Quote from: Doom;1028610I reckon they'll reduce the hit die of the fighter to d8, to make it more balanced.

That's really what it comes down to. Paizo isn't much good at writing rules. They're writing a whole bunch of new rules for PF2. This will not turn out well.

The core book will sell well and then the game will continue to slowly fade away. Flushing a whole bunch of money down the Pathfinder Online toilet didn't help matters any.

Quote from: Daztur;1030375Paizo isn't much good at writing rules. They're writing a whole bunch of new rules for PF2. This will not turn out well.

Yes. I think the less they are piggybacking on 3e (or 5e) the worse it will get.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1030367Does 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.

They're trying to make the game less lethal, especially at 1st level. You start with a lot more hp at level 1. I think the 1st-level paladin they were starting with in the playtest had 17 hp. Casters get 6 hp/level, clerics get 8, and it sounds like warriors get 10. Everything is going to be more complicated than 5e.

Do we actually have any concrete proof it will be more complicated than 5E. Or are assumptions being made thsf it will be simply because it's PF.

Quote from: sureshot;1030389Do we actually have any concrete proof it will be more complicated than 5E. Or are assumptions being made thsf it will be simply because it's PF.

They've given us a lot of information about how the new action economy works, the casting system, and class building. It's quite a bit more complex than 5e on all fronts.

Quote from: sureshot;1030389Do we actually have any concrete proof it will be more complicated than 5E. Or are assumptions being made thsf it will be simply because it's PF.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1030390They've given us a lot of information about how the new action economy works, the casting system, and class building. It's quite a bit more complex than 5e on all fronts.

Which is probably the way for them to go.  People aren't unhappy with 5e so that they'd switch over to a similar game in droves.  Pathfinder does and should keep trying to appeal to the crowd that likes crunch & character building.  There are definitely places which should be streamlined without losing anything, but I don't think they would be well served by overdoing it either.

I like the fact they are sticking to the system's roots and are keeping in the super-hero-dnd-after-level-15 element.
We don't need another old schoolish dnd version we already have 5e and a plethora of systems for that.
They also are trying to fix the clw problem, the martial characters can't compete with spellcasters problem and this is admirable in my book, these are problems that have plagued 3rd edition (mind you not other older editions of dnd so much) for quite some time and this shows they are aware of them and trying to fix them.
They also seem to have an awareness of the scaling problems in dnd 3.0 and are trying to fix those too. (Dnd 3.0 every level counts much much more than in older editions so variance in CR is much more like to utterly destroy the party and also certain numbers go a bit too out of wack at high levels.)
In general I like what I am seeing and I have faith in certain developers like Mark Seifter.

All that said the problem with complex rpg's is that its very difficult to predict what going to happen once the tire hits the road. Pathfinder 2.0, even if streamlined and easier to play, will be complex enough that I doubt that paizo despite having many talented people will manage to avoid big pitfalls, but we shall see...

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1030381They're trying to make the game less lethal, especially at 1st level. You start with a lot more hp at level 1. I think the 1st-level paladin they were starting with in the playtest had 17 hp. Casters get 6 hp/level, clerics get 8, and it sounds like warriors get 10. Everything is going to be more complicated than 5e.

This can have counter-productive elements.  One thing that is very odd in late stage D&D is that a spell is potentially a lot more lethal than a sword.  With a save or die style spell, one die roll can finish on opponent (finger of death) or disable them (hold person).  Adding more hit points makes melee and missle attacks less lethal, which I suspect drives caster preferences.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1030367Does 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.

    There are no negative hit points - if you take damage equal or greater than your HP, you go down to 0 HP and get the Dying 1 condition.
    If a crit knocks you to 0, you gain Dying 2 instead of Dying 1.
    Each round, you must make a save to stabilize. The save DC is based off the enemy - a boss may have a higher death DC than a mook, so you are more likely to be killed by bosses.
    If you reach Dying 4, then you are dead.
    If you make the stabilize check, you gain a hit point, but are still Dying. If you make another save at 1 HP, you are no longer Dying, and you regain consciousness.
    If an ally heals you while you are Dying, you still have the Dying condition, even though you have positive HP. You still need to make a stabilize check to regain consciousness. But, once your HP is positive, you are no longer at danger of death from failing your checks - failing a stabilize check just means you stay unconscious.
    The Stabilize cantrip puts you at 1 HP.

Quote from: sureshot;1030389Do we actually have any concrete proof it will be more complicated than 5E. Or are assumptions being made thsf it will be simply because it's PF.

See my last post.

Quote from: jadrax;1030435There are no negative hit points - if you take damage equal or greater than your HP, you go down to 0 HP and get the Dying 1 condition.
    If a crit knocks you to 0, you gain Dying 2 instead of Dying 1.
    Each round, you must make a save to stabilize. The save DC is based off the enemy - a boss may have a higher death DC than a mook, so you are more likely to be killed by bosses.
    If you reach Dying 4, then you are dead.
    If you make the stabilize check, you gain a hit point, but are still Dying. If you make another save at 1 HP, you are no longer Dying, and you regain consciousness.
    If an ally heals you while you are Dying, you still have the Dying condition, even though you have positive HP. You still need to make a stabilize check to regain consciousness. But, once your HP is positive, you are no longer at danger of death from failing your checks - failing a stabilize check just means you stay unconscious.
    The Stabilize cantrip puts you at 1 HP.

So it's basically a pointlessly complicated version of the 4e/5e death saving throw mechanic.

The 5e PHB was in the low-80s for "All books" ranking on Amazon before.

Paizo announced they were ending PF1 and bringing out PF2.

The 5e PHB went to #1 for "All books" ranking on Amazon very shortly after that announcement by Paizo and stayed like that for that weekend (it's now back down to #61 overall).

These two facts (both true) are very likely not related to each other. But I think it's fun to mention them together anyway

Here is the sales chart. It's that tiny spike up at the upper right side. And for what it is worth, the big downward spikes on the left side are times when the book sold out and went offline at Amazon.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1030394Which is probably the way for them to go.  People aren't unhappy with 5e so that they'd switch over to a similar game in droves.  Pathfinder does and should keep trying to appeal to the crowd that likes crunch & character building.  There are definitely places which should be streamlined without losing anything, but I don't think they would be well served by overdoing it either.

They have to hit a sweet spot between keeping the crunch that people like me love (and that 5E deliberately moved away from) and going so far into it that it alienates newbies (who find 5E easier to learn).  It's possible, but I gather that people here aren't confident.

JG

Quote from: jadrax;1030435There are no negative hit points - if you take damage equal or greater than your HP, you go down to 0 HP and get the Dying 1 condition.
    If a crit knocks you to 0, you gain Dying 2 instead of Dying 1.
    Each round, you must make a save to stabilize. The save DC is based off the enemy - a boss may have a higher death DC than a mook, so you are more likely to be killed by bosses.
    If you reach Dying 4, then you are dead.
    If you make the stabilize check, you gain a hit point, but are still Dying. If you make another save at 1 HP, you are no longer Dying, and you regain consciousness.
    If an ally heals you while you are Dying, you still have the Dying condition, even though you have positive HP. You still need to make a stabilize check to regain consciousness. But, once your HP is positive, you are no longer at danger of death from failing your checks - failing a stabilize check just means you stay unconscious.
    The Stabilize cantrip puts you at 1 HP.

That actually sounds like the "three saves or death" principle of latter-day D&D, just expressed more awkwardly.

JG

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1030445So it's basically a pointlessly complicated version of the 4e/5e death saving throw mechanic.

Sorry, didn't see this part.

Quote from: James Gillen;1030474They have to hit a sweet spot between keeping the crunch that people like me love (and that 5E deliberately moved away from) and going so far into it that it alienates newbies (who find 5E easier to learn).  It's possible, but I gather that people here aren't confident.

JG

I'm a bit dubious - it's a tightrope.  But most people here seem think that Paizo's best strategy is either to join the OSR or fire 1/2 of their employees and go back to making modules.