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.

Quote from: JeremyR;1028500PF2 seems to be chasing people who don't like 3.5/PF and like 5e. Even if they aren't using 5e as a base, clearly all the 5e jargon they are using is not a coincidence.

I think they will get a short term burst of sales. But the people who like 5e and don't like PF will still prefer 5e. Meanwhile people who like 3.5/PF will probably not like PF2. Given how badly (and seemingly unpopular) Starfinder turned out, I have doubts that Paizo will be able to produce a great game. Or even a good one.

Adventure paths will probably sell. But I predict Paizo will start dual statting or publishing separate versions for 5e. Bestiaries are an interesting problem. Since PF2 won't be compatible with PF1, they're going to have to re-stat all the PF1 monsters.  Which means the bulk of the monsters in the bestiaries will likely be re-treads.  I mean, they have 6 books of monsters to convert. They'll likely drop some of the worse monsters and have new ones, but I have to think the new ones will be only 20%

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1030608One of the upsides of bounded accuracy is that monsters can remain relevant outside their CR bracket, so you do not need loads of monsters for every CR bracket. The problem with monster manuals and bestiary monsters is that they get repetitive. A lot of monsters are so similar they could easily be treated as variants of the same thing, if they are not outright upgraded versions of standard monsters. I would like it if variant monsters or reskins were more common or even typical of bestiaries.

For example, it would be easy to make an archetypal monster which lives in water ways and drowns people, then provide more specific variants like "kelpie" or "drowned ghost."

Quote from: kosmos1214;1030947Or you can list A section on A monster and list multiple state blocks of increasing power to take care of that and focus more on making each monster unique. Also lets A dm choose if they want A bunch of mooks or one or two bad asses for A fight.
But for some reason no one seems to want to bother doing that.

NOTE I am assuming bounded accuracy with the above statement.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031557Here's the question: is anyone actually going to switch from mostly playing 5e to mostly playing Pathfinder with this new edition? Are large numbers going to do that?

If not, that's it.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1031684Why does it have to be new gamers or gamers who leave D&D that the success hinges on?  There are plenty of people who buy more than on game line.  There are people who play more than one game line!  

I think it will work out alright.  Maybe not a roaring, unqualified success, but enough to keep it in print and supplements for a decent run.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031557Here's the question: is anyone actually going to switch from mostly playing 5e to mostly playing Pathfinder with this new edition? Are large numbers going to do that?

If not, that's it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031972Here's the problem: I suspect that Paizo, much like White Wolf before it, is a victim of its own success in that its business DEPENDS on maintaining a volume of sales that it can no longer maintain.  It's not enough for Paizo to 'have a decent run'.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031972Here's the problem: I suspect that Paizo, much like White Wolf before it, is a victim of its own success in that its business DEPENDS on maintaining a volume of sales that it can no longer maintain.  It's not enough for Paizo to 'have a decent run'.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1032030I think that is very true. They could have kept supporting PF1e forever. They had die-hard fans that would have bought 1e stuff forever.

But they couldn't maintain all their staff on that money forever.

So they are taking the 2e gamble in an effort to keep friends around the office.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1032028That is a problem and thank you for making a clear point of it.  

I hope that this will be mitigated somewhat by their storefront, any convention income and any success from Starfinder and their Adventure Card Game.  Though I do not understand how that last game is any fun from what I've seen of it and how the app plays.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;1032053When anyone with competent management skills would've already culled the dead weight from the office. That, right there, says enough about Paizo's management.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032374That's correct, but it's also very difficult for people to have that kind of vision.  When you reach the heights, it's hard to admit you're a has-been.

The way Paizo could survive and not eventually hit total collapse like White Wolf is if they not just fired some people but also restructured in a number of ways, to basically go from being a mega-competitor of WoTC's, to being a small-scale game publisher.  The resistance to accepting becoming small-scale will doom them to becoming a non-entity.