Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e

[Campbell]

At 5th level the Master Swordsman has +15 to hit with his sword. The wizard has +7 to hit with his quarterstaff. In a game that makes every +1 matter that is a significant delta. He can also do things with that sword that the wizard could never dream of doing with his staff.

Defensively they are pretty much on par although this will change at higher levels, but after all the combat that nerdy wizard has seen the idea that he would not know how to meaningfully defend himself strains my disbelief. I do think the martial class should have a slightly better Proficiency Progression. The 2 point difference in likely Armor Class is not quite enough for my tastes.

Overall I am very much a fan of the idea that combat skill means you are harder to hit. It very much matches my own experience with martial arts.

 

[CapnZapp]

I also broadly dislike using Fifth Edition as the gold standard for what other games with different design priorities and goals should look like because I value having a catalog of games that are meaningfully differentiated. I have Fifth Edition already. I do not need it again. Just like not every indie game needs to be Powered By The Apocalypse or Forged in the Dark.

I for one would like to submit that every would-be designer of a dndish game (and by that I only mean games with its roots in AD& or d20, not any old elf game) should study what the 5E developers did to the 3E magic framework.

This does not mean all games needs to be like 5E. Only that 5E really takes the spell framework to a new level.

A much better level than 3E or Pathfinder ever offered.

My beef here is specifically that it is painfully clear Paizo has designed PF2 without even looking at 5E, as if learning from and stealing ideas from the runaway success of the roleplaying world wasn't a good idea.

Not doing that, I think, is a bad idea. A very bad idea, since Pathfinder 2 comes across as a painfully unfashionable throw-back to older eras in too many aspects.

Will it find players. Sure. But it definitely won't repeat the success of Pathfinder 1, of that I am sure. The game is simply too involved. Times have changed, and I fear the current gamer won't stand for what the 2005 gamer embraced with open arms.

The difference?

5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

Adding level to AC has no match in prior versions and flies completely in the face of the opening hand wave comment about "present in and versions of D&D-PF". The idea that "you should be able to land a blow" is not remotely a fact, but rather entirely one of taste. So if you don't share that taste, PF2E is telling you "too bad".

Hold on here.

What the PF2 designers have observed is that previous editions assumed you ended up with your +5 Plate Mail of Never-Polish, so that these editions effectively did have a AC progression.

By baking in level into AC, they just want to lessen the dependency on gear.

 

[CapnZapp]

Overall I am very much a fan of the idea that combat skill means you are harder to hit. It very much matches my own experience with martial arts.

You're not designing rpgs in a bubble. Or at least, you shouldn't be.

The question to ask yourself should have been "do the consumers like this?"

Even the most cursory glance at the runaway success of the market leader should have told you "no, probably not".

You might then argue "it's good there is choice". To this I say "sure, but if Paizo wanted a runaway success of their own, maybe they should have studied 5E closer".

Best regards

 

[S'mon]

I for one would like to submit that every would-be designer of a dndish game (and by that I only mean games with its roots in AD& or d20, not any old elf game) should study what the 5E developers did to the 3E magic framework.

This does not mean all games needs to be like 5E. Only that 5E really takes the spell framework to a new level.

A much better level than 3E or Pathfinder ever offered.

My beef here is specifically that it is painfully clear Paizo has designed PF2 without even looking at 5E, as if learning from and stealing ideas from the runaway success of the roleplaying world wasn't a good idea.

Not doing that, I think, is a bad idea. A very bad idea, since Pathfinder 2 comes across as a painfully unfashionable throw-back to older eras in too many aspects.

Will it find players. Sure. But it definitely won't repeat the success of Pathfinder 1, of that I am sure. The game is simply too involved. Times have changed, and I fear the current gamer won't stand for what the 2005 gamer embraced with open arms.

The difference?

5E.

My inclination is to agree, but I'm a big 5e fan. I think if Paizo is pitching specifically to veteran players who prefer 3e/PF and 4e to 5e, it maybe makes sense to reject 5e innovations. I don't think they are a huge market compared to the 5e market, and there does not seem any way of replicating PF1's success. But from what I have seen they can potentially attract lapsed 4e players as well as current PF1 players. So not a tiny market either.

 

[Campbell]

My inclination is to agree, but I'm a big 5e fan. I think if Paizo is pitching specifically to veteran players who prefer 3e/PF and 4e to 5e, it maybe makes sense to reject 5e innovations. I don't think they are a huge market compared to the 5e market, and there does not seem any way of replicating PF1's success. But from what I have seen they can potentially attract lapsed 4e players as well as current PF1 players. So not a tiny market either.

My personal opinion is that the market was not up for grabs. Fifth edition is way too good at what it does well and Wizards of the Coast has way too many institutional advantages to meaningfully compete in that space. I know there are many Fifth Edition players who would like more crunch in theory, but where do you carve out the design space for more crunch without harming accessibility? There really are not that many hooks in the system to build more differentiated crunch than what Wizards of the Coast is offering.

Advantage/Disadvantage is a blunt instrument. It is all over the game and does not really allow for layered mechanics. This is good for accessibility, but how do you build something that is more option rich than the Battlemaster in that sort of mechanical framework?

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, I am a veteran player who once preferred 3E. But 5E does 3E much much better than 3E. Sure it lacks player crunch, but I mean the fundamental core of the system. And as for the crunch, that leads me to the other part...

To me, the way to (try to) replicate PF1's success is rather straight-forward if not outright obvious.

You... replicate what PF1 did!

That is, to me the natural approach would have been to offer a 5E:ish game with more crunch and "refanged" monsters!

Why didn't Paizo do this, then?

Hubris, I think. I truly believe Paizo thinks itself different from the dozens, nay, hundreds of hopeful D&D dethroning publishers... that all ended up as more or less forgotten heartbreaker games! (Yes, this includes even the most successful of the D&D alternatives; the fact is that all the Numeneras, the 13th Ages, the Dungeon Worlds taken together is still not even a blip on the radar!)

Paizo got blinded by the "betrayal" of WotC at the time of 4E's release. They still don't see that they have basically two options:
1) become yet another obscure heartbreaker game in the already very long line of obscure heartbreaker games...

2) swallow their pride and realize they owe their existence to WotC. They are a satellite orbiting the 500 pound gorilla, if I'm allowed to mix my metaphors.

They should totally have made a PF2 game that caters to the current generation of D&D gamers, just like PF1 catered to the then-current generation of D&D gamers.

Making a game "Buhlman wants to play" is madness. Making a game that appeals to Pathfinder 1 gamers, well, that's not madness, but then again, they didn't do such a game, did they? And of course, my personal opinion is that making a game that even looks like 4E, much less appeals to 4E gamers, is madness too.

The only way to make Pathfinder 2 sustain nearly as big an operation that PF1 did (being able to write and publish dozens of supplements a year) would have been to create an "Advanced 5E", of that there is no doubt in my mind. (That this is exactly what I myself wanted does not hurt, of course )


Thx for reading

 

[Campbell]

I am saying that those foundations are crunch resistant. You need compelling mechanical hooks if you are going to produce a game with an aggressive content schedule where that content is meaningfully differentiated. Adding those hooks is going to increase complexity and make the game less accessible and easy to use. Those foundations are great for the game that Fifth Edition is, but that structure is not suitable to an option rich game.

You are never going to replicate the success of Pathfinder 1 because the business environment that existed then is far from the one that exists today. That success was pretty much an accident of history. Fifth Edition is a beloved game with a massive following of people that are very happy with it. Wizards of the Coast has created an imminently playable game with an accessible organized play program. The game is more popular than it has ever been. Very few people are meaningfully dissatisfied with the game. Trying to compete with that is suicide.

 

[darjr]

I love 5e and I think it’s a really well designed game. But if I’m honest I have to admit that WotC has captured lighting in a bottle. In many ways a perfect storm lead to its current success.

WotC themselves have acknowledged surprise at what has happened. So much so that they are reluctant to screw things up and mess with the PHB.

So to compare P2 to it, it’s level of success, it’s design, it’s intended audience, seems terribly unfair.

I think PF1 was also a similar situation, it was the right game at the right time and a perfect storm happened. So to compare P2 to it is also unfair, to some degree.

Also I don’t think any one can say that PF2 is a failure. Objectively it is a success. Flat out. There shouldn’t be any dispute.

I would have loved something for 5e, I also would have strongly considered doubling down on a 3.5 style game. But I don’t think anyone can say that they’d really do any better than what P2 is doing now.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Aaand someone else who feels it's O.K. to attack 5e. Edition warring is so easy, isn't it?

It isn't a war to point out that different editions are better at different things. It just so happens that immediate playability is not the strong suit of 5E. It makes up for it by being much more-easily house ruled.

Don't take my statement for more than it is. I would never inflict 5E on anyone. I know, because someone wanted to learn D&D, and I couldn't bring myself to do it. The default rules are too indefensibly ridiculous.

That's not to say anyone else is incapable of playing it, if they were oblivious to its most egregious faults, or if they just didn't care (for whatever reason).