics cloned without the name) performing so closely in the ICv2-measured segment of the market (some quarters D&D in the lead, some PF, until D&D went on hiatus) indicated was that D&D's popularity didn't just rest on the D&D name, but on the system imbalances that had come to be not merely tolerated, but demanded, by it's established fan-base.

5e has clinched that: having returned to a more traditional iteration of the system that restores the classes to their old pecking order and returns to built-in rewards for 'skilled play' (though not quite so much for system mastery, as 3.5 had), and, of course, still enjoying the benefits of the D&D name, it is once more the unquestioned leader in the hobby.

Hmmm.... having said all that, two things occur to me:

• I'm a bitter, deeply cynical, old grognard who should probably just STFU. (I expect lots of XP and selectively-quoted agreement with that one!)
• Paizo does have a possible path to keeping PF going: rewards for system mastery. 5e has the D&D name and is back to the traditional mechanical feel of D&D. But, 5e's slow pace of release and reigned-in 'player entitlement'/emphasis on 'DM Empowerment' make the chargen/level-up optimization meta-game much less engaging and rewarding than it's always been in 3.x/PF. I mean, haven't we all built characters to an optimization target or concept for 3.x or PF that we never had a chance, possibly never even intended, to play, because it's just an entertaining exercise in its own right?
• Edit: I've forgotten how to use list tags...
  

...that's better.

 

[zztong]

I'm a bitter, deeply cynical, old grognard who should probably just STFU. (I expect lots of XP and selectively-quoted agreement with that one!)

Gosh, please don't shut up. Its nice to have at least one forum where I can rub shoulders with folks of similar experiences. I'm weary of overly fan-fueled places like the Paizo forums or the bizarre down-vote culture of Reddit. I'm new to these boards, but so far it seems more like a place where folks can kick around things as if it were over beers.

Regarding trademarks, D&D isn't in the same situation as say "Xerox" or "Klennex", but to many laymen "D&D" is any RPG.

 

[CapnZapp]

That’s what Pathfinder was. When, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 4e had abandoned them, Pathfinder stepped in to offer them a way to keep playing D&D. But like it or not, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 5e is D&D. So Pathfinder can no longer survive on the promise of “keep playing D&D” because D&D is offering that again, and doing a better job of it because it can actually have beholders and mind flayers and Drizt and all that other D&D stuff. Pathfinder’s fan base is dwindling because the majority of people who adopted PF1 as an alternative to 4e have moved on now that 4e is dead and 5e has returned D&D to form in their eyes. And nobody coming into the hobby for the first time is going to start with PF1 when 5e is so popular unless they’re brought into it by a dedicated PF1 fan. So Pathfinder has not only lost a significant portion of its existing fan base, it also isn’t bringing in enough new blood. Simply being D&D just isn’t enough any more. Pathfinder needs to find its own identity or it is going to fail. Paizo knows that, which is why PF2 is looking so unappealing to the people who just want it to be D&D. Especially to the ones to whom “being D&D” means being a direct evolution of D&D 3e’s design.

I don't see how that does not make PF2 just a big-budget heartbreaker game. Why would I need yet another "doing D&D but better" clone that really is fixing nothing and instead adding layers of crud?

To me their obvious opportunity is to do "advanced dungeons & dragons" since it's clear WotC doesn't care about their hardcore market (anyone beyond carebear level, really). To me they seem to forget they're a symbiote on the tree of D&D.

If Paizo wasn't so big I could have understood the allure to create a game in D&Ds shadow, like Tunnels or Trolls, Numenera, or 13h Age.

But Paizo not gunning for continued parity with WotC by ensuring compatability with and building on D&D, I'm struggling to see.

This game sound more and more like Pathfinder in name only. To me, that sounds like Paizo has deluded itself into thinking people will come for their brand alone. When in reality, the strength of "Pathfinder" is only true as long as it means "D&D, but crunchier".

 

[Tony Vargas]

To me their obvious opportunity is to do "advanced dungeons & dragons" since it's clear WotC doesn't care about their hardcore market (anyone beyond carebear level, really). To me they seem to forget they're a symbiote on the tree of D&D.
...in reality, the strength of "Pathfinder" is only true as long as it means "D&D, but crunchier".

That sounds plausible. What if, instead of PF2 being a free-standing game, it were a rich expansion of 5e, delivering all those player options that 5e has been slow to publish?

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't see how that does not make PF2 just a big-budget heartbreaker game. Why would I need yet another "doing D&D but better" clone that really is fixing nothing and instead adding layers of crud?

Uhh... “doing D&D but better” is exactly what Pathfinder was built on, and is exactly the thing I’m suggesting they evolve beyond.

To me their obvious opportunity is to do "advanced dungeons & dragons" since it's clear WotC doesn't care about their hardcore market (anyone beyond carebear level, really). To me they seem to forget they're a symbiote on the tree of D&D.

If Paizo wasn't so big I could have understood the allure to create a game in D&Ds shadow, like Tunnels or Trolls, Numenera, or 13h Age.

But Paizo not gunning for continued parity with WotC by ensuring compatability with and building on D&D, I'm struggling to see.

How are “selling their game on its own merits” and “gunning for continued parity with WotC” in any way mutually exclusive? I would argue that the former is absolutely necessary in order to accomplish the latter. As long as Pathfinder is just “3rd Edition but new,” it’s going to continue to fall further and further behind as the demand for a 3e clone continues to shrink. Now that Pathfinder can’t sell itself as a refuge from 4e any more, it needs a new selling point.

This game sound more and more like Pathfinder in name only. To me, that sounds like Paizo has deluded itself into thinking people will come for their brand alone. When in reality, the strength of "Pathfinder" is only true as long as it means "D&D, but crunchier".

The fact that no one will come for the brand name alone is why they need to establish a strong identity for their game. Because no one will come for “D&D, but still 3e” any more either. “D&D, but crunchier?” Sure, that’s a good selling point - crunch is something the current edition of D&D is lacking in, which is precisely why PF2 caught my interest. But that’s what I’m saying, PF2 needs to do things D&D isn’t already doing, otherwise people will just stick with D&D. If they continue to just barely iterate on 3e’s design, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. They need to instead make a game that appeals in ways D&D 5e doesn’t. Being like D&D isn’t one of those ways.