Pathfinder 2E My Biggest Concern for Pathfinder 2e

[Aldarc]

Why is this 'clearly' untrue? By your own arguement you appear to imply that Pathfinder 2e is going to succeed but this is unsubstantiated. I don't take issue with that though as this is your implied viewpoint.

Simple. Because I have neither said nor implied that anywhere in my posts.

The 'narratives' that people put forward for why PF2e may or may not succeed are also part of their opinions. You might not like them, in which case you should put forward a counter arguement as to why those opinions are incorrect. You can't just keep saying 'I take issue with those opinions' because they rub you up the wrong way.

You may have not been paying much attention to other PF2 threads then. This is not the first time this has come up in discussions, and I have addressed those points elsewhere.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Simple. Because I have neither said nor implied that anywhere in my posts.

You may have not been paying much attention to other PF2 threads then. This is not the first time this has come up in discussions, and I have addressed those points elsewhere.

I take Capn Zap's point; I do not wish to go around in circles discussing validity of opinions except to say this: you clearly don't understand what 'implied' means. Plus, admittedly, I haven't read many other PF2E threads but that's because I don't have the time.

I want PF2E to succeed but the conditions that allowed PF1E to flourish no longer exist. PF2E - due to it's dense rules complexity and upcoming stream of supplemental rules bloat - will put up barriers to entry for new players to the hobby. I witnessed this first hand in the days of 3.5 and PF2E is doubling down on this. Without the lifeblood of new players the game will wither. If 5E did not exist I would say PF2E has a chance, with 5E Pathfinder 2E becomes just another fantasy RPG with diminishing brand recognition. If I had to put money down I would bet on PF2E being a small success but perhaps not enough to support Paizo in its current business model and size of company.

 

[Istbor]

I feel if nothing else, this thread may lead me to learn more about PF2.
Now... I have doubts that I will ever run a game in that system, and it already sounds like a pain to plan a campaign for. (Maybe a published one would work better for me, but we do those so rarely)

Building a character if we ever play one though, I could probably imagine myself doing that. Again though, with whom? So far, I have not heard of many groups going over to the new edition. Of the four bigger gaming stores in town, most are playing PF1 yet, Adventure league, or the starfinder society.

I suppose there are or could be some home groups or private groups starting out in the new system. That won't help any new comers to RPGs however.

 

[FrogReaver]

Opinions are just that, personal opinions. Opinions themselves do not cause problems - how people perceive them is what causes the problem.

Clearly, you have a problem with the idea that someone believes Pathfinder 2e is going to fail. That's your issue to deal with. I also believe Pathfinder 2e is on a rocky road - that's my opinion, it doesn't serve a pre-existing narrative and nobody can say to me my opinion is a problem.

I DM 5th edition because I burnt out running 3.5 due to heavy prep and cognitive overload as a result of rules complexity. For that reason I never ran Pathfinder 1e and, similarly, I'm not going to try Pathfinder 2e.

At this point 5e is the the Heavyweight champ of D&D, not perfect but the game all the newbies recognise. Good luck introducing new players to the overtweaked and constrained P2e let alone new GMs. If you are new to fantasy tabletop RPGs, what game are you going to adopt, the wildly successful brand name 5e which everyone is talking about and has massive social media exposure or the new game Pathfinder 2e which has proved divisive amongst its fanbase and which many people are not trying because of 5e.

I do actually wish Paizo good luck because competition is a good thing and more options for fantasy gaming is always better. However, I don't think the right strategy has been chosen here - at the moment it looks like all eggs are in one basket when it might be a good idea to develop for 5e as well.

I never played pathfinder 1e. But the more I look at Pathfinder 2e, the more I think it's more akin to 4e in balance than to 3.5e or pathfinder 1e. I honestly think at level encounters in that system would likely be a breeze to prep and run.

 

[Schmoe]

You can count me as one person who really hopes the system is successful in the long-term. I haven't purchased the books yet (although I plan to), but reading some actual play reports of the finished game has me more and more interested in it. It sounds like a well-designed game that doesn't have a lot of the problems of 5e.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

It sounds like a well-designed game that doesn't have a lot of the problems of 5e.

I'm curious as to what problems 5E have that PF2 doesn't (besides nothing to spend your gold on....)

 

[Xenonnonex]

I'm curious as to what problems 5E have that PF2 doesn't (besides nothing to spend your gold on....)

It's obviously a well designed game and underwent rigorous, extensive and extended testing...

The expression "with blinkers on" is remarkably apt here.

 

[Markh3rd]

You mean "with blinders on" I think.

 

[FrogReaver]

You mean "with blinders on" I think.

I like his version better

 

[Xenonnonex]

You mean "with blinders on" I think.

No, blinkers are the things you put on horses to constrict their vision, it means the same narrow perception of the world though.

Edit: and they're the same, but British English is superior