Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e

[Parmandur]

tight math - yes
tight encounter design - no
meaningful narrative uncertainty - I guess yes (but that exists in every D&D game I've played so I don't understand how that is a feature)
embedded lore - a big no
modular design - yes, but depends what you mean. I love the modularity of 1e, 4e, and 5e. How is PF2e different?

If this is the list that makes PF2e distinctive your making me re-think my idea of playing the game from: going to give it a try; to: perhaps not worth the effort. You are basically telling me it is like every D&D game I have played with some bits I don't like or don't care about?

Please tell me I am misunderstanding, I just started to look up where to play!

That's basically where I'm at with the game. It would involve a large time and money investment, to do what I can do already with several other games...?

 

[darjr]

Can Paizo deviate from d20 and design a successful game? Yes they can, they just did. The facts are in. The Amazon sales rank alone shows they have a huge success.

 

[dave2008]

That's basically where I'm at with the game. It would involve a large time and money investment, to do what I can do already with several other games...?

Yep. I don't see me buying into it as a DM, but I think I am going to try to find a local game I can join and give it a try.

 

[dave2008]

Can Paizo deviate from d20 and design a successful game? Yes they can, they just did. The facts are in. The Amazon sales rank alone shows they have a huge success.

How is PF2e not a d20 game? To be clear I believe they can design a successful game, but I think the facts suggest PF2e is a d20 game (or perhaps I don't know the proper definition of the term).

 

[pcrotteau]

I believe he's referring to the d20 OGL model of 3e,3.5e, and Pf1. It's a new system more based around their campaign world than an existing ruleset.

 

[darjr]

Yes, I meant OGL/d20 license style 3.5 game.

though I have to say I think it could have been a d20 license game in the past. It is very close.


But the differences are fundamental enough where good game design was required to make it all come together as a success.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, I meant OGL/d20 license style 3.5 game.

though I have to say I think it could have been a d20 license game in the past. It is very close.


But the differences are fundamental enough where good game design was required to make it all come together as a success.

Doesn't PF2e use the OGL? I realize it doesn't use the d20 license, but isn't it OGL compatible?

EDIT: I just checked and the PF2e Bestiary is indeed OGL material. It is on the last page of the Appendix. So I assume the core rulebook is as well?

 

[darjr]

OK, I'll take that back. What I meant is a game that is significantly different from PF1 where good design is a requirement to make a good game. And they have.

 

[jsaving]

Seems to me the answer to this question really depends on what you are looking for. The math is "tighter," yes, but it got that way by eliminating a large swath of player options such as 3e-style multiclassing and skill points that facilitated customization. The design is more "modular," yes, but it got that way by significantly curbing players' ability to "roam the rulebook" when gaining feats and the like. Those aren't bad goals to have but it remains to be seen whether the 4e-style solutions employed in PF2 will be especially compelling to PF1 players who initially embraced Pathfinder to get away from 4e.

 

[darjr]

I think that’s the gamble part of this. I think they thought that pf1e folks that like it for it’s 3.5ish ness will stay anyway. So they had to take a bit of a leap. Maybe. Boy I wish I was in the initial spitballing of this edition.