D&D 2E What PF2E means for D&D5E

[Imaro]

I dont really see the problem in spending $4 per week on my hobby. Heck I spend more then that on food for game night..

Who said they weren't spending that much on their hobby... there's dice, dungeon tiles, miniatures, other roleplaying games and so on to purchase.

 

[Shasarak]

Who said they weren't spending that much on their hobby.

According to the person I quoted it was FlyingChihuahua.

 

[Imaro]

According to the person I quoted it was FlyingChihuahua.

I don't think that's what he or she said... thus the question.

 

[Shasarak]

I don't think that's what he or she said... thus the question.

That is a relief, seems like a terrible life not being able to afford $4 a week.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

That is a relief, seems like a terrible life not being able to afford $4 a week.

There's other stuff I want to buy besides RPG books that are a part of my hobbies.

 

[atherion-foehammer]

I will buy the Playtest books. I like to mine other systems for ideas. One thing I don't like about 5e (and I realize I am probably in the minority here), is the slow product release schedule. Having started with B/X, and then 1E, I loved all the adventures, and rules expansions. Pathfinder took it too far, but I would prefer something more than 5e is offering right now.

 

[Mistwell]

So two facts are very likely completely unrelated but which, when associated with each other make for an amusing combination.

1) Paizo announced PF2.
2) The 5e PHB spiked to #1 selling book (of all types of books) in the nation on Amazon. After being on sale for nearly 4 years.

 

[GreyLord]

So two facts are very likely completely unrelated but which, when associated with each other make for an amusing combination.

1) Paizo announced PF2.
2) The 5e PHB spiked to #1 selling book (of all types of books) in the nation on Amazon. After being on sale for nearly 4 years.

That would be kind of funny if a lot of Pathfinder players decided to suddenly jump off to 5e because of merely an announcement (and information of course) regarding a new Pathfinder edition. Way to stick it to their favorite company I suppose. Good for 5e if the case. 5e needs more competition like that! Someone chasing off their own customers so that those customers buy the other game system!

The two probably aren't correlated and one is probably not the causation of the other though, however, would be funny if it did occur.

I will buy the Playtest books. I like to mine other systems for ideas. One thing I don't like about 5e (and I realize I am probably in the minority here), is the slow product release schedule. Having started with B/X, and then 1E, I loved all the adventures, and rules expansions. Pathfinder took it too far, but I would prefer something more than 5e is offering right now.

I prefer the slow release schedule of 5e. By keeping it slim and the rulebooks low in number, at least what one needs to use at the table (max...1 supplement) makes it very nice and easy to use and DM.

 

[Parmandur]

That's what I assume is going on here too. And you're right about PF being a pain to DM - it's basically like DMing 3.5 D&D - neither of which I will go back to again. I'll happily DM BECMI or 4e or 5e games, but I just can't sit down and DM a Pathfinder game. Even though I spent years running 3e D&D I just don't enjoy doing it anymore.



I think this might be true, but I think they need to be careful. What they're proposing for PF2 looks to be as big a shift in that game engine as the shift from AD&D 2e to 3e (or for those who think the shift from 3e to 4e was bigger, that one - I personally think 2e to 3e was the bigger shift but mileage varies on that question). They're the experts and they can do what they want but to me that seems a bit wrongheaded - it seems like it would have to alienate the existing player base that you need to evangelize for you. This has played out badly at least twice in the history of RPGs that I can think of - first when White Wolf shifted from their original WoD to their new WoD and changed everything at once - setting and rules. And then when D&D shifted from 3e to 4e and did the same. They lost the biggest advocates for their game by doing so - the players - and it took a long time for both games to win people back. (Of course both companies also had a patronizing "we know what you guys really want - you don't know what you want" tone to their marketing around their edition changes as well, which likely didn't help them either. And I say that as someone who likes 4e as a game engine - the community relations around it were not well handled.)

The only major switch I can think of on this order that has worked is the switch from 2e to 3e - and 2e was in a state as a product line where it had shed players, the company that had managed it had run it into the ground (and themselves along with it), and there was an audience hungry for D&D and were willing to try something substantially different as long as it wasn't "too" different. In that environment making a major change to game between editions makes sense because either it works and you get a successful game line out of it or it doesn't and you haven't really lost anything other than your development work.

Pathfinder seems to have a large enough player base that that kind of shift seems risky. It would definitely seem like a streamlining of the game might be in order - but more on the order of the shift from 1e to 2e than a wholesale set of changes. Maybe the 3.5 engine just can't be streamlined that way without changing it substantially to something else, but still it's a big risk.

Traveller: The New Era was a similar crash and burn change.

I don't know how much of a market for "crunchier than 5E" there actually is, but splitting a player base is risky, particularly when intercompatibility is thrown out the window.

 

[Parmandur]

What you discuss is selection bias. You expect them to be copying 5e so that's what you see.

The thing is, I’ve read a few interviews with Paizo staff and they get stuff wrong when they talk about 5e. Like, embrassingly wrong. Recalling something the half read on a message board six months back type wrong.

If they were actually looking at 5e, I think things would be a lot smoother. Resonance seems like the most awkward way of implementing a magic item attunement, a more complicated version of 4e's daily magic item rules.

It doesn't inspire great confidence that they know the market, which would seem to be vital to navigating a major edition change.

It would be one thing if they knew 5E , and identified what worked and didn't work, and chose to go with other solutions for solid reasons. That they seem ignorant of the current industry standard is another kettle of fish.