I continue to be stunned that they haven’t done conversions to 5e.They could also try porting the adventures to other systems if it flops.
I'm not so surprised. The question that they have in front of them right now is "where is the value for the Pathfinder brand?" If the Pathfinder brand is mainly a tabletop RPG brand, then it would make sense to latch onto D&D and put out 5e supplements of their Adventure Paths and supplemental books to extend the 5e engine into areas that Wizards isn't interested in taking it.I continue to be stunned that they haven’t done conversions to 5e.
That should be a simple thing, as the writing is done and the art is paid for, you just need to pay for the conversion and re-layout making it a fraction of the original cost while also potentially appealing to an audience many times larger than the original printing...
They don’t need to pick one Edition over the other. They can keep doing what they’re doing now and just publish a few 5e books.I'm not so surprised. The question that they have in front of them right now is "where is the value for the Pathfinder brand?" If the Pathfinder brand is mainly a tabletop RPG brand, then it would make sense to latch onto D&D and put out 5e supplements of their Adventure Paths and supplemental books to extend the 5e engine into areas that Wizards isn't interested in taking it.
But if the Pathfinder brand is a whole product line brand, then giving up their own game engine becomes problematic. How does that tie into other tabletop gaming (like card games and the like)? How does it tie into other media, like video games? How does it impact the rest of their business?
From a business model standpoint, reverting back to being a company that supports D&D may not actually make sense in the big picture, even if it looks like the obvious move from the perspective of the tabletop RPG side of things.
I would love for Paizo to convert their AP's to 5e. I'm running a Runelords campaign in 5e now, and while the conversion work isn't the hardest, it would still save me so much time if it'd been done officiallyI would most certainly buy a Rise of the Runelords 5e hardback. I've always wanted to run that AP but I refuse to DM 3.5 or PF.
This is very true, but it's also true of 1e pathfinder . The difference between an optimized character and a meh one is massive.I just didn't find PF2 to be fun. Even character creation wasn't as fun. I kept finding dead end options vs must have options that made different characters of the same class very similarly built. It doesn't matter if you have 10 options to choose from when 8 are bad and 2 are great. Everyone picks the same 2.
No, the playtest also tested exploration and, I think, some amount of downtime rules.A question about the "not fun" playtest: did they only test the combat pillar?
Our experience with the playtest was also very negative, primarily for this reason. They assigned us to do a "stress test" instead of having fun with it. All the encounters of "see how many mindless fights you can endure in a row without healing" type of playtests should have been handled internally. The Doomsday Dawn playtest came across as lazy and rushed. It was a bad promotion for PF2, and it certainly didn't win any fans in my region.No, the playtest also tested exploration and, I think, some amount of downtime rules.
The main issue is probably that people approached the playtest as a preview when it was explicitly designed to stress test various aspects of the system. For example, one of the adventures instructs the players to make characters that are experienced demon-fighters from the Worldwound, and then proceeds to pit them against ever-increasing waves of demons which will eventually overwhelm them - the goal of the adventure is to see how much it takes. That's certainly useful information for the designers, but it's not very fun for the players. It also didn't help that the rules were fairly rough around the edges, with skill DCs designed around a very punishing treadmill.
I think it would have been better for Paizo to look at how Wizards did their playtesting for 5e - start small, with only a few classes and/or only the first few levels and a simple scenario. Then gradually iterate on that and expand, allowing them to judge response to certain things and either iterate on them or throw them out. But instead they provided a sort-of complete set of rules, which got updated as the playtest went along, which means they're locked into certain paths. For example, one version of the Sorcerer in the D&D Next playtest gradually took on more draconic traits as they cast their spells which meant that over the course of a day they'd gradually turn into a warrior-type. This did not turn out to be a great idea, so it was scrapped. But if a similar bad idea of a PF2 class turned out to be a bad idea, they couldn't reboot it and do something else.