This blog post got me hyped! Everything in here looks awesome, especially the formatting of the spells, which is very nostalgic for me as a 4e fan.
Care to explain...?Erdric Dragin said:Goodbye, Pathfinder, nice knowing what you used to be. Now they've become their own RPG system completely irrelevant to the last.
It is kind of weird how much this edition seems to be taking the good parts of 4e and 5e. If they really haven't looked at 4e or 5e much, parallel evolution is a hell of a thing.
Yeah, well, just like AD&D and 5th edition aren't directly compatible doesn't mean they aren't the same game.I can't speak for Erdric, but PF2 is looking like it's very different than PF1, more like a completely different game than a patch on the old game.
I can't speak for Erdric, but PF2 is looking like it's very different than PF1, more like a completely different game than a patch on the old game. Whether this is a good thing is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure this can really be disputed the more we learn about it. For a game that basically came into existence because of 3.x nostalgia, I can understand where people who were big fans of 3.PF are coming from.
Yeah, well, just like AD&D and 5th edition aren't directly compatible doesn't mean they aren't the same game. (And so is Pathfinder)
It's time to let d20 go.
If you absolutely must play that specific ruleset, I recommend 3E (and PF1).
Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules? Then again, the fully bought-in crowd for Pathfinder 1E is probably not a growth market at this stage, from a business sense. Which is what the same folks were more or less told by WotC in 2008, so #triggered.The game was successful because of the 3.x crowd, but it came into existence because Paizo saw a good business opportunity and jumped all over it.
AD&D is to BECMI as Pathfinder is to 3.5
2nd edition was a serious change from AD&D if you were actually following the RAW of AD&D Combat.
3rd edition was a serious change from 2nd edition if again, you looked at combat.
4th edition was a near rewrite of 3rd edition, again looking at combat.
5th edition pretty much told everyone that liked 4th edition that they were wrong to like it as it rolled back some things to a mix of all editions prior and streamlined things.
I liked first edition, read all the books for 2nd but didn't run it. Liked third edition, didn't see the point of Pathfinder. Loved 4th edition, and my opinion of 5th is neutral. I see the point of Pathfinder 2 and I'll probably choose that over 5e but jury is out. Generally, I don't like rules lite. On one hand it's good because it simplifies things, but on the other it can lead to sloppy abstraction.
What I'm seeing of PF2 looks like it could provide a good framework for a GM to build off of and not have to detail every abstraction for the rules set to feel right at his or her table for his or her reasons.
As far as other folks are concerned, I've yet to have a good chat with a 3.X loyalist that had a good argument for why they don't want PF2 other than spending money. This is fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself or merits compared to other versions.
Be well
KB
Goodbye, Pathfinder, nice knowing what you used to be. Now they've become their own RPG system completely irrelevant to the last.
The game was successful because of the 3.x crowd, but it came into existence because Paizo saw a good business opportunity and jumped all over it.
AD&D is to BECMI as Pathfinder is to 3.5
2nd edition was a serious change from AD&D if you were actually following the RAW of AD&D Combat.
3rd edition was a serious change from 2nd edition if again, you looked at combat.
4th edition was a near rewrite of 3rd edition, again looking at combat.
5th edition pretty much told everyone that liked 4th edition that they were wrong to like it as it rolled back some things to a mix of all editions prior and streamlined things.
As far as other folks are concerned, I've yet to have a good chat with a 3.X loyalist that had a good argument for why they don't want PF2 other than spending money. This is fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself or merits compared to other versions.
This seems like a distinction without a difference. The "good business opportunity" was the existence of legions of 3.x fans that suddenly became unsupported.
From a rules standpoint, other than streamlining the hit tables into THAC0, I don't see much difference between 1E and 2E. From what I've seen, you could use 1E books in a 2E game without any effort. Fluff-wise, wasn't 2E where TSR did the whole tanar'ri/baatezu hogwash?
4E was a complete rewrite of not just combat, but out-of-combat as well. It was also with 4E that WotC explicitly said "you're wrong to like the old D&D", rather than the very soft landing of 5E.
I am such a loyalist, but I'm undecided about PF2 at this point, because I haven't seen enough to make that judgement. The only thing I've seen that I really don't like is Resonance. The entire point of magic items, to me, is they are a non-character-based resource.
Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules? Then again, the fully bought-in crowd for Pathfinder 1E is probably not a growth market at this stage, from a business sense. Which is what the same folks were more or less told by WotC in 2008, so #triggered.
From a 5E perspective, I don't see much value in a system that does the same thing I already have (heroic fantasy), but without the best parts (Bounded Accuracy, for instance) and more math and paperwork. It seems to be alienating the 3.x purists, while maintaining some of the least enjoyable parts of 3.x. Time will tell how that works out in the market.
The business opportunity was the abandonment of the 3x rules framework and existence of the OGL creating a vacuum that could be exploited. The "existence of legions" had to be proven through taking the risk of pursuing the opportunity. There's plenty of examples should we look for them of folks complaining about something and not converting that angst into real spending.
I seem to remember segments being a thing in 2E, but I'll take your word for it. I have no desire to delve into 2E arcana.Go back to 1E and read how combat flowed from an initiative standpoint. (10 phases to a round etc.) Then read 2e. Completely different flow.
Out of combat is informed by combat. So if you say - I'm going to go with map based combat only and structure AEDU, then that resolution format will affect everything else. D&D is a combat game. 4E was far more of a radical shift and required to be different from Pathfinder and the previous rule set to show value against the competitor.
I agree regarding resonance. Right now it doesn't make much sense to me, but it depends on if there are other structures that essentially treat living things like mana batteries. If it's the only available use of the mechanic it sounds silly, but if the mechanic is a small part of how magic works in the game system then I'm ok with it. Just has to be consistent.
Presumably new gaming experiences under the auspices of a potentially better gaming system that is more conducive to consumer preferences.Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules?
From what I gather from Paizo's statements, this is a different flavor of "heroic fantasy" than what 5E caters to. Similar, but distinct. Pathfinder 2 appears more oriented towards "epic heroic fantasy" with more larger-than-life characters capable of fantastic physical feats of dashing and daring, such as the high level fighter who jumps 6 meters up in the air or cutting through an army of orcs. Bounded Accuracy is the "best part" of 5E if you want the game aesthetic that Bounded Accuracy fosters, but that aesthetic should not be regarded as universally desirable. I also think that Pathfinder 2 will have its own set of "best parts" that 5e will lack as well so I am all for the innovations that it brings.From a 5E perspective, I don't see much value in a system that does the same thing I already have (heroic fantasy), but without the best parts (Bounded Accuracy, for instance) and more math and paperwork.
It is worth lifting your point up here because Paizo has not said "you're wrong to like the old Pathfinder." If anything, they have been incredibly happy that people still like and play it. However, I think that as a company they would like the opportunity to turn their innovations and insights made in the 10 subsequent years of publishing 3.PF materials into a more cohesive system that reflects where they are now as a company and their own changing consumer market. I think that it is less about abandoning the d20 system, but instead about having a chance to modernize the d20 system with 18+ years of experience under their belt.4E was a complete rewrite of not just combat, but out-of-combat as well. It was also with 4E that WotC explicitly said "you're wrong to like the old D&D", rather than the very soft landing of 5E.
What's the value of a new ruleset?Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules?
.
That being said this spells blog is pretty much very similar to PF1. In the end what really changed here? Level 10 spells won't matter to 99% of players so it's really just free heightened spells and how it ties in with the action economy. So far spells is the least changed part of the PF1 game system. It's subtle improvements, but nothing huge.
I'd say the existence of unhappy 3.x fans was more important to the success of Pathfinder than the OGL. The existence of the OGL would have been useless without the demand for product utilizing it. They would have been harder to satisfy without an OGL, but not impossible.
I seem to remember segments being a thing in 2E, but I'll take your word for it. I have no desire to delve into 2E arcana.![]()
So you agree that 4E substantially changed both combat and out-of-combat.
I think 5E's solution to the spells-on-a-stick "problem" is more elegant than what I've seen of Resonance.
I'd agree; I was speaking to why a PF diehard who is still basically playing 3.X might be less than thrilled with the break that PF2 is shaping up to be.What's the value of a new ruleset?
It could be better. I had stopped running 3.x games (too time consuming) and I didn't like 4e. 5e brought me back to d&d. For my needs and tastes, 5e is better. PF2 may be better for other people.
I'd say the existence of unhappy 3.x fans was more important to the success of Pathfinder than the OGL.
I am dubious about this new system.
While this seems a good idea on paper, I see a lot of potential for abuse. I also really dislike the four lists