• 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.

PF2 and the adventure day

MockingBird

Explorer
I never really pay too much attention to "encounters per day". I go with what feels right to the story at hand. Sometimes its balanced, sometimes it's not. If a prewritten adventure has it's set pieces and it will take some time for the party to go from one to the other I'll throw in some random encounters but only if it feels right to the story. I get why the rule of thumb is there but life isn't balanced haha.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
I never really pay too much attention to "encounters per day". I go with what feels right to the story at hand. Sometimes its balanced, sometimes it's not. If a prewritten adventure has it's set pieces and it will take some time for the party to go from one to the other I'll throw in some random encounters but only if it feels right to the story. I get why the rule of thumb is there but life isn't balanced haha.
For sure, the game is flexible like that.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I've come to believe it's unfair to try to evaluate PF2 as needing to compete with 5E. I don't view 13th Age or SotDL as needing to compete with 5E, why should PF2 need to be viewed that way?
Thank you for asking this question. It is a very natural thing to wonder about.

The answer lies in Paizo's size and ambition.

Even before the Pathfinder era Paizo emerged as the clearly largest publisher of alternative D&D material.

If Paizo is content with losing that position, essentially disappearing back into obscurity, then no indeed there is no reason we should hold PF2 to a higher standard than those other games (13th Age and so on).

But if Paizo harbors any hope to retain their position in the awareness of gamers (and all its staff, and it's great rate of throughput), then it is *essential* PF2 comes across as a game that is pleasing to people with 5E sensibilities.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Thank you for asking this question. It is a very natural thing to wonder about.

The answer lies in Paizo's size and ambition.

Even before the Pathfinder era Paizo emerged as the clearly largest publisher of alternative D&D material.

If Paizo is content with losing that position, essentially disappearing back into obscurity, then no indeed there is no reason we should hold PF2 to a higher standard than those other games (13th Age and so on).

But if Paizo harbors any hope to retain their position in the awareness of gamers (and all its staff, and it's great rate of throughput), then it is *essential* PF2 comes across as a game that is pleasing to people with 5E sensibilities.
Yep. IMO. Their best move would be a game similar to 5e - but different that fixed the most financially important 5e players biggest complaints about 5e.

To date the biggest complaint I see about 5e is people wanting more crunch. Pathfinder 2 could have filled that void and those customers which may not overtake 5e but would be very profitable.

Though the risk with that strategy is that 5e just starts producing more crunch (or 6e releases with the promise of more crunch).

So IMO. What appears to be their best strategy carries far to much risk. I think they are best served making something significantly different from 5e that a number of 5e fans will enjoy.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Yep. IMO. Their best move would be a game similar to 5e - but different that fixed the most financially important 5e players biggest complaints about 5e.
The whole point of 5e is to be so innocuous as to invite no big complaints!
To date the biggest complaint I see about 5e is people wanting more crunch.
To be fair, that's YOUR complaint. (Though, to be honest, I'm right there with you, as a player - as a DM, exact opposite, really.)
Pathfinder 2 could have filled that void and those customers which may not overtake 5e but would be very profitable.
Could it, though? It wouldn't be /more 5e crunch/.

The intent of DMsGuild was to provide a slush pile of unsolicited crunch (among other things) for 5e.
But it doesn't satisfy: it's unofficial, inconsistent, and less professional. You have to sift through it.

If Paizo had developed professional, consistent, build-facilitating, crunchy supplements /for/ 5e, under a catchy title, it might have filled the crunch void. Less masochistic DMs could just say "PH & Paizo," to open up a world of crunch for their players.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
The whole point of 5e is to be so innocuous as to invite no big complaints!
To be fair, that's YOUR complaint. (Though, to be honest, I'm right there with you, as a player - as a DM, exact opposite, really.)
Could it, though? It wouldn't be /more 5e crunch/.

The intent of DMsGuild was to provide a slush pile of unsolicited crunch (among other things) for 5e.
But it doesn't satisfy: it's unofficial, inconsistent, and less professional. You have to sift through it.

If Paizo had developed professional, consistent, build-facilitating, crunchy supplements /for/ 5e, under a catchy title, it might have filled the crunch void. Less masochistic DMs could just say "PH & Paizo," to open up a world of crunch for their players.
Huh? I think you missed something.
 

Aebir-Toril

Explorer
The difficulty with PF2 is that Pathfinder is now an established product, the competitor to D&D, albeit with a smaller fanbase, and, unless it can peel of 5e players, PF2 is just going to lose some PF1 players without gaining a significant number of new fans. I undertsand that PF2 is Paizo's attempt to break away from D&D, becoming their own game, free from the legacy of 3e, but, as a company, they have to understand that, in order to break into the marketplace, they're going to have to ramp up advertising, publicity, and comparisons to 5e.

Furthermore, on the point of PF1 players, many of us are used to the PFORD (Pathfinder open-reference document), which (as far as I can tell) won't be available for PF2. This is understandable (I always thought the d20 system tyranny was a bit unfair for competitors, one might say that Wizards holds a monopoly on d20 games), but PF2 has to be lucrative enough that its fans, and (hopefully) new players, will be willing to purchase its books instead of 5e books.

One major selling point in Paizo's favor is book size and quantity of product. 5e books have always been slim, and PF books give you more content for a similar price.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
The difficulty with PF2 is that Pathfinder is now an established product, the competitor to D&D, albeit with a smaller fanbase, and, unless it can peel of 5e players, PF2 is just going to lose some PF1 players without gaining a significant number of new fans. I undertsand that PF2 is Paizo's attempt to break away from D&D, becoming their own game, free from the legacy of 3e, but, as a company, they have to understand that, in order to break into the marketplace, they're going to have to ramp up advertising, publicity, and comparisons to 5e.

Furthermore, on the point of PF1 players, many of us are used to the PFORD (Pathfinder open-reference document), which (as far as I can tell) won't be available for PF2. This is understandable (I always thought the d20 system tyranny was a bit unfair for competitors, one might say that Wizards holds a monopoly on d20 games), but PF2 has to be lucrative enough that its fans, and (hopefully) new players, will be willing to purchase its books instead of 5e books.

One major selling point in Paizo's favor is book size and quantity of product. 5e books have always been slim, and PF books give you more content for a similar price.
I do believe that PF2 will have all the rules available for free, as with PF1. Still OGL.

I don't know if large, dense books will be a major selling point on the market as such.
 

Aebir-Toril

Explorer
I do believe that PF2 will have all the rules available for free, as with PF1. Still OGL.

I don't know if large, dense books will be a major selling point on the market as such.
Ouch, the OGL license is going to seriously depress sales.

OGL was paraded about as some "great and generous grant from WotC", but it's really another M:TG patenting the concept of the Trading Card Game. The only way other companies can avoid the OGL is by using other systems, like d%, d12, d10, 2d20, and d6.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Ouch, the OGL license is going to seriously depress sales.

OGL was paraded about as some "great and generous grant from WotC", but it's really another M:TG patenting the concept of the Trading Card Game. The only way other companies can avoid the OGL is by using other systems, like d%, d12, d10, 2d20, and d6.
Still, OGL is the foundation of Paizo as a company: their support for open gaming is admirable.
 

Aebir-Toril

Explorer
Still, OGL is the foundation of Paizo as a company: their support for open gaming is admirable.
I agree in principle, but the ECON-101-W40 me disagrees on principle. It is admirable that they support open gaming for all (where would I be, as a Pathfiner fan, if they didn't), but it isn't wise in terms of business.

But, sometimes, it's important to put business aside. In order to support Paizo, I will buy the books I can afford, because I support their ideas and work.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
The whole point of 5e is to be so innocuous as to invite no big complaints!
I can see why someone might draw that conclusion after a cursory look.

I can emphatically tell you looks are deceiving. 5E has pulled off a very impressive feat: its magic system looks and feels much like 3E/PF, yet is comprehensively different under the hood.

The combined effect of Concentration, the way buffing is comprehensively changed, bonus stacking, the number of spell slots, and last but not least: how many many spells have tweaked parameters... It all adds up to a real sea-change. It really does fix 3E, and specifically the area where casters run circles around martials! And all without losing the soul of the game.

At first I was impressed. Then I started to caution y'all that this revelation might have gone past Paizo completely.

At this time I started arguing they're headed for disaster, since I suspect 5E gamers have zero appetite for the things we took for granted back in 3E.

And, yes, that includes loads of 5E gamers that haven't even considered the issue; people that think they aren't affected by any of the problems. (And as long as they stick with 5E, that's entirely correct)
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
The intent of DMsGuild was to provide a slush pile of unsolicited crunch (among other things) for 5e.
But it doesn't satisfy: it's unofficial, inconsistent, and less professional. You have to sift through it.
But WotC gets 50% of everything sold there regardless of whether it is :):):):) or not. Pretty sweet deal from their end.

Furthermore, on the point of PF1 players, many of us are used to the PFORD (Pathfinder open-reference document), which (as far as I can tell) won't be available for PF2.
The PF2 rules will launch on the Nethys Archive on August 1.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
What is a GLOG?
The GLOG is an OSR-adjacent simple, low powered D&D system that is highly hackable. The two main editions are to be found on these blogs: http://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/ and https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/ .

One of the key characteristic - the one that may interest you - is how magic works on a basic level. It is so simple I can explain in a few lines.

A level 1 mage gets one magic dice (MD). A level 2 mage gets 2, etc, up to four MD at level 4. They refresh 1/day (ie after a night of sleep you get all of them back, up to your maximum).

When you cast a spell, you decide how many MD you are going to put in it. A simple attack spell may do the sum of the MD put into it, rolled as damage (low HP game). So a 3 MD fireball does 3d6 of damage. Every dice that rolls 1,2 or 3 you keep. Any dice that rolls 4-6 you lose. So each MD will be used, on average 1-2 per day, but more if you are lucky.

I hope this makes sense :)
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I can see why someone might draw that conclusion after a cursory look.

I can emphatically tell you looks are deceiving. 5E has pulled off a very impressive feat: its magic system looks and feels much like 3E/PF, yet is comprehensively different under the hood.

The combined effect of Concentration, the way buffing is comprehensively changed, bonus stacking, the number of spell slots, and last but not least: how many many spells have tweaked parameters... It all adds up to a real sea-change. It really does fix 3E, and specifically the area where casters run circles around martials! And all without losing the soul of the game.

At first I was impressed. Then I started to caution y'all that this revelation might have gone past Paizo completely.

At this time I started arguing they're headed for disaster, since I suspect 5E gamers have zero appetite for the things we took for granted back in 3E.

And, yes, that includes loads of 5E gamers that haven't even considered the issue; people that think they aren't affected by any of the problems. (And as long as they stick with 5E, that's entirely correct)
I think that if 5e has four legacies, they will be:
- the advantage/disadvantage system
- bounded accuracy
- backgrounds ( esp providing half your skills and giving you a soft-multi-class possibility)
- And, as you say, the *grand spell correction*. It's *fundamental*

... things the GLOG did, sort of..... how interesting...
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
It's weird. So there are these "powers" that players can choose to take based on their class, right? And these "powers" use a point resource that you can regain by doing a class-specific fluff activity for 10 minutes. Sounds like a short rest/encounter power equivalent to help non-spellcasters get some burst ability like in 5e, right? But it isn't so.

Those "powers" are called Focus Spells, and they're restricted to spellcasting classes plus monks and paladins. They're magic! I didn't expect that. I guess that while similar to short rest resources, their purpose is different than how they're used in other systems. I think that since spell lists are mostly homogenized, Paizo is using focus spells mostly to differentiate spellcasters' portfolios and give them more longevity, plus give pseudo-magic classes magic abilities.

Friggin weird.
I am alarmed that I cannot tell if this post is in earnest or in jest.
 

Advertisement

Top