Quote from: RPGPundit;1029029Mind you, there's no reason to think that's the case. It wasn't for White Wolf, where nWoD was their gamble to fight back and I'm pretty convinced they thought was what would keep them relevant and profitable in the long term, rather than ultimately destroy them. It's totally possible that Paizo has drunk that very same kool-aid.

Well I think WW's big mistake was to create a new setting - that's what created an easy exit point for their fans, more than new rules mechanics.

Reading a bit about PF2, it definitely doesn't look like it's really aimed at bringing in a new audience. "Even More Feats!" hardly seems a great selling point, when high level PF PCs are already horribly overcomplicated, and building NPCs as PCs is a nightmare.

So my feeling is that Paizo will get a temporary 2e sales boost, will retain most of their existing fans - some may stick with PF1e but buy largely-compatible PF2e products, the TSR 2e AD&D model. In fact I think 2e AD&D with a bit less financial mismanagement is likely how things will go. A slow decline, not a sudden WW style collapse.

Quote from: S'mon;1029048Well I think WW's big mistake was to create a new setting - that's what created an easy exit point for their fans, more than new rules mechanics.

I think that WW sorta painted themselves into a corner with saying the Apocalypse is going to happen any minute now.  But that's not the subject of the thread.

QuoteReading a bit about PF2, it definitely doesn't look like it's really aimed at bringing in a new audience. "Even More Feats!" hardly seems a great selling point, when high level PF PCs are already horribly overcomplicated, and building NPCs as PCs is a nightmare.

So my feeling is that Paizo will get a temporary 2e sales boost, will retain most of their existing fans - some may stick with PF1e but buy largely-compatible PF2e products, the TSR 2e AD&D model. In fact I think 2e AD&D with a bit less financial mismanagement is likely how things will go. A slow decline, not a sudden WW style collapse.

Perhaps.  I like the PF crunch.  But it does require strategizing to build a character, and I can't get my Wednesday group to play Pathfinder.  And these guys like Hero System and Rifts.

jg

Feats were never, ever a selling point for me.  They are for a certain type of gamer audience, but I think any who were likely to be drawn by them are already tapped out.

I remain cautiously optimistic.

The rpg engine needed a major upgrade imo.

- Wizards outperforming Fighters especially at high levels is a problem.
- The game play slows donw at higher levels
-They screwed up their version of the Epic Level Handbook
-Too many modifiers to remember imo. It's not hard or impossible to do just a pain to calculate.
-Too many useless feats, archetypes etc, never a proper middle in terms of design imo. Either the feats is not worth taking or too strong then they nuke it from orbit because of PFS. It's very rare to get a feat that is not too strong nor too weak
-Stupid, stupid feat taxes.
-Thinking they can hide subpar options behind fluff. They can write the greatest prose for a feat description it's still basically a +1 style feat.
- A fanbase that does not know what they want sometimes. They complain about the Lawful Good requirement for Paladins then when it's removed suddenly scream it's ruined because of tradition and lore.

I can only assume that 5E wa enough of a threat in terms of sales for them to do a actually new edition. I'm surprised their fanbase is surprised given how when 5E was first announced Pathfinder Unchained was added to their product line for immediate. A book on how to houserule certain elements to be faster and better. Coincidentally being announced for release a little after 5E was announced. Starfinder for me at least went from if a new edition to just when.

I have a decent PF collection with no interest in buying into PF2e. I'll continue to use my PF1 books as extentions of 3.x/d20.

I'm fine with 5e for the "D&D experience." It's not hard to find a group. If I want a char-op experience, there's still PF1.

I think Paizo should continue to support Starfinder, or create some other game that fills out other genres that are more distinct from D&D kitchen-sink fantasy. Of course fantasy sells hotcakes over sci-fi, western, post-apoc, etc.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1028532I know a lot of people who would play PF all day if they could, but play 5e because that's where all the games are. They always yearn for a 5e that's more like PF. 5e but more classes, more options, prestige classes, feats, character optimization and customization, etc.

Has anyone showed them the DM's Guild?  At the very least Xanathar's Notes on Everything Else is pretty official as a Guild Adept product and that contains a fair number of new subclasses.  There are oodles of Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Spells, etc available either for free or for SUPER cheap.  Some of it is actually pretty professionally done and you can often interact with the creator to give feedback and editing and get a revised copy.

I've even seen some products touting prestige classes.

For those saying that PF1 has more options than 5E that is true. Except those options are really not worth taking imo. More options is a valid counterpoint when said options are actually better options imo. More often than not they are poor options. With archetypes being weaker than the core class. To the point where it's better to stick with the core class as the archetype is too nerfed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1029029I don't think nWoD 'really sucked' as an edition. It just gave a whole bunch of gamers who had been into WoD an exit point which they ended up using.

Even if Pathfinder 2e was demonstrably and definitely a better game than Pathfinder 1e, they will ultimately end up worse then when they started.

For a change, I agree with Pundit's prediction regarding the economics outcome:).
Then again, it's ultimately so meaningless to me, that I'll just keep preparing popcorn:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1029030I predict:

1)  I will not buy Pathfinder 2.0
2)  I will not give a shit if anybody else buys Pathfinder 2.0 or not.

I just got back from GaryCon.  What's "new" or "hot" has fuckall influence on what's "fun".  More and more young gamers show up at GaryCon every year, raving about how awesome Original D&D is.

It is awesome, man, in its own way. It's just that sometimes I want a game that does "awesome", but differently;).

I liked the fact they aren't trying to go for 5e edition power level as obivous by the master-legendary proficiency levels, melees will be epic.
I also like 3 actions every round for everyone this will make the game interesting tactically from the beginning and keep things manageble at higher levels. Higher level characters not having a big increase in actions or attacks as they grow finds me in agreement.
There are also other stuff that are classic problem of 3rd edition they are trying to overcome in an intelligent manner.

The problem is when you make a complex system like PF 2.0 there are many many many things that can go wrong. I think the odds are against them, but I like what I am seeing.

Quote from: sureshot;1029981For those saying that PF1 has more options than 5E that is true. Except those options are really not worth taking imo. More options is a valid counterpoint when said options are actually better options imo. More often than not they are poor options. With archetypes being weaker than the core class. To the point where it's better to stick with the core class as the archetype is too nerfed.

The basic problem is more options creates more interactions, and interactions are the #1 cause of design failures. KISS is not just an aesthetic; it's a strategy for minimizing design failures. The crazy charop crap in 3.5 and PF was caused by finding compound effects caused by multiple feats, level-dips, and spell effects interacting with each other. You cannot possibly test for all of them because the number of things you have to test grows like the factorial of the number of inputs.

5e is robust because it limits the interactions. Feats and multiclassing are optional rules, and they both come with steep penalties for overdoing them. Casters can have only one sustained effect at a time. Even then, players have found a few annoying exploits around feat/multiclass combinations that obviously weren't tested much. So the fact that Pathfinder 2 is doubling down on feats, feats, and more feats tells me they still don't understand principles of design very well and aren't going to really address the core problem that made 3.5 an utter mess.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1029999The basic problem is more options creates more interactions, and interactions are the #1 cause of design failures. KISS is not just an aesthetic; it's a strategy for minimizing design failures. The crazy charop crap in 3.5 and PF was caused by finding compound effects caused by multiple feats, level-dips, and spell effects interacting with each other. You cannot possibly test for all of them because the number of things you have to test grows like the factorial of the number of inputs.

5e is robust because it limits the interactions. Feats and multiclassing are optional rules, and they both come with steep penalties for overdoing them. Casters can have only one sustained effect at a time. Even then, players have found a few annoying exploits around feat/multiclass combinations that obviously weren't tested much. So the fact that Pathfinder 2 is doubling down on feats, feats, and more feats tells me they still don't understand principles of design very well and aren't going to really address the core problem that made 3.5 an utter mess.

It is compounded with supplements.  Even if you got the core feats to work, every new supplement can interact with the entire existing body of feats.  Some problem with polymorph and monster manuals -- every creature has to be vetted for how it works with a very generic polymorph spell.  

Constraints are one way to solve this.  Another is to create a long list of classes and put the stuff into class lists to limit interaction.  

But bundles of feats and class mixing (prestige classes!) was just begging for there to be some pretty spectacular exploits.

Quote from: James Gillen;1029180I think that WW sorta painted themselves into a corner with saying the Apocalypse is going to happen any minute now.  But that's not the subject of the thread.

One thing fans of OWOD completely deliberately ignore is that unless a GM houseruled the end of the world out of the setting. The players can do NOTHING to stop it. Made even worse that it seemed every new book for the line seemed tied into the meta-plot one way or the other. NWOD is not a perfect system at least my character does not have to worry the world will end and it's pretty useless to try and stop it. Chaos Earth also has the same issue. No matter what the players do the world is essentially fucked over for at least 2-3 centuries. Most players I tried to get interested into trying to play it would rather play Rifts. At least their is some kind of hope. Before anyone says it yes some like a game without hope yes. Not when the entire setting has no hope and most would rather not play a prolonged session of Dante Inferno at a gaming table imo.

 

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10299995e is robust because it limits the interactions. Feats and multiclassing are optional rules, and they both come with steep penalties for overdoing them. Casters can have only one sustained effect at a time. Even then, players have found a few annoying exploits around feat/multiclass combinations that obviously weren't tested much. So the fact that Pathfinder 2 is doubling down on feats, feats, and more feats tells me they still don't understand principles of design very well and aren't going to really address the core problem that made 3.5 an utter mess.

That's what I like about the feat choices for 5E. Compare Alertness for PF1 and 5E. The first is not even worth a feat choice. The second to me is a must for a combat character imo.
It's not so much feats that bothered me so much the quality of the feats and feat taxes. Too many +1 feats or the ones that do give a better bonus either are too situational, a number of times per day or have too many requirements. I'm not sold yet on PF2 if they can at least fix the issues with Fighters and Wizards it would be a big selling point to me.

What I do think they should stop trying to hide because almost no one is fooled least of all the majority of their fans. Is them borrowing elements from 5E and then trying to think no one will notice. Most fans are too smart for it.

Quote from: sureshot;1030013What I do think they should stop trying to hide because almost no one is fooled least of all the majority of their fans. Is them borrowing elements from 5E and then trying to think no one will notice. Most fans are too smart for it.

I've learned never to assume that people are too smart for anything.

JG

Paizo will fix nothing that actually fucks over Pathfinder.

Paizo will suppress all useful criticism about that fact, as they did previously.

Paizo will have a bump, followed by a collosal crash, as they realize that doubling-down didn't work- but now it's too late, so restructuring will require sacrifices they don't want to make, and they will have to endure a wilderness period of about a decade or more before they can unfuck themselves with another edition change, and that assumes that their business paradigm will permit it.

They could go a different route, a leaner and meaner route that they should've gone years ago (and are in position to do now, still), but their leadership doesn't have the balls.

Does anyone know how "deadly" PF2 is supposed to be, what the dying, injuries and healing rules are. If it is quite deadly, and a simplified somewhat, I'd definitely check it out. If it is just as complex, or forgiving as 5e, then no.