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

[kenada]

Actually, admitting you’re wrong is a galaxy brain move. Some people will acknowledge it while some won’t, so they’ll keep on arguing with your old position. Now you can argue both sides of the issue at the same time, which also means it is impossible to be wrong. Since it is impossible to be wrong, y̷o̷u̵r̷ ̸a̴d̶m̵i̴s̴s̶i̷o̶n̷ ̷n̶e̴v̶e̷r̷ ̵h̷a̵p̴p̸e̵n̸e̷d̴, b̵͎͕͇̫̫̪̒̃͐̄̃̍͆̐͑͒̕͜͝u̸̧̹̞̺͖͕̣͈͈̙͋͆͑̓̈́̈́̓ẗ̷̞̪̪͎͔͕͇͊̉͘͠ ̴̘̥̝̱̝͍̲̻̺̹̥̎̓̓͋̄͜t̵̥̎̔̓͐̏́h̶̢͇̳̞͇̭̟̠͉̺̫̼͝e̶̢͔͔̥̺̼̲̐̐ ̶̨̛̟͓̠̝͔̖͑͗̽̏͛̓̌̐̚p̸̧̆̽͐́̋̅̿̊͠ą̷̯̗́̒̓͘ͅř̴̦̪͔͙̯̭̲͍͆͗͘͝a̵̜͔̪̱͚͈͋̔̎d̴̮̱͎̜͈̤̬̤̐̃̽̈̇͜ͅo̵͇̟̥̰͐́̊̀͆͘̕̕͜x̴̻̳̦̄ ̶̖͚͉͖̪̥͎̙͌͆͌̅̔̾͝ì̸̦̜̩̻̬ş̷͎̯̫͉̟̗̠̝̏̎̊̔̽̍̉̔̀͐̈́̕ͅ ̶̘̤̪̮̙̥̝̓͋̍̍͌̓̊̈́̃w̷̛̞͚͓̜̃͛͋̅̎̈͜ǫ̷̞̰͚̩̟̮̤̟͉̤̱̇r̴̭̟̱͇̙̪͈̊͌̒͊͘͠ͅt̷̪̺̞̱͚͓͈̻͈̖͆h̶̻̝͈͈͑̈̒̈́̀̈̉͊̑̕ ̷̦̌̉͠i̷̛̭͉̣̿͒̔͊t̵̙̱̩͈͑͐͑̈́̑̎̓̎̆͝͠.̵̡̲̗̭̰̞͇͚̱̥̈̒̓̕͝ͅ.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Thanks, guys. I have to admit that my own opinion changed over this thread. I was fairly firmly in "the Paizo is doomed" camp, not because I didn't like the PF2e system, but because I didn't see how they could succeed. While Paizo's choices and their consequences have largely played out as I expected, what I did not account for was the stupendous growth of the TTRPG market. That really changes the calculus, and makes PF2e a much smarter move than I gave it credit for.

Honestly, if it hadn't been, its hard to see how they'd have been able to produce the number of products they did during the 1e era. I got a lot of them a couple years back in a bundle (even though I was pretty much over 3e style D&D by then, but it was such a deal I figured I could get something out of it) and I was frankly boggled.

I feel like I should actually try the game.

As Transmission89 notes, its not for everyone; its a system you really have to engage with in play, so if you prefer a more relaxed style of play, it can definitely be a ways away from what one wants. But within what its offering, its quite good.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I like it quite a bit, lots of character options to customize your character with. An emphasis on balance so you don't feel punished for picking the stuff you like. Unique mechanical implementations of different classes. Accurate encounter difficulty scaling where a hard encounter is actually hard. Lots of systems, but built on a handful of unified designs so they aren't hard to learn at all. Heavy emphasis on exploration and downtime, with a strong tactical side.

It's a really fun game. Want me to add you to the 'people who want to try pf2e' newbie game list, it's growing, lol.

 

[transmission89]

And someone made a really good point about the encounter difficulty on Reddit last night that got me thinking.

I think Paizo have really tuned the CR system, so you know what you’re getting. But that “default” is tuned to be quite challenging. You have to be switched on and engaged in a fight (not even necessarily a higher threat level just an on level moderate encounter).

I suspect Paizo have done this because that’s the kind of game they want, they want people to kit out their characters and enjoy having all their options stretched.

But, if you want an “on level” encounter that’s more “beer and pretzels” play like 5e (not using this in a pejorative way, more like meaning every fight isn’t so “intense”), you have a built in “weaker template”. Use this as a tool along with CR to match to your group’s play style. You don’t have to tell them you’ve done this.

I think this is where some of the frustration of encounters from some has come from.

 

[dave2008]

And someone made a really good point about the encounter difficulty on Reddit last night that got me thinking.

I think Paizo have really tuned the CR system, so you know what you’re getting. But that “default” is tuned to be quite challenging. You have to be switched on and engaged in a fight (not even necessarily a higher threat level just an on level moderate encounter).

I suspect Paizo have done this because that’s the kind of game they want, they want people to kit out their characters and enjoy having all their options stretched.

But, if you want an “on level” encounter that’s more “beer and pretzels” play like 5e (not using this in a pejorative way, more like meaning every fight isn’t so “intense”), you have a built in “weaker template”. Use this as a tool along with CR to match to your group’s play style. You don’t have to tell them you’ve done this.

I think this is where some of the frustration of encounters from some has come from.

Just a quick correction, there is no CR in PF2. Everything is by level, like 4e.

 

[transmission89]

Just a quick correction, there is no CR in PF2. Everything is by level, like 4e.

Aye, I’m using it as a more generalised term to refer to the encounter balancing mechanism (of low, moderate, challenging etc) as two letters are easier to type.

 

[fearsomepirate]

As Transmission89 notes, its not for everyone; its a system you really have to engage with in play, so if you prefer a more relaxed style of play, it can definitely be a ways away from what one wants. But within what its offering, its quite good.

I just like to try things.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Paizo may not be doing gangbusters but I don't think the wolves are at the door either. A humble, but stable, living is quite respectable...

 

[payn]

Yeah, It's fine to frame the discussion as simply wanting an essentials version of PF2, but likely doesnt need the "do it or you will be killing the lights and shuttering the doors Paizo!"

 

[GreyLord]

I'm actually reading all these posts, and I am trying to say over and over that this is basically unknowable. All you can make is conditional statements where you get the opposite answer depending on the conditions.

There is a lot of speculation in this thread presented as fact. Here are the knowns, as far as I can see:

1. Every available indicator we have shows declining market share for Pathfinder 2.
2. ...but it's a declining share of a growing market.

There is a whole lot of speculation about Paizo having hidden sources of players and revenue. That's pure speculation. There are no positive proxies. Zero.

However, industry growth has been crazy, so you truly, truly can't conclude anything. Tabletop games were $80m in 2019. That's up from just $15m in 2013. Here are some made up numbers: If Paizo's share of the market was 30% in 2013, then if its total revenue has merely stayed steady, its share in 2019 will have been 6.25%. You can make up your own numbers and see that there is plenty of room for any possible scenario: decline, growth, or steadiness. That's how crazy the growth is.

A lot of stuff that looks negative is a result of declining share, not declining revenue. If you are 5% of a $1m market, I'm not making 3rd-party product for you. There's too much money to be made from the guy who's 50%. If you're 5% of a $100m market, I'm still not making 3rd-party product for you for the same reason. Same goes for what I stock in my store. The most space goes to the guy who puts up the biggest overall numbers.

The next think to do is look at how the company behaves. Are they cutting costs---laying people off, dropping SKUs, using lower-quality and less art, etc? Are they panicking, scrambling to find revenue sources to keep creditors at bay? Have there been high-profile resignations by good people near the top? I don't think so. That doesn't mean things are great, but at the same time, we have no reason to conclude they're bad, either.

I already said the exact same thing,. but it appeared several disagreed with that while they agree with the exact same things stated in the above quote.

Which brings up WHY?

(I suspect it's because I'm not in the "incrowd" which means anything I post, even if it's the exact same thing that they agree with, will be automatically disagreed with by some, just a suspicion I've been getting over the past few months, seeing the trend of things. Only real infuriation is that while they may agree with the same item, some of the stuff that came from me is uncredited and not acknowledged that I was one of those who originally said an idea...though perhaps once again that is to avoid dislikes of because I'm not part of the "in crowd").