• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

Saelorn

Explorer
What about the calls for crunchier player character generation and build options?
As you say, crunchier PCs are incompatible with easy NPCs, if they both use the same rules. You have to choose your priorities.

Where Pathfinder 1 succeeded was that they chose the exact same priorities as 3.5 (complex characters, NPC symmetry, lots of work for the GM), which meant nobody had any reason to stick with 3.5 instead of moving to Pathfinder. With Pathfinder 2, they're going with different priorities than either Pathfinder 1 or D&D 5E, which means somebody is going to be left behind no matter what. That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.
 

MoonSong

Explorer
Where Pathfinder 1 succeeded was that they chose the exact same priorities as 3.5 (complex characters, NPC symmetry, lots of work for the GM), which meant nobody had any reason to stick with 3.5 instead of moving to Pathfinder. With Pathfinder 2, they're going with different priorities than either Pathfinder 1 or D&D 5E, which means somebody is going to be left behind no matter what. That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.
Speaking of this, wasn't there a PF1 clone of some sort in the works? I heard something about it in passing, but never got any details.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.
I fear you're not seeing the woods for all the trees.

The real risk is staying with the 3.x/PF system, since just about everyone that can't stand it's complexities have bailed for other games.

It would simply attract very few new customers.

My whole point is that Paizo will fail unless they're ready to accept that Pathfinder 1 doesn't cut it anymore. Why? Because 5th Edition has truly showed the people you CAN solve it's shortcomings (in a way that keeps the spirit of the game; without branching off into a completely new direction like 4E)

I believe 5E has "poisoned the well", as it were, for games that can't or won't adress LFQW and NPC complexity.
 

Zardnaar

Explorer
I think you can make a fixed 3.5 drawing in a bit of ISR/2E concepts to fix it. PF2 seems to have doubled down on the complexity.

My idea of a fixed 3.X game would be Star Wars Saga Edition with overhauled math.
 

Matrix Sorcica

Explorer
Speaking of this, wasn't there a PF1 clone of some sort in the works? I heard something about it in passing, but never got any details.
Porphyra or something like that. Being designed by purple duck games. AFAIK, it's not a clone but a genuine PF heartbreaker.
 

MoonSong

Explorer
Porphyra or something like that. Being designed by purple duck games. AFAIK, it's not a clone but a genuine PF heartbreaker.
Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.
There is probably not a sufficient market for a full clone: anybody who wants to keep on playing 3.x/PF1 has several lifetimes if material at their disposal.
 
Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.
Seeing as that the PF SRD is not going away and is loaded with 90% of the stuff made for Pathfinder, there is even less of a need for a clone rulebook than there was for 3.5.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Seeing as that the PF SRD is not going away and is loaded with 90% of the stuff made for Pathfinder, there is even less of a need for a clone rulebook than there was for 3.5.
The big thing continuing players would want at this point is new adventures, and I am certain that companies such as Kobold Press will continue to offer Pathfinder versions of Kick-started Adventures, etc.
 

Saelorn

Explorer
The real risk is staying with the 3.x/PF system, since just about everyone that can't stand it's complexities have bailed for other games.

It would simply attract very few new customers.
Not that there's any way for us to know for certain, but I would wager that a PF2 that was just an updated PF1 would sell a lot more than the PF2 that they ended up with. I mean, it's not like those players originally went to PF1 because they were sick of 3.5 or anything; they went to PF1 because they liked 3.5, but PF1 was better. Ergo, that audience would happily switch to a better version of the same thing.

If PF2 only targets the people who bailed on PF1, then that's a much harder audience to capture, because there were lots of different reasons for them to quit. For every GM who gave up on PF1 because of NPC complexity, there's a player who gave up on PF1 because of PC complexity, and two more who gave up on it because of balance issues. There is no possible product that will bring all of those players back, but there is​ a possible product that would get their existing audience to buy more books.
 
Not that there's any way for us to know for certain, but I would wager that a PF2 that was just an updated PF1 would sell a lot more than the PF2 that they ended up with. I mean, it's not like those players originally went to PF1 because they were sick of 3.5 or anything; they went to PF1 because they liked 3.5, but PF1 was better. Ergo, that audience would happily switch to a better version of the same thing.

If PF2 only targets the people who bailed on PF1, then that's a much harder audience to capture, because there were lots of different reasons for them to quit. For every GM who gave up on PF1 because of NPC complexity, there's a player who gave up on PF1 because of PC complexity, and two more who gave up on it because of balance issues. There is no possible product that will bring all of those players back, but there is​ a possible product that would get their existing audience to buy more books.
Its anecdotal, but of all the DMs I still keep in contact with.

Two (myself included) bailed on PF the minute 5e came out and haven't looked back. FWIW, I looked to see if there was anything from PF2 that I could use in my 5e game, but decided most of it was too incompatible and not worth conversion.

One played PF up to 2e, but is giving up on it for 5e.

Another is not converting to 2e and will continue to use 1e. For the record, he dislikes 5e as well.

So just from my informal sample of four, PF2 got 0 converts based on the playtest. The plural of ancedote is not data, but amongst the conversations I've had, no one was excited for the game. I hope Paizo can find new converts (possibly 5e players who want something crunchier) but no one in my circle is keen to support them. Best of luck to them.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Not that there's any way for us to know for certain, but I would wager that a PF2 that was just an updated PF1 would sell a lot more than the PF2 that they ended up with. I mean, it's not like those players originally went to PF1 because they were sick of 3.5 or anything; they went to PF1 because they liked 3.5, but PF1 was better. Ergo, that audience would happily switch to a better version of the same thing.

If PF2 only targets the people who bailed on PF1, then that's a much harder audience to capture, because there were lots of different reasons for them to quit. For every GM who gave up on PF1 because of NPC complexity, there's a player who gave up on PF1 because of PC complexity, and two more who gave up on it because of balance issues. There is no possible product that will bring all of those players back, but there is​ a possible product that would get their existing audience to buy more books.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to make something different enough to justify a new edition, bit any changes that threaten compatibility will run afoul of part of the community. A backwards compatible game would service the old edition users well, but would not sustain a robust publishing schedule. So they went with not backwards compatible: time will tell if enough people will switch, or new people get brought in, to make it a successful move.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
FWIW, I looked to see if there was anything from PF2 that I could use in my 5e game, but decided most of it was too incompatible and not worth conversion.
FWIW, I've had good use out of the PFSRD in one (specialized) area:

Inspiration for more 5E items, and especially suggestions on market price.

(As some of might know, I've readded back into 5E a proper magic shoppe economy even if WotC was of zero help)
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to make something different enough to justify a new edition, bit any changes that threaten compatibility will run afoul of part of the community. A backwards compatible game would service the old edition users well, but would not sustain a robust publishing schedule. So they went with not backwards compatible: time will tell if enough people will switch, or new people get brought in, to make it a successful move.
Sorry but sticking to 3E/PF compatibility is a complete dead end imo. To me it's obvious Paizo must and will target new consumers, meaning 5E players, and I don't see a single one of them playing such a game more than once.

5E is a sea change when it comes to updating d20 and truly fixing it's issues! Sure it has drawbacks and weaknesses, but a PF 1.5 (or 3.875E ) would mean giving up a large amount of very sweet things for very clunky and cluttery old versions.

PF2 will be a hard enough sell, but at least we can hope it means regression in far fewer areas...
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Sorry but sticking to 3E/PF compatibility is a complete dead end imo. To me it's obvious Paizo must and will target new consumers, meaning 5E players, and I don't see a single one of them playing such a game more than once.

5E is a sea change when it comes to updating d20 and truly fixing it's issues! Sure it has drawbacks and weaknesses, but a PF 1.5 (or 3.875E ) would mean giving up a large amount of very sweet things for very clunky and cluttery old versions.

PF2 will be a hard enough sell, but at least we can hope it means regression in far fewer areas...
Yeah, I don't see that they would have much hope with a continued backwards compatibility in business terms. But I don't know how well they will do moving away from that...
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Yeah, I don't see that they would have much hope with a continued backwards compatibility in business terms. But I don't know how well they will do moving away from that...
No, personally I believe they should have positioned their game as "the game for those who love 5E but want more" and made sure their game contains all the things 5E bring (LFQW and the cleaned-up spells with no scry-teleport or detect evil or charm person or... or... or other cheese, easy DM prep, strong heroes that heal easily, Dex supremacy so you can play little sh*** for emo snowflakes , etc etc and just give up what you need for the deliciously crunchy PC charbuild Paizo is renowned for, like advantage obviously, a bit of bounded accuracy (but not all of it), and probably something I haven't even considered...)
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
No, personally I believe they should have positioned their game as "the game for those who love 5E but want more" and made sure their game contains all the things 5E bring (LFQW and the cleaned-up spells with no scry-teleport or detect evil or charm person or... or... or other cheese, easy DM prep, strong heroes that heal easily, Dex supremacy so you can play little sh*** for emo snowflakes , etc etc and just give up what you need for the deliciously crunchy PC charbuild Paizo is renowned for, like advantage obviously, a bit of bounded accuracy (but not all of it), and probably something I haven't even considered...)
There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.
 

Zardnaar

Explorer
It won't be Paizos 4E. If it flops it will be for a different reason, it's possible there's nothing Paizo can do to compete at least at the levels they want.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.
IDK. Would the existing PF fanbase be offended if their system were positioned as Advanced D&D (w/1e UA & 2e Complete & Option books), to 5e's Basic D&D?
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
IDK. Would the existing PF fanbase be offended if their system were positioned as Advanced D&D (w/1e UA & 2e Complete & Option books), to 5e's Basic D&D?
Based on my reading of PF fan boards, yes, because doing so would involve integration of mechanics the PF base dislikes. Not everyone, certainly, but people who like PF and 5E don't seem interested in crossing those streams, either.
 

Advertisement

Top