Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

[Morrus]

Maybe it's an edition of Pathfinder that's compatible with 5E D&D?

How does one distinguish between a Pathfinder which uses the 5E rules, and 5E?

 

[Retreater]

How does one distinguish between a Pathfinder which uses the 5E rules, and 5E?

My interpretation would be that Paizo could be a 3PP that publishes "5E Compatible" products, as opposed to a "second party" publisher that produces official content. The difference here would be a company like Frog God Games releasing "Rappan Athuk" (3PP) and a company like Sasquatch releasing "Princes of the Apocalypse."

But one could interpret "5E compatible" as something that collects variant rules that can be added on top of the core 5E system - for example for a more tactical experience or with more character creation options. I would consider Matt Colville's "Strongholds and Followers" a "5E Compatible" product.

 

[Morrus]

My interpretation would be that Paizo could be a 3PP that publishes "5E Compatible" products, as opposed to a "second party" publisher that produces official content. The difference here would be a company like Frog God Games releasing "Rappan Athuk" (3PP) and a company like Sasquatch releasing "Princes of the Apocalypse."

That's not Pathfinder then, though. That's just 5E compatible products produced by the company who makes Pathfinder.

My point was that a 5E version of Pathfinder is indistinguishable from 5E. The main thing which distinguishes the two is that they are different rules systems, not the fluff text.

Unless a 5E version of Pathfinder merely means 5E versions of the setting/adventures, in which case go back to step 1.

(And I won't go into that, as I've literally just backed out of longer thread on that very topic!)

 

[ccs]

How does one distinguish between a Pathfinder which uses the 5E rules, and 5E?

The logo of course.

 

[Ancalagon]

That's not Pathfinder then, though. That's just 5E compatible products produced by the company who makes Pathfinder.

My point was that a 5E version of Pathfinder is indistinguishable from 5E. The main thing which distinguishes the two is that they are different rules systems, not the fluff text.

Unless a 5E version of Pathfinder merely means 5E versions of the setting/adventures, in which case go back to step 1.

(And I won't go into that, as I've literally just backed out of longer thread on that very topic!)

It should be noted that initially, pathfinder wasn't that different from 3.5, it just evolved a bit after that.

There is a clear desire from some for a system that shares the best features of both, but I'm not sure that's realistic. There isn't even an agreement on what those best features are!

 

[Voadam]

Reasonable compatibility with PF1/3.5/3.0/d20Modern. I want to be able to mix and match my stuff with as few problems as using 3.0 modules in a Pathfinder 1e game.

Improvements: simplify skill lists, give more skills to low skill classes, deal with LFQW, ruthlessly give all save or die/suck spells a save a round, possibly copy the 5e concentration rules, turn x/day powers generally into at will or once per encounter or recharge, give rogues and monks full BAB, more per encounter mechanics, PC save discrepancies at high levels, some sort of significantly better non-magical healing, separate culture from race, have a 4e DMG II style no magic loot option, allowing a full attacks with a move, clear rules for grappling, etc.

 

[Kaodi]

I think I just wanted a cleaner system with unnecessary bloat ironed out and a stronger balance between classes and some straightforward improvements. I like the expansion of critical success and failure states (is that in 5e? I have barely played that system). I am cool with new character generation too even though at high levels it means characters are barely differentiated by their stats (I suppose they might also rejig that in the final version).

 

[GreyLord]

Reasonable compatibility with PF1/3.5/3.0/d20Modern. I want to be able to mix and match my stuff with as few problems as using 3.0 modules in a Pathfinder 1e game.

Improvements: simplify skill lists, give more skills to low skill classes, deal with LFQW, ruthlessly give all save or die/suck spells a save a round, possibly copy the 5e concentration rules, turn x/day powers generally into at will or once per encounter or recharge, give rogues and monks full BAB, more per encounter mechanics, PC save discrepancies at high levels, some sort of significantly better non-magical healing, separate culture from race, have a 4e DMG II style no magic loot option, allowing a full attacks with a move, clear rules for grappling, etc.

Some of that might be decent, but absolutely NOT for giving Rogues full BAB if BAB is going to differ between classes.

Why do many modern gamers feel "Rogue" = Combat class?

Rogue was normally a ROGUE...or at least a stealth and subterfuge class previously. Later it became somewhat of a skill monkey...

So why do so many want it to be a combat class when they could already have combat classes found in the Warrior classes?

 

[DammitVictor]

So why do so many want it to be a combat class when they could already have combat classes found in the Warrior classes?

Because the vast majority of time in the vast majority of games is spent in combat, so a class that can't pull its own weight in combat is a useless load?

This is very much the same as it was in the TSR days. The 3.0 Rogue was a response to decades of player complaints.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why do many modern gamers feel "Rogue" = Combat class?

If rogues aren't a combat class, then they are literally the only class in the game which is not. For a game where the majority of the minutes in a session are spent in combat, it's not really viable to have an entire class that doesn't participate in that.