Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Tony Vargas]

I’m not sure, to be honest, but I feel that there is always something new that can come out for PF1. New adventures, monsters, archetypes, settings, etc.

What I would say is that I would hope for a new torchbearer as once a game disappears from active publishing it becomes exponentially harder to find games or recruit new players.

That's very true, out there in the organized play & game store communities, new product (however superfluous it may seem theoretically) is a major driver.
But (also anecdotal), I've always seen discontinued games popping up at conventions, and home campaigns can go for many years past a game or edition's end of life.

 

[CapnZapp]

Edit: All my railings against my perceptions of PF2 aside they are just that, perceptions, and I will be giving PF2 a fair shake as 5th Edition just doesn’t cut it for me. I only hope that Paizo has thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water with their implementation of PF2.

Nooo... not the baby!!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Pathfinder 2E might as well be Paizo’s 4E as far as I am concerned. They went overboard (IMO) whilst opening up the patient for surgery and abandoned backwards compatibility at the same time. I am not willing to buy a whole new set of books when my friends and I have already spent loads on 3.5/Pathfinder 1E compatible material. Hopefully another company picks up the 3.X torch.

Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.

 

[DM Howard]

7643925[/URL]]Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.

I, personally, included most behind the screen material ad hoc, but I will also say that I tended to bring character side content under much greater scrutiny.

 

[amethal]

Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.

Nobody has ever asked to include 3.5 material in my Pathfinder game.

I have no problem allowing 3rd party Pathfinder material, so logically I shouldn't have an issue with D&D 3.5 stuff, but if there was any overlap with / contradiction to official Pathfinder material I'd want to go with Pathfinder instead.

As the GM, I will of course use mind flayers and displacer beasts if I want to.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not saying keyword hell is real, but 41 seems excessive...

 

[Sadras]

I will definitely be purchasing the PDF, but only to borrow and steal mechanics for our 5e game (which has hit level 11). A system with a lot of crunch and necessary system mastery intimidates me as a DM. If I enjoy the art within the PDF, I might consider getting the hardcover.

Personally I have not been following the playtest and seen any reviews, so I'm bound to be surprised with all the changes, but ambivalent best describes my feeling towards this edition. Like I said my primary purpose is to pilfer - detailed weapon traits/properties already seems interesting to me.

 

[Mycroft]

Like I said my primary purpose is to pilfer - detailed weapon traits/properties already seems interesting to me.

Me too, I am cannibalising it for my 3rd and 5th Ed campaigns (some cool monster actions, etc).

 

[zztong]

Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.

The long-term game I'm in that transitioned from 3.5 to PF1 should have allowed this, but it didn't occur to us, I guess. We had a few characters that just didn't feel the same after they got converted. We didn't have that trouble converting from 2.0 to 3.0 to 3.5, so we didn't see it coming.

 

[Remathilis]

Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.

Originally, I tried to use PF with Eberron, but found the rules weren't as flowing as predicted. (The artificer in particular was hard due to the changes to magic items rules). After that, it was mostly monsters and magic items, decreasing as PF grew their their own versions.