• 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?

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
I’m not sure, to be honest, but I feel that there is always something new that can come out for PF1. New adventures, monsters, archetypes, settings, etc.

What I would say is that I would hope for a new torchbearer as once a game disappears from active publishing it becomes exponentially harder to find games or recruit new players.
That's very true, out there in the organized play & game store communities, new product (however superfluous it may seem theoretically) is a major driver.
But (also anecdotal), I've always seen discontinued games popping up at conventions, and home campaigns can go for many years past a game or edition's end of life.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Edit: All my railings against my perceptions of PF2 aside they are just that, perceptions, and I will be giving PF2 a fair shake as 5th Edition just doesn’t cut it for me. I only hope that Paizo has thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water with their implementation of PF2.
Nooo... not the baby!!
 

Saelorn

Explorer
Pathfinder 2E might as well be Paizo’s 4E as far as I am concerned. They went overboard (IMO) whilst opening up the patient for surgery and abandoned backwards compatibility at the same time. I am not willing to buy a whole new set of books when my friends and I have already spent loads on 3.5/Pathfinder 1E compatible material. Hopefully another company picks up the 3.X torch.
Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.
 

DM Howard

Explorer
Saelorn;[URL="tel:7643925" said:
7643925[/URL]]Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.
I, personally, included most behind the screen material ad hoc, but I will also say that I tended to bring character side content under much greater scrutiny.
 

amethal

Explorer
Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.
Nobody has ever asked to include 3.5 material in my Pathfinder game.

I have no problem allowing 3rd party Pathfinder material, so logically I shouldn't have an issue with D&D 3.5 stuff, but if there was any overlap with / contradiction to official Pathfinder material I'd want to go with Pathfinder instead.

As the GM, I will of course use mind flayers and displacer beasts if I want to.
 

Sadras

Explorer
I will definitely be purchasing the PDF, but only to borrow and steal mechanics for our 5e game (which has hit level 11). A system with a lot of crunch and necessary system mastery intimidates me as a DM. If I enjoy the art within the PDF, I might consider getting the hardcover.

Personally I have not been following the playtest and seen any reviews, so I'm bound to be surprised with all the changes, but ambivalent best describes my feeling towards this edition. Like I said my primary purpose is to pilfer - detailed weapon traits/properties already seems interesting to me.
 
Last edited:

zztong

Explorer
Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.
The long-term game I'm in that transitioned from 3.5 to PF1 should have allowed this, but it didn't occur to us, I guess. We had a few characters that just didn't feel the same after they got converted. We didn't have that trouble converting from 2.0 to 3.0 to 3.5, so we didn't see it coming.
 
Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.
Originally, I tried to use PF with Eberron, but found the rules weren't as flowing as predicted. (The artificer in particular was hard due to the changes to magic items rules). After that, it was mostly monsters and magic items, decreasing as PF grew their their own versions.
 
Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?
Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.

And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.

And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?
Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.
 

eyeheartawk

Explorer
Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.
It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?
Like 'observed' wasn't ever a condition in D&D, but you could only "become Hidden" if you weren't under direct observation? (A rule which goes all the way back to the Thief's /Hide in Shadows/ special ability in 0D&D's Greyhawk supplement I).

That would be 6. Unless you count half-eds, two-pronged approaches, and Holms vs Mentzer vs Moldvay Basic and eXpert being totally different from Expert...

...call it 13, for luck.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.
And yet people are sneaking around in 5E without issue. There are rules, and they have proven very useable in practice, even if not abstractly ironclad.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.
I haven't seen Paizo's rules, but I already know they're better than Wizard's, since they were indecipherable and had to be ignored.

Of course making a decent Stealth rule shouldn't be freaking impossible, so I'm not ready to give Paizo a pass...
 

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.

And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?
Strangely enough, it makes sense how Pathfinder define the stealth concepts. This one is just codifying what (basically) existed in 3E before it.

Unnoticed - you don't even know the monster is there. You're flat-footed against it, and some abilities it has work against you (assassination, I guess).
Undetected - you know the monster is there, but not which square it's in. You have to choose the right square to attack, and there's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Hidden - you know the monster is there and where it's standing, but you can't see it. There's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Observed - you can see the monster. Normal rules!

Meanwhile there's
Invisible - You're undetected until someone notices you (with Seek), then you become Hidden.
Concealed - You can't see the monster clearly. 20% miss chance.

Because Pathfinder like pinning down stuff, you also have Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly and Helpful for NPC attitudes.

Cheers!
 

kenada

Explorer
Pathfinder also defines levels of precision for senses. By default, vision is a precise sense; hearing is an imprecise sense; and everything else is a vague sense. These levels of precision correspond to how well you can sense a creature (precise = observed, imprecise = hidden, vague = undetected). Of course, this can change from creature to creature. For example, scent could be an imprecise sense for dogs or hearing a precise sense for bats.
 

Advertisement

Top