Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

[Zardnaar]

I tried some simpe builds at low levels and iot played better than it looked with a few bright points. Overall though it was problematic and did not hang around to see what they fixed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Paizo needs to throw the current PF2 system in the garbage. They need to understand that Paizo will only remain relevant if they stay in D&D's orbit, and stop dreaming.

An independent Pathfinder will never be nearly as large.

Then they should hire a new set of designers that create a Pathfinder version of 5th Edition that keeps the DM-side simplicity, while beefing up options and build complexity of player characters and high-level monsters.

My thoughts lean more towards a fixed 3.5 system with elements of 5E and concepts of OSR in it. OSR type numbers for example which are a bit wider than say 5E, or even 4E type numbers up to lvl 20.

Conceptually a lot of classes would be kinda similar to the 5E warlock so they are more complex than most 5E classes but you get a large variety of options in your class and I would use microfeats baked in not optional like 5E. Would probably dump 3.5's/4E magic item creation and go back to DM may I type stuff a'la OSR/5E- its less broken when combined with feats, talents etc.

Would be in the market for a less numbers porn 3.X system, but it has to be a lot easier to run, be more comlex than 5E but less complex than 3.5, PF1, and the PF2 playtest. Would not use archetypes like 5E since there would be more moving parts and in essence you would build your own character with the classes being templates and you plug in class features and feats to get what you want (within reason). Would also dump the penalties for multiattacking etc. I do miss more options and concepts like prestige classes, but would want it overhauled from 3.X but it seems Paizo has not learned much in 10 years, hell I had a crack at balancing 3.5 with houserules that kind of went further than PF2.
.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry but if you want LFQW you already have tons and tons of d20 stuff including Pathfinder 1.

What Paizo needs to understand are a bunch of things:
#1 they need to choose between being independent, small and obscure on one hand, and piggy-backing on D&D (and being hugely successful) on the other
#2 the majority of today's gamers came to the hobby with 5E. They won't stand for the kludgey mess of yore - unbalanced spellcasting, out-of-control wizards, and the other things that 5E actually fixed for the first time in D&Ds history

The free space for Paizo remains the same as back when 3.5 started to sag: as purveyor of a "fixed" edition.

The sooner Paizo understands that if they just want to do yet-another-fantasy game, they will be reduced to the same low low level of sales as... pretty much every publisher that isnt WotC.

The obvious alternative would be to publish a sort-of compatible:ish "advanced" 5E D&D game as their Pathfinder 2, which removes a lot of the restrictions WotC placed on themselves.

A game that would be recognizable as Dungeons & Dragons game (just like Pathfinder) but actually adds value to the hordes of 5E gamers, without devolving back into the kind of crap 5E has already fixed once and for all.

What does 5E lack?

# Player-side options. That is more detailed build choices, and using +1 and +2 bonuses instead of just advantage. Lots of 5E gamers miss the time when each level-up meant a myriad of intricate choices
# Challenge (meaning that of course any DM worth her salt can TPK her party, but I'm talking about recalibrated default settings to something less carebear)
# Monster complexity - high level monsters especially
# Proper support for the solo boss fight (a whole party vs only one single alone solitary unaccompanied big monster) that remains interesting, fun and difficult
# Magic item economy. Now that WotC is going the opposite route with Xanathar "treasure points" which essentially remove gold pieces from the game, there is real opportunity for a big trusted publisher like Paizo to build a proper magic item creation and pricing framework (building on the d20/PF experience).

That's my top 5 anyway.

 

[CapnZapp]

Bottom line: if Paizo keeps listening to the corporate devil sitting on their shoulder saying "just ditch any dependence to the brands and IPs of other companies and the potential is ENDLESS" they will end up just like all the other publishers that aren't owners of the D&D brand.

In reality the only reasons Paizo got so large can all be spelled "D&D": getting the mag licenses, and then getting the free gift that was the d20 license. And of course how 4E alienated the customer base.

What PF2 represents is pissing all that away. The hubris that comes from thinking "now people will buy our stuff because of the Pathfinder brand, as opposed to us offering a particular taste of D&D that WotC can't or won't".

Sigh.

 

[CapnZapp]

Even more tldr: Why would I be interested in yet another soon-to-fade-into-obscurity fantasy game that tries to be like D&D yet somehow isn't?

"It's Pathfinder" certainly isn't a good enough answer. What does Paizo have that MERP, Dragon Age, ASOIAF, Runequest, or any other of the literally thousands of dead or undead fantasy games doesn't have?

The answer sure isn't "Pathfinder" since PF2 is unrecognizably different. It isn't "Golarion" I'm afraid. The answer <s>is</s> was "D&D". Either "3E but better" or "D&D but not 4E".

Paizo could offer an "upgrade" path for the millions of 5E gamers out there, but nooo...

Corporate logic dictates that real expansion cannot happen while the company is fettered to a competitor's IP, completely ignoring the simple truth that Paizo would be nothing without D&D.

 

[zztong]

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.

I can appreciate what they tried to do and I hope they got meaningful information out of it.

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.

I can't speak for my region and can only speak for myself. Regarding only the story and not the chores of mechanical testing, only the first adventure was interesting. Anything related to the World Wound and Starfinder Aliens was an instant turn-off. Those are uncompelling story-lines for me. I have zero interest in tie-ins to Starfinder.

 

[Haffrung]

What does PF2 offer people who came to RPGs from 5E that 5E doesn't?

* Much more robust character customization.
* More robust tactical combat.
* Tactically interesting monsters.
* A richer default setting than the vanilla Realms.
* Adventure campaigns with industry-leading design and production values.

Most people aren't going to want to learn a new, more complex system, and will be happy to stick with 5E. But 5E has grown the pie so much, that even if a quarter of 5E groups try out Pathfinder and buy the core rules and an adventure path or two, that'll be a success for Paizo.

Because hanging on to its existing customer-base isn't enough. All RPGs lose players relentlessly through attrition. And for Pathfinder, much of that attrition is people who came to Pathfinder from 3.x , a group that makes up a small and shrinking fraction of the fantasy RPG market. Paizo needs new blood if they don't want to be just another boutique OSR publisher.

 

[darjr]

In the face of a popular and good enough version of D&D there isn’t anything Paizo could do. At least I don’t think anything listed so far as options has a real chance. But then maybe their goalposts are not where a lot of folks goalposts seem to be. IF they want to create a game they can be proud of and satisfy enough of a Pathfinder brand fan base, maybe that’s enough for them?

If so then I’m shure it’ll be a success.

 

[Zardnaar]

In the face of a popular and good enough version of D&D there isn’t anything Paizo could do. At least I don’t think anything listed so far as options has a real chance. But then maybe their goalposts are not where a lot of folks goalposts seem to be. IF they want to create a game they can be proud of and satisfy enough of a Pathfinder brand fan base, maybe that’s enough for them?

If so then I’m shure it’ll be a success.

This I don't see PF being number 1 anymore. Peak Pathfinder was only about 20% of 5E they can probably do alright on a lower figure. Even half of peak Pathfinder would be around 10 times the size of an OSR publisher. If they keep what they have and appeal to 5% or 10% of the 5E players to buy in they would be fine.

Personally I'll need a preview or something like the 5E basic rules to buy in.

 

[Kurviak]

This I don't see PF being number 1 anymore. Peak Pathfinder was only about 20% of 5E they can probably do alright on a lower figure. Even half of peak Pathfinder would be around 10 times the size of an OSR publisher. If they keep what they have and appeal to 5% or 10% of the 5E players to buy in they would be fine.

Personally I'll need a preview or something like the 5E basic rules to buy in.

The pdf versión of the final pf2 should be about the same price of pf1 pdf. So it should be very affordable