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

CapnZapp said:

Let me first note nobody has cared to answer the actual question.


My answer is: learn from 4E. That is, don't try to salvage a sinking ship - abandon it and build a new one. Look at how much better D&D is off!

In my opinion, a PF 2.5 would be the worst option. Either stick to your guns (keep supporting 2.0 accepting the game will never be nearly as huge as PF 1)) or don't (and hope you can muster a PF 3 before running out of cash).

(This comment accepts the premise at face value in order to attempt an answer to the actual question)

Click to expand...

I agree about not trying to revise PF 2e. Better to either abandon it, or to continue supporting it but accept it will always be a niche game.

Regarding investing in a PF3e, I think their best option would still be to support 5e D&D - they have a ton of valuable IP they can pick from to convert over. IMO they screwed up hugely by not doing this 2015-16 when it was clear 5e was a huge success. Kobold Press currently occupies the ecological niche that Paizo could have claimed as the premier third-party supporter, often producing material superior to WoTC's own IMO, and with some products even competing with WoTC on sales (I find my Pocket Creature Codex is vastly superior to Volo's or Mordenkainen's for GM utility). But Paizo unlike KP has that huge backlog of Adventure Paths, quite a few of which I'd say are better than the WoTC campaign hardbacks, that could be converted into fat 5e hardbacks with a very good potential investment/reward ratio. If they don't do that, well my feeling from the sales & play stats I've seen is that they are going to be surviving more off long tail sales on their PF 1e material, and from licensing, than from anything PF 2e is likely to generate.

Regarding PF2e rules - well yeah, the 3-action economy is good. The Feat bloat and trivial bonuses are bad, like someone took the worst bits of 4e D&D and thought "How can we ramp this up to 11?" For me the PC-build structure of PF2e is just not fun, and I suspect that's true for the majority of potential players in the D&D-genre market. I'm not keen on the way higher level PF2e monsters swiftly become unhittable, either - again, a weak bit of 4e D&D design that 5e I think correctly discarded.

Kobold Press is the new Paizo with better art and Midgard is better than Golarion.

I could do something crunchier than 5E but PF2 is a straightjacket like 4E.

Take PF1, some form of bounded accuracy, microfeats and fix/remove the broken stuff.
And go with AD&D magic item aquisition.

I mean, we get it. Ya'll didn't like 4e. Cool, but I dunno I think 10 years is enough time for those wounds to heal?

I don't wanna play pf1, 3.5e, 5e. I don't like those systems. A lot of these suggestions you all have put out scream 'Well, I like the way this other system does X better' and that's fine to have opinions and preferences but I do not like that way of doing things.

Could the rules be clarified and improved? Of course. No one does not want more clear rules. What I do not want is more 'simple', as an earlier poster put it. Im an adult, I have an active mind, I want to engage it and one of the ways I do so is with complex rules. I like PF2 for this in a lot of ways, I dislike 5e for this same reason. I enjoyed 4e too, so yes I am sure my tastes are not yours.

Whether or not pf2 is as commercially successful as anything else...why does this matter? If the line dies out I wont get new content, sure...but I wont get any new content I'd use if it got essentialized. In both cases, the game ceases to be one I would enjoy or play.

Ya'll have so many options for games that you enjoy. Let me have this one?

HJFudge said:

I mean, we get it. Ya'll didn't like 4e. Cool, but I dunno I think 10 years is enough time for those wounds to heal?

Click to expand...

Personally, I like 4e D&D a lot (between the fixing of the monster math in MM3, and the rise of Essentials), but it's a beast of a game to DM. Sometimes I like the challenge, but 5e is far easier to GM and has a lot more mass-market appeal.

Edit: Of course it's fine to like PF2e. It's fine to have niche tastes.

S'mon said:

Personally, I like 4e D&D a lot (between the fixing of the monster math in MM3, and the rise of Essentials), but it's a beast of a game to DM. Sometimes I like the challenge, but 5e is far easier to GM and has a lot more mass-market appeal.

Edit: Of course it's fine to like PF2e. It's fine to have niche tastes.

Click to expand...

I mean, thats okay! It is okay to like different things. but like...yeah, 5e is easier for you and better for you. So yay! You have it! It exists and you can play it right now and get all sorts of support and stuff Pf2 doesn't need to be 5e. 5e already exists. Diversity is a good thing.

Niche or not, I like it

HJFudge said:

I mean, thats okay! It is okay to like different things. but like...yeah, 5e is easier for you and better for you. So yay! You have it! It exists and you can play it right now and get all sorts of support and stuff Pf2 doesn't need to be 5e. 5e already exists. Diversity is a good thing.

Niche or not, I like it

Click to expand...

I feel Paizo could make us both happy, and make a lot more money, by supporting 5e D&D while also continuing to publish for PF2e. I think that would be a better approach than PF3e or PF2.5.

S'mon said:

I feel Paizo could make us both happy, and make a lot more money, by supporting 5e D&D while also continuing to publish for PF2e. I think that would be a better approach than PF3e or PF2.5.

Click to expand...

Oh sure! Making stuff for multiple products is a wise decision just in general, I would feel. Diversity, once again, is good!

S'mon said:

Regarding investing in a PF3e, I think their best option would still be to support 5e D&D - they have a ton of valuable IP they can pick from to convert over. IMO they screwed up hugely by not doing this 2015-16 when it was clear 5e was a huge success.

Click to expand...

Pathfinder 2nd Edition is what you get when you start out with a pretty bitter set of design goals:

• "never again should spellcasters be able to end a fight with a single spell"
• "never again should a player be able to use system mastery to create a clearly superior character"
• "never again will we be beholden to WotC"

It is the last of these three dogmatic criteria that meant that any form of interoperability with 5E was not even considered.

Of course, I think all three are out of touch with reality.

S'mon said:

Regarding PF2e rules - well yeah, the 3-action economy is good. The Feat bloat and trivial bonuses are bad, like someone took the worst bits of 4e D&D and thought "How can we ramp this up to 11?"

Click to expand...

Zardnaar said:

I could do something crunchier than 5E but PF2 is a straightjacket like 4E.

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

Pathfinder 2nd Edition is what you get when you start out with a pretty bitter set of design goals:

• "never again should spellcasters be able to end a fight with a single spell"
• "never again should a player be able to use system mastery to create a clearly superior character"
• "never again will we be beholden to WotC"

It is the last of these three dogmatic criteria that meant that any form of interoperability with 5E was not even considered.

Of course, I think all three are out of touch with reality.

Click to expand...

Except none of what you said is true (quel surprise). Here’s the actual designer talking about the goals.