Pathfinder 2E Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?

[Parmandur]

I guess I haven't thought of it that way since Paizo isn't really involved. It's not like Paizo is writing original content or designing its own AP for Savage. In fact, last time I checked, they weren't even promoting the Kickstarter on their website. SW is so different from d20 that it's like comparing Fantasy Flight Star Wars to West End Games' d6 system.

It's pretty bizarre, from my point of view, and possibly significant for the future of the brand: the only comparison I can think of is GURPS Traveller, maybe Call of Cthulu d20. It's as if WotC licensed out to Modephius to do 2d20 Dragonlance or something.

 

[Retreater]

It's pretty bizarre, from my point of view, and possibly significant for the future of the brand: the only comparison I can think of is GURPS Traveller, maybe Call of Cthulu d20. It's as if WotC licensed out to Modephius to do 2d20 Dragonlance or something.

Is it not also similar to Savage Worlds getting a license to do a limited run of Palladium's Rifts? Palladium continues to produce Rifts material, the stuff that Pinnacle is putting out is material that's long been in-print and available for Rifts, so the fans of Savage Worlds (or others who didn't want to learn the Palladium Megaverse system) can play it in a different system while still perhaps buying novels, setting books, and other system neutral products?
But if we're talking about WotC's licenses, does Goodman Games' line "Original Adventures Reincarnated" mean 5e is doing badly, WotC is going down the tubes, etc.? They are allowing another publisher to take a dormant adventure that WotC has no plans to update to their current system, allowing it to be reprinted and put in a new system.
I don't think it's that bizarre. Wizards of the Coast has done it, and Pinnacle has done it with other systems.

 

[CapnZapp]

Some of these are pretty great ideas.

Thank you

 

[Aldarc]

I guess I haven't thought of it that way since Paizo isn't really involved. It's not like Paizo is writing original content or designing its own AP for Savage. In fact, last time I checked, they weren't even promoting the Kickstarter on their website. SW is so different from d20 that it's like comparing Fantasy Flight Star Wars to West End Games' d6 system.

I tend to see the 3e d20 system (to which PF1 belongs) and Savage Worlds as being kissing cousins. While the dice resolution system is definitely different between the two games, they both came out of the same generation of games (and associated influences), and I think that this is reflected quite apparently in a number of their game design choices.

 

[Parmandur]

Is it not also similar to Savage Worlds getting a license to do a limited run of Palladium's Rifts? Palladium continues to produce Rifts material, the stuff that Pinnacle is putting out is material that's long been in-print and available for Rifts, so the fans of Savage Worlds (or others who didn't want to learn the Palladium Megaverse system) can play it in a different system while still perhaps buying novels, setting books, and other system neutral products?
But if we're talking about WotC's licenses, does Goodman Games' line "Original Adventures Reincarnated" mean 5e is doing badly, WotC is going down the tubes, etc.? They are allowing another publisher to take a dormant adventure that WotC has no plans to update to their current system, allowing it to be reprinted and put in a new system.
I don't think it's that bizarre. Wizards of the Coast has done it, and Pinnacle has done it with other systems.

Those Goodman Games books are 5E D&D updates. They still have the AD&D/BD&D material, bit they also directly refer the reader to the current WotC core books in the main body of text.

And the RIFTS comparison is a good one...not promising for Pathfinder, being compared to the niche level of RIFTs, but at least accurate.

 

[Campbell]

Savage Pathfinder is a licensed thing being developed by Pinnacle. I do not think it reflects on the current direction of the design team at Paizo.

 

[Windjammer]

I only got into Pathfinder 2e in the last six months or so. I enjoy it a lot, to be honest, though I don't have deep system mastery or even wide play experience.

My impression is that Pathfinder 2 is doing sufficiently well, though not quite as well when Pathfinder 1 came out and just dominated the D&D market for years. There's a couple of measures for that, but one thing I thought telling is the sort of missing support from OGL publishers who've historically strongly supported Pathfinder during 1e. E.g. Kobold Press. I recently took a look at their Midgard World Book and would have bought it, but then realized that Kobold Press isn't supporting Pathfinder 2. Don't know why, maybe they're just in a wait and see position. I have no idea. I do suspect, however, that if Pathfinder 2 had a large enough OGL market, then publishers like Kobold Press would jump to support it. Same for other big OGL supporters of Paizo back during its 1e era, e.g. Necromancer / Frog God Games.

So, I don't know. I honestly think there's plenty of support for this game out there, but the disparity of support from traditional OGL heavy weights is a bit of a downer.

Finally, to answer OP's question: no, it's not time for an Essentials reboot. What killed 4e at that point in time was the bi- or tri-furcation of a working product line into 3 sub-products, Red Box, Essentials, and 4.0 (including the mangling of 4.0 classes like the cleric by rolling out retroactive errata for Player's Handbook 1 etc., so slowly killing off 4.0 to better sell of Essentials classes). It's a pretty terrible sales approach that requires certain parameters that applied back in 3E, to some extent, but hasn't applied since. Also, in 4.0. you had a very consistent complexity level across most classes and so a simplified, easy-access mode / product-line was needed. You don't have that in PF 2 where some classes are extremely straight forward to build, being available to the entry level player.

So, no it's not time for Essentials PF 2. I would appreciate people posting more hacks / houserules if they want to do that. I loved Greywulf's 4e hack, he's the creator of Microlite 20, and his variant on 4e always struck me as ingenious. So yes, I'd love to see fan initiatives, but I don't want to see a reboot from the publisher.

 

[ronaldsf]

It would be a time if there was a push to revise the PF 2 rules, which there there isn't one.

Perhaps PF 2 is not the juggernaut that PF 1 was in its time in terms of market share, but as a company I thought it's still growing and that they haven't had a big round of layoffs? The TRPG market is bigger now than it was in 2009; there are possibly more people playing some version of Pathfinder now than there ever was before would be all good to me: so long as the game I love continues to be supported then I'm happy.

 

[Starfox]

Accepting the premise that things need to change. I am not knowledgeable enough to say HOW things ought to change, but there are lots of areas that need change. First a little background on me. I played PF1 a lot, and also got in under the hood and wrote over a dozen 3PP books for it, mainly for Purple Duck Games but also for Legendary Games and Everyman Games. And a last point, my own games were never about resource management, and I never saw a caster/martial balance problem - at least not in the caster's favor.

I participated in the PF2 play test and in discussions on the Paizo boards. I went trough the play test rulebook and made annotations that I then sent to Paizo and got a letter recognizing I had done some thorough work. I REALLY wanted to like this game. And then I gave up. I went from a fan to pitying Paizo for their bad decisions.

The main problem with PF2 is that it is not a role-playing game. It is a tactical wargame with role-playing elements. And its not even a good board game - it is way too complicated for that. This is the same problem 4E had. Paizo stopped supporting DnD when they went to 4E - I just can't see why they then made a version of 4E themselves. This is the error from which most other errors stem.

PF2 is full of the illusion of choice. There are loads and loads of sub-par options. Why would anyone ever play any elf but a cave elf? - they get darkvision 24/7, other elves get +1 on something on the second Thursday of the month. I would argue that entire spellcasting classes are sub-par, because saving throw DCs are just too low. We had many casters in the playtests, but they were very selective in which spells they picked - those where save was irrelevant. Save DC balance might have improved since the playtest, I havn't bothered to check. But it would have to change by a lot to satisfy me. Casters also got hit by the 3-action economy and fewer spell slots and fewer spells known for spontaneous casters.

The game uses mechanics where physics would work better. They have an arcane encumbrance system instead of measuring weight in pounds. And carrying capacity is linear; two people with Strength 12 carry more than a superhuman with Strength 20. Not very heroic.

The game has stat blocks that work differently for PCs and NPCs. Again, this is a board game.

The rules don't feel like they are connected to anything physical. An example is in animal companions; these can be different size, but the change in size has no impact on abilities. The only thing that changes is the space they take up on the battle map.

Lastly it is a class system. After writing scores of classes for PF1, I find I have grown out of class systems. This is a holy cow I don't ask Paizo to change, but on top of the other things I don't like, it helped me decide not to play PF2.

I tried to pick examples of things that illustrated wider points, so criticizing the specific examples I choose here won't convince me its any good.

So, what can be done? Well, all these decisions could be undone, but that would be Pathfinder 3, no a revised edition. And Paizo would likely lose the fans that actually do like PF2. They could make a PF3 modeled on 5E but with added options - that would essentially be Level Up! I still buy Paizo adventures, but I don't expect to buy any more rules from them. I am curious about the port to Savage Worlds, a system I like.

I have a migraine-child going on, excuse any language and typing errors.

 

[Starfox]

I tend to see the 3e d20 system (to which PF1 belongs) and Savage Worlds as being kissing cousins. While the dice resolution system is definitely different between the two games, they both came out of the same generation of games (and associated influences), and I think that this is reflected quite apparently in a number of their game design choices.

This is an interesting point, can you expand on it?

One thing I find differentiate Savage Worlds and all dd-derivates is the utility of magic. Savage World magic feels more pulp-style exceptional events than the everyday blasts of DnD. This is the point of the Pathfinder/Savage Worlds mashup I am most curious about.

Edit: I have now read more abut it. Interesting, thanks to Morrus for gathering the news.