Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[FowlJ]

On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.

Not really arguing for or against anything that you're saying, but I'll point out that the main pathfinder sub has been around for 7 years. If a spinoff sub for a game that hasn't actually been released yet was anywhere close to the same user count in a small fraction of the time, that would be extraordinary.

 

[Parmandur]

It is not. The fighter remained the most popular class in the game, even when it was out-damaged by Raging Barbarians, CoDzilla, and a host of other things.

The mechanics of the fighter have changed, sometimes radically, in each edition, yet it's popularity has been a constant.
It is the familiar, relatable concept of the archetypal hero, that's behind the class's enduring, Class-Tier-defying popularity.

And that was very much about mechanics and class balance. 4e eliminated LFQW and made classes better balanced than ever - if stii far from perfect, with fighters still sucking out of combat, and casters still having a non-trivial edge in versatility in & out of combat - and was marked for death by a segment if the fanbase that would not tolerate that, touching off the edition war.

5e returned to LFQW and more moderated (or at least, obfuscated) caster superiority, and is permitted to seek new players in relative peace.

Thing us, PF never attracted many new players, it attracted resentful D&D players.

No non-D&D TTRPG has ever attracted a lot of new players to the hobby - the closest claimant might be Storyteller in the 90s, but it pulled in new players on the LARP side, where it was dominant.

And the supply of resentful D&D players is pretty limited.

Ouch.

So, for my money, the real big deal breaker for some portion of people on 4E is sunk cost: they spent X number of years learning how to do things like Y, and are turned doffnwhen Y is changed to Z. 3.x changed a lot from AD&D, but much of it was formalizing popular houserules or simplifying math (oversimplifying, or failing to understand the consequences, of breaking open the THAC0 bellcurve). The flavor was retained, except where expanded to allow things like Gnome Barbarians and Dwarf Wizards. So the transition, though not universal, went fairly smoothly. 4E introduced a new set of fluff assumptions, and really gave the mechanics a complete overhaul. People ball at losing their built up skills (see the reactions when companies introduce new tools and systems for employees to use).

The PF core fanbase is people who are really conservative on this spectrum.

PF2 is radically changing a lot of the 3.x mechanics, and breaking backwards compatibility completely. Now, the player base for PF1 has nearly 20 years of sink cost into their chosen system, and often a lifetime of material to play with already. O don't see what they have been laying down bringing in huge crowds of teenagers and college students. Hence, a recipe for 4E style reception: Grognard rejection, lack of new player recruitment.

r/dndnext, the main 5E group, has 213,000 members, and the edition neutral r/DnD has 1.3 million.

 

[Parmandur]

Not really arguing for or against anything that you're saying, but I'll point out that the main pathfinder sub has been around for 7 years. If a spinoff sub for a game that hasn't actually been released yet was anywhere close to the same user count in a small fraction of the time, that would be extraordinary.

I agree, but the release is just days away. There doesn't seem to be massive, breakout enthusiasm from the PF faithful.

 

[Imaro]

First of all, it's misleading to say that 5e still has LFQW, rather, it has /brought back/ LFQW.

Is it? 4e didn't get rid of it (thought it mitigated it) so how is it misleading to claim it still exists in 5e?

 

[Aldarc]

4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field and making everything samey. 5E went back to an asymmetrical design, which is more pleasing, and then made that work.

Asymmetrical design is a popular design feature for a lot of games (e.g., MtG, DotA, etc.). I'm certainly not opposed to such asymmetrical design, but this mainly applies to competitive PvP rather than cooperative PvE.

"Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5E comprehensively fixed 3E in some very fundamental areas."

Again, I think that "fixed" is far too strong of a hardlined opinion here that suggests there is only one "fix" for an issue. IMHO, it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e approached fixing 3E in some very fundamental areas."

On the other hand, PF1 did comparatively nothing to fix 3E. That's the reason Paizo really needs to step up now. They won't get away with something like PF1 now, in a 5E world.

Could that possibly be because PF1's goal was never about "fixing" 3.x but instead about providing continued support for 3.x?

5E: significantly improved to the degree I call it as fixed.

I'm not sure that you really demonstrate much grasp on the intricacies of the situation. Do you know why 3.x was "unbearable"? But do you know what 5e did? Do you know what PF2 is doing or changing?

Nobody accepts LFQW any longer. 5E has shown you can play a 2E-3E like game and not be plagued by rampant LFQW without having to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as 4E did. Them's the breaks and Paizo better know it.

5e has shown that LFQW is alive and well. Is it as bad as 3.x? Nope. Is it still kicking in 5e? Yes.

But, that's 5e. On topic, how much of 3.5/PF1's peak LFQW has PF2 retained?

You have to use a higher level slot to heighten the spell. I think autoscaling is only a thing for cantrips. No bonus spells based on attribute. Buff stacking will still be possible, though spells requiring concentration (don't have the list) will require that the caster use one of their three actions per round to maintain. Spells are redistributed between spell levels ranging from 1 to 10, with Wish being a 10th level spell that requires a Wizard using one of their feats to obtain. Levitate is now a 3rd level spell. Fly has been moved from being a 3rd level spell to a 4th level spell. So this does change the curvature somewhat.

On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.

A game that has been around for 10 years has more 70K more followers than a game that hasn't been released yet? Shock. I guess that means that PF2 failed. You win, Parmandur. We should all just worship at the Church of 5e now.

 

[MockingBird]

I feel there will be a reluctance from PF1e players to switch over. I feel like 5e has captured the would be PF2e adopters (or the majority not necessarily all of them). The hardcore PF1e fan has invested deeply to the game, tons of books and APs that I doubt many have had time to consume. Saying all that Paizo had to do something and they couldn't just keep producing 1e supplements. I agree with whoever said they should have taken a long hard look at 5e, studied it and proceeded accordingly. Whether that was making supplements for 5e or producing their own game, 5e should have been a major factor in those choices. Who knows it might have been and they just wanted to get as far away from D&D as possible. However I do find it ironic that 4e designers have had their hand in PF2e. It's a full circle it seems. Its interesting to watch and itll be even more so next month. Paizo should definitely try to make deals with streamers to make their game as visible as possible.

 

[Parmandur]

Asymmetrical design is a popular design feature for a lot of games (e.g., MtG, DotA, etc.). I'm certainly not opposed to such asymmetrical design, but this mainly applies to competitive PvP rather than cooperative PvE.

Again, I think that "fixed" is far too strong of a hardlined opinion here that suggests there is only one "fix" for an issue. IMHO, it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e approached fixing 3E in some very fundamental areas."

Could that possibly be because PF1's goal was never about "fixing" 3.x but instead about providing continued support for 3.x?

I'm not sure that you really demonstrate much grasp on the intricacies of the situation. Do you know why 3.x was "unbearable"? But do you know what 5e did? Do you know what PF2 is doing or changing?

5e has shown that LFQW is alive and well. Is it as bad as 3.x? Nope. Is it still kicking in 5e? Yes.

You have to use a higher level slot to heighten the spell. I think autoscaling is only a thing for cantrips. No bonus spells based on attribute. Buff stacking will still be possible, though spells requiring concentration (don't have the list) will require that the caster use one of their three actions per round to maintain. Spells are redistributed between spell levels ranging from 1 to 10, with Wish being a 10th level spell that requires a Wizard using one of their feats to obtain. Levitate is now a 3rd level spell. Fly has been moved from being a 3rd level spell to a 4th level spell. So this does change the curvature somewhat.

A game that has been around for 10 years has more 70K more followers than a game that hasn't been released yet? Shock. I guess that means that PF2 failed. You win, Parmandur. We should all just worship at the Church of 5e now.

Amen, hallelujah, and pass the ammunition, brother.

The topic of this thread is, does it seem as if PF2 is set to receive a chilly response from PF1 fans, and not bring in new players? While anything can happen, both of those seem to be the case.

 

[Parmandur]

I feel there will be a reluctance from PF1e players to switch over. I feel like 5e has captured the would be PF2e adopters (or the majority not necessarily all of them). The hardcore PF1e fan has invested deeply to the game, tons of books and APs that I doubt many have had time to consume. Saying all that Paizo had to do something and they couldn't just keep producing 1e supplements. I agree with whoever said they should have taken a long hard look at 5e, studied it and proceeded accordingly. Whether that was making supplements for 5e or producing their own game, 5e should have been a major factor in those choices. Who knows it might have been and they just wanted to get as far away from D&D as possible. However I do find it ironic that 4e designers have had their hand in PF2e. It's a full circle it seems. Its interesting to watch and itll be even more so next month. Paizo should definitely try to make deals with streamers to make their game as visible as possible.

They have been courting the streaming scene: Geek & Sundry has a PF2 game going, for instance.

 

[MockingBird]

They have been courting the streaming scene: Geek & Sundry has a PF2 game going, for instance.

That's good then, I believe this will help the game succeed.

 

[FowlJ]

I agree, but the release is just days away. There doesn't seem to be massive, breakout enthusiasm from the PF faithful.

I've never been in touch with a forum for a game within a few days of its release, so I'm not sure how much excitement is supposed to be happening - there's been some, that I've seen, but maybe not a lot.

One more thing I'd note about the PF subreddit is that a lot of the posts are very mechanics focused, which PF2 posts couldn't possibly be about (yet). Some of today's posts include "Catfolk Unchained Monk Build Advice: Long Ranger's Bane?", "[Request] Strange Aeons Maps (3rd Book)", and "How do Efreeti Switch/Cords work?" - all of those (and many more in the first few pages) are about specific products or character options, while some others are system neutral questions about the setting and stuff. When PF2's options are actually public, I imagine questions and discussion about them will become more popular.