When your killer selling point is 'not 4E D&D' you’re in a world of hurt when D&D 5E proves to be a success. I'm sure Paizo will stick around for a long time (for their Adventure Path line if nothing else) but their days as a major player are pretty much over. Still a profitable business, however.

If just reinforces to me what a colossal fuckup that 4E was. Also the strength of the D&D brand that it can so swiftly recover from that colossal fuckup. Sadly for Paizo, you can't rely on your competitor handing you 4E opportunity every 5 years.

PF 2e will probably do ok, selling to a portion of their existing customer base, but I doubt will draw many players of 5e.

I'd like Paizo to make books of short adventures for 5e.  or books of 1 page dungeon style adventures for 5e.
Well, as long as they don't insert SJW politics into them.

But like I've said before, I have a lot of 5e books anyway, so I probably won't be buying any more 5e books either, as I'm good for years to come.
5e as is, is really solid and works for me. They did a great job with it, but I don't feel compelled to buy anymore 5e stuff and it's just good enough now.

Quote from: Fiasco;1032392When your killer selling point is not 4E D&D you're in a world of hurt when D&D 5E proves to be a success. I'm sure Paizo will stick around for a long time (for their Adventure Path line if nothing else) but their days as a major player are pretty much over. Still a profitable business, however.

If just reinforces to me what a colossal fuckup that 4E was. Also the strength of the D&D brand that it can so swiftly recover from that colossal fuckup. Sadly for Paizo, you cant rely on your competitor handing you 4E opportunity every 5 years.

Yes on all points. This certainly is not a situation where they're likely to fold tomorrow. What you'll probably see is a gradually-worsening decline over several years, like what happened with White Wolf.

Quote from: Fiasco;1032392When your killer selling point is 'not 4E D&D' you're in a world of hurt when D&D 5E proves to be a success. I'm sure Paizo will stick around for a long time (for their Adventure Path line if nothing else) but their days as a major player are pretty much over. Still a profitable business, however.

If just reinforces to me what a colossal fuckup that 4E was. Also the strength of the D&D brand that it can so swiftly recover from that colossal fuckup. Sadly for Paizo, you can't rely on your competitor handing you 4E opportunity every 5 years.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032880Yes on all points. This certainly is not a situation where they're likely to fold tomorrow. What you'll probably see is a gradually-worsening decline over several years, like what happened with White Wolf.

aka "gradually, then suddenly". I agree. This is the most likely outcome.

Another issue is that by pretending there exists a such thing as "the Pathfinder RPG" rather than "D&D 3.5 with some house rules," they are trying "keep the essence of what makes Pathfinder special." Well, by definition, that has to mean what makes Pathfinder different from D&D. During the 4e era, that meant "Things people like about every edition of D&D that 4e dumped." During the 5e era, that means, "Ideas original to 3.5 that have been discarded by 5e," and there are a lot of bad ideas in that pool.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1032987Another issue is that by pretending there exists a such thing as "the Pathfinder RPG" rather than "D&D 3.5 with some house rules," they are trying "keep the essence of what makes Pathfinder special." Well, by definition, that has to mean what makes Pathfinder different from D&D. During the 4e era, that meant "Things people like about every edition of D&D that 4e dumped." During the 5e era, that means, "Ideas original to 3.5 that have been discarded by 5e," and there are a lot of bad ideas in that pool.

Your analysis is brutal, but true.

They are making the same mistakes as WotC.

They should keep PF1e chugging along, keeping those fans happy.

PF2e should be called "Golarian's Mirror" or whatever where they can go crazy with new ideas and directions for their rules and setting, but selling it as a separate line to see what the reaction of fans will be.

D&D4e's sin was being called D&D instead of "Dungeon Slayer". Fans don't really want new editions. They want reprintings with some minor corrections, but then many won't buy it because they already own the earlier edition.

Publishers are kinda screwed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1033225They are making the same mistakes as WotC.

They should keep PF1e chugging along, keeping those fans happy.

PF2e should be called "Golarian's Mirror" or whatever where they can go crazy with new ideas and directions for their rules and setting, but selling it as a separate line to see what the reaction of fans will be.

D&D4e's sin was being called D&D instead of "Dungeon Slayer". Fans don't really want new editions. They want reprintings with some minor corrections, but then many won't buy it because they already own the earlier edition.

Publishers are kinda screwed.

You get it!  Oh, that my black, withered, ancient heart should once again beat with joy and vigor!

And when the cost of the "volumes of corrections" got to be more than I wanted to pay, I stopped buying.

There's no real reason PF1 couldn't have kept going.

They have a stable playerbase.
They have a large Organized Play following.
They have their Adventure Path model perfected.

What they should be doing is coming up with different worlds besides Golarion for players to run around in and some version of Spelljammer or Planescape to get them there.

Starfinder could have been the "Pathfinder 2.0" if they wanted to go crazy.

The only question now is, whether or not someone will step up and using the Pathfinder SRD, do a Paizo on Paizo.

I picked doomed, because Paizo isn't showing me that they know what their strength is.  They've always kicked ass supporting someone else's designed game system by splatmastering the hell out of it and providing a bajillion campaign adventures in a D&D-genre world.

They are trying to rules design themselves out of their 5e problem, and it isn't going to work.

Rule 1 should be: "No matter what we do, we have to keep PF1 people."

It is possible their stats show them hemorrhaging players to 5e, but they have to realize that a lot of those players really were only temporary.  They were Pathfinder players because there was no D&D to play, only some weird simulacrum with the title slapped on.

I can understand them wanting to have a product that people who prefer 5e will also play, but if they do that by firing their most loyal fans, I just can't see it going well.

I think they should have tried to Paizo 5e and not call that game Pathfinder.

Do an extensive rewrite of 5e or offer splat material that has some alternative core rules. Let the new system have rules the DM uses for skill/save DCs and it's own Bestiary that allows for their  current APs to be ran in a 5e like system.

Then keep supporting Pathfinder.

I initially liked 5e, my biggest problem with the skill system is that it's effective lack and the general lack of balancing abilities outside of encounters created far too weak a system that bust far too easily without lots of DM Fiat.
Going back through 5e, adding non-combat crunch, balance all that together, and create monsters that are more equivalent to PCs, would create a game I have far less problems with.
I need a Pitfiend fighting 7 level 9s to not be a medium encounter according to the DMG. He needs tools to make that impossible. If he had something as minor as invisibility, or dispel magic, our tactic would have failed.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033316I need a Pitfiend fighting 7 level 9s to not be a medium encounter according to the DMG. He needs tools to make that impossible. If he had something as minor as invisibility

Wizard 1: Counterspell!

Quote, or dispel magic

Wizard 2: Counterspell!

Quoteour tactic would have failed.

Any solo monster relying on magic at all will go down quickly to a large group that includes casters.

The pit fiend's key power is that he's a general in hell's armies.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1033320Wizard 1: Counterspell!



Wizard 2: Counterspell!



Any solo monster relying on magic at all will go down quickly to a large group that includes casters.

The pit fiend's key power is that he's a general in hell's armies.

Sigh you are right. The problems with 5e are far more extensive than just adding a few more abilities to monsters.

"Pit fiend's key power is DM fiat" pff OK, exactly the problem with the edition.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1033225Fans don't really want new editions. They want reprintings with some minor corrections, but then many won't buy it because they already own the earlier edition.

Customers don't want to re-buy durable goods. Ever. They re-buy them either when the existing one wears out or technology has so surpassed what they have that it just seems like garbage. I still use my 10-year-old 32" 1080p LCD television in one of the bedrooms because it still works and as far as I care, 4K isn't so much better as to justify throwing it away (I threw away a 20" 480i CRT when I bought this).

What people want when it comes to games is that when your old rulebook is falling apart, you can replace it, not buy a brand-new game that has the same name but is otherwise almost completely incompatible. Or when you go join someone else's group, you don't have to learn a whole new system and all its intricacies because the DM bought his rule books 4 years after you bought yours. Sure, a couple numbers might change here or there, and this or that spell might have been tweaked, but you don't want to show up and find that the whole concept of "Fighter" has been completely revised or that sneaking up on a bugbear and shanking him no longer works anything like it used to. Whatever other mistakes TSR made, this was true from 1974 through 1999.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033330"Pit fiend's key power is DM fiat"

Who exactly do you think decides how many monsters you face?

QuoteOK, exactly the problem with the edition.

It's not like 7 9th-level heroes would be completely unable to handle a lone 14-HD monster in AD&D. I'm not sure what you're even complaining about at this point. I mean, if your DM wanted to kill you all with a Pit Fiend, it would be trivially easy. He set it up so that you could do it, and you're blaming the system. But if he'd done something reasonable in-game, i.e. had the Pit Fiend fly 100 feet above you and rain down fireballs, you'd be complaining your DM basically TPK'd you by fiat.