TheRPGSite

Countdown to Pathfinder 2 begins:  Only 23 days to go before Gen Con 2019 and the release of Pathfinder 2.

What is the most exciting thing that you are looking foward to?

For me it is the opening up of the action economy.  No more full, standard, move, swift or immediate actions the perfect socialist action world.

And of course having a fully woke character sheet with a space where I can write my characters pronouns is just the cherry on the proverbial cake.


Edit: It is now the future and Pathfinder 2 has arrived.  So what are people that have read it saying about it?

Reviews

Know Direction (https://youtu.be/dqk6CDa6SgE)

Dungeon Musings (https://youtu.be/HeL2kATm0Gc)

Complexity vs. Depth -- A Look Inside Pathfinder 2nd Edition (https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?661125-Complexity-vs-Depth-A-Look-Inside-Pathfinder-2nd-Edition)

It's Finally Here! The Pathfinder 2E Review (https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?661199-It-s-Finally-Here!-The-Pathfinder-2E-Review)

Pathfinder 2e is the first game to be awarded the Polygon Recommends Badge (https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2019/8/1/20727563/pathfinder-2e-review-second-edition)

Jeff McAleer (Gaming Gang) - Pathfinder Second Edition Core Book - Review and Page Through (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yy162h5qek)

Drop Lowest - Review Pathfinder 2e (https://droplowest.com/2019/08/01/review-pathfinder-2e/)

Conanist did a Pathfinder 2e review (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40977-Pathfinder-2E-Review).

Play Reports

Danbala - So I ran 2e for the First Time (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time)

I am looking forward to the bankruptcy of Paizo for this costly mistake.

If we could keep this thread to discussing the release of the upcoming Pathfinder 2.

I am.  I also firmly believe Pathfinder 2 is going to be a major failure that will bring out hard times for Paizo, or kill it.

I think it will find an audience since it doesn't have the baggage of the D&D name.

I like the idea of better customization than 5e. I'm most interested to see how consistent they made the whole game. Like, how many sub-systems per class does a DM have to remember (or not)?

The play-test didn't really inspire me. So, I'm eager to see how they tuned it up in the final product.

Know Direction 201 – The Road to Pathfinder 2E (http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2019/06/know-direction-201-the-road-to-pathfinder-2e/) with Jason Bulmahn and Logan Bonner.

[video=youtube_share;Xl4TgIA9PXY]https://youtu.be/Xl4TgIA9PXY[/youtube]

Know Direction 202 – The Road to Pathfinder 2e Part 2 (http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2019/07/know-direction-202-the-road-to-pathfinder-2e-part-2/) with Jason Bulmahn and Stephen Radney-Macfarland.

[video=youtube_share;UqwiSMy5en4]https://youtu.be/UqwiSMy5en4[/youtube]

Quote from: Shasarak;1094925What is the most exciting thing that you are looking foward to?

More characters with danger hair.

The playtest wasn't an awful game, it just moved away from the parts people liked about PF1 and double downed on unique but less interesting elements of PF1 (balance, fiddly math feats, fiddly customization).

What I found a lack of was cool abilities. And by cool abilities, I mean things useful outside of combat. I think you have to be a level 10 or 11 druid before you can wildshape for an hour rather than minutes. Hopefully when they go through to add "fluff" the "fluff" adds mechanics. For example, in Stars Without Number, I believe the artifact Colonial Arms weapon series is just flat to-hit and damage, but the fluff says that they are self repairing weapons. That last bit is cool, useful, and has nothing to do with combat.

If Paizo really did go through and add a bunch of "cool shit" to boring math abilities, then that could save the game. I don't expect we will see a drastic re-work of the fundamentals since the close of the play test, but they did promise adding more "fluff".

I want PF2e to be good, but Paizo has been historically terrible at making "cool shit" via fluff.

Their own audience doesn't want this game.  Out of curiosity, I had popped into the Pathfinder 2 playtest threads, and there were several posts that said "this game is terrible, my group and I are out."   These are groups invested enough in Pathfinder to post on their boards and playtest another edition--- and they thought it stunk.  General RPG audiences will not buy this game.  I think Paizo is likely going down with this.

Quote from: zagreus;1095053General RPG audiences will not buy this game.  I think Paizo is likely going down with this.

I think you're right. Most general customers will be looking for "D&D" when going into a game store to buy. They might see Pathfinder books near the same shelf. But "Pathfinder" would mean what to them?

Most Pathfinder groups in my area switched to 5th edition when it released, many of the holdouts are talking about switching to 5th with the impending debut of Pathfinder 2nd edition. I suspect Paizo is going to kill what momentum it had left.

I'm willing to believe that PF2E could be successful, due to the unpredictable nature of consumers.

It could happen.  It also may not.  There is a big hill there, waiting to be climbed.  We'll see.

I did ask you guys nicely to try to stick on topic about Pathfinder 2 and since you can not help yourselves I give you this:

The great Paizo bitch fest (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40844-The-End-of-an-Era)

Come on in, no grapes are too sour, no feud is too petty, no family is too inbred.  You know you want to.

Now release the Grog!

Quote from: Rhedyn;1094981The playtest wasn't an awful game, it just moved away from the parts people liked about PF1 and double downed on unique but less interesting elements of PF1 (balance, fiddly math feats, fiddly customization).

What I found a lack of was cool abilities. And by cool abilities, I mean things useful outside of combat. I think you have to be a level 10 or 11 druid before you can wildshape for an hour rather than minutes. Hopefully when they go through to add "fluff" the "fluff" adds mechanics. For example, in Stars Without Number, I believe the artifact Colonial Arms weapon series is just flat to-hit and damage, but the fluff says that they are self repairing weapons. That last bit is cool, useful, and has nothing to do with combat.

If Paizo really did go through and add a bunch of "cool shit" to boring math abilities, then that could save the game. I don't expect we will see a drastic re-work of the fundamentals since the close of the play test, but they did promise adding more "fluff".

Abilities useful out of combat you say. (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgrk?The-Plays-the-Thing)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3588[/ATTACH]

Now you can get your Underwater Basket Weave on, the way that you always used to before SJWs tried to make out how lame it was.  

Quote from: Rhedyn;1094981I want PF2e to be good, but Paizo has been historically terrible at making "cool shit" via fluff.

I dont know about that, lets take Sotrm Flash as a random example, seems pretty cool:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3589[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Shasarak;1095071Abilities useful out of combat you say. (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgrk?The-Plays-the-Thing)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3588[/ATTACH]

Now you can get your Underwater Basket Weave on, the way that you always used to before SJWs tried to make out how lame it was.  




I dont know about that, lets take Sotrm Flash as a random example, seems pretty cool:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3589[/ATTACH]

The abilities out of combat list is pretty lame, but I will admit that the magic item has cool flavor.

I didn't get to the magic items in my read through of the play test because I found the abilities too lame to bother with. Also you level out of magic items being useful so it kind of sucks for your "cool shit" to be tied to magic items in this kind of system that expects you to have "appropriate level" magic items.

I burnt my fingers on the playtest badly and therefore won't be buying 2e unless I see some very convincing reviews.

TBH the three actions per round system is solid, gotta give it that.

I've never been a fan of D&D3.x or Pathfinder. 5E is a game that works for me. However, there are times when I want a few more options for PCs. A little more zest in combat. So I plan to pick up Pathfinder 2E and take it for a spin. Things that excite me:

The 3-action economy. I like how it presents choices each round besides spamming your best attack.

Standardized skills. I dislike the fiddliness of point-buy skills, and the Untrained, Trained, Skilled, Expert, Mastery system looks like a good streamlining.

Critical fails and success. I've always liked systems that feature degrees of success, rather than the binary fail/succeed of D&D.

They made AoO much less common. Always hated that feature of 3.x/Pathfinder. Hopefully this will mean more movement in combat.

Streamlined feats. I like how feats are grouped into class, race, and general. Seems an improvement on the daunting laundry-list of open feats from PF1.

Death and dying. Death and dying aren't binary, as they are in D&D. My number one house rule in D&D has been to add some kind of wound condition, and it looks like PF2 provides that.

Monster abilities. Combat in 5E can be a generic grind, with many monsters acting as little more than huge sacks of HP. The move to give every monster some kind of special trait or tactical ability should spice up combat.

Basically, I'm square in the market Paizo seems to be aiming at - experienced RPGers who want a few more widgets and tactical heft than 5E offers but who found PF1 too cludgey and fiddly.

Quote from: Haffrung;1095121I've never been a fan of D&D3.x or Pathfinder. 5E is a game that works for me. However, there are times when I want a few more options for PCs. A little more zest in combat. So I plan to pick up Pathfinder 2E and take it for a spin. Things that excite me:

The 3-action economy. I like how it presents choices each round besides spamming your best attack.

Standardized skills. I dislike the fiddliness of point-buy skills, and the Untrained, Trained, Skilled, Expert, Mastery system looks like a good streamlining.

Critical fails and success. I've always liked systems that feature degrees of success, rather than the binary fail/succeed of D&D.

They made AoO much less common. Always hated that feature of 3.x/Pathfinder. Hopefully this will mean more movement in combat.

Streamlined feats. I like how feats are grouped into class, race, and general. Seems an improvement on the daunting laundry-list of open feats from PF1.

Death and dying. Death and dying aren't binary, as they are in D&D. My number one house rule in D&D has been to add some kind of wound condition, and it looks like PF2 provides that.

Monster abilities. Combat in 5E can be a generic grind, with many monsters acting as little more than huge sacks of HP. The move to give every monster some kind of special trait or tactical ability should spice up combat.

Basically, I'm square in the market Paizo seems to be aiming at - experienced RPGers who want a few more widgets and tactical heft than 5E offers but who found PF1 too cludgey and fiddly.

It's UTEML:
Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary.

Quote from: zagreus;1095053Their own audience doesn't want this game.  Out of curiosity, I had popped into the Pathfinder 2 playtest threads, and there were several posts that said "this game is terrible, my group and I are out."   These are groups invested enough in Pathfinder to post on their boards and playtest another edition--- and they thought it stunk.  General RPG audiences will not buy this game.  I think Paizo is likely going down with this.

This, is their biggest problem of all.  It's like D&D 4th Edition, all over again; with hindsight of how that worked out for WOTC.  This is a self inflicted wound.

I think the biggest deal when it comes to the success or failure of the game is going to be the free online resources.  The whole game is going to be free at launch, not in the 5e basic stripped down sort of free, but everything aside from adventures.

Sure, you can buy the books or PDFs if you want the resources, but it doesn't look like you'll have to.

So for better or worse, the game will be accessible without a paywall.  If it is good then people might play it and increase the audience, but if it is bad then it is out in the open for all to see and it will be dragged through the mud.

Organized play might also help with that, but organized play is a mixed bag at best.  It at least means that some actual gameplay is going to happen early on and we are likely to get a lot of volume at Gencon.

I'm hopeful for many of the same reasons as Haffrung already mentioned.

The playtest threads are largely dumpster fires to be sure and I almost wrote off the whole thing because of them.  However, the actual 2nd edition forum is mainly constrictive and has optimism ranging mostly from cautious to enthusiastic.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1095159The playtest threads are largely dumpster fires to be sure and I almost wrote off the whole thing because of them.  However, the actual 2nd edition forum is mainly constrictive and has optimism ranging mostly from cautious to enthusiastic.

Paizo forums are heavily curated and cleansed. The playtest threads are that much of a dumpster fire AFTER much pruning.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1095094The abilities out of combat list is pretty lame, but I will admit that the magic item has cool flavor.

I didn't get to the magic items in my read through of the play test because I found the abilities too lame to bother with. Also you level out of magic items being useful so it kind of sucks for your "cool shit" to be tied to magic items in this kind of system that expects you to have "appropriate level" magic items.

It looks like Paizo has done a Wotc and cut back the pluses on magic items.  You can see that Storm Flash is a level 14 item but only gives you a +2 which means that you can expect your items to stay relevant for a lot longer then in PF1

Gamers are very lazy and many rather than convert over to 3.5. decided to switch over to Pathfinder 1E completely. For some I can see the same. PF 1E pretty much nearly killed off all 3.5. gaming in my area.

Will it do the same for PF 1E I don't know. Gamers also need to thinking that because they hate something EVERYONE will. As for posters claiming to see continuous playtest threads where those participating in them are saying the game is terrible and will not buy it. Either Paizo is making an effort to take down those threads or they are simply not as many as they are claiming. Unlike many gamers here many can and will (GASP) play both. If I was not tired of the new edition train and more interested in the newer Pazio material i might be one of them.

I am far from a 2E PF and will probably not buy it. What will hurt them is the lost of the current version of Herolab where you pay for what you need and it is yours. Instead they are now switching over to a monthly subscription. Which I know has angered many fans such as myself and many in my gaming group. We all enjoy Pathfinder not enough to pay monthly subscription for Herolab. Last I heard they are also no longer offering a free SRD at least on their end and through 3pp. Though don't quote me on that part. It is also not helped is that many of the new rules such as the three step action economy are already in print with PF Unchained. So less of a reason for many to switch over.

As for monsters having something unique to do it was never the issue for myself in PF 1E many did have unique attacks it was the monster surviving long enough to pull it off.

At this point it can go either way imo.

Quote from: Haffrung;1095121I've never been a fan of D&D3.x or Pathfinder. 5E is a game that works for me. However, there are times when I want a few more options for PCs. A little more zest in combat. So I plan to pick up Pathfinder 2E and take it for a spin. Things that excite me:

The 3-action economy. I like how it presents choices each round besides spamming your best attack.

Standardized skills. I dislike the fiddliness of point-buy skills, and the Untrained, Trained, Skilled, Expert, Mastery system looks like a good streamlining.

Critical fails and success. I've always liked systems that feature degrees of success, rather than the binary fail/succeed of D&D.

They made AoO much less common. Always hated that feature of 3.x/Pathfinder. Hopefully this will mean more movement in combat.

Streamlined feats. I like how feats are grouped into class, race, and general. Seems an improvement on the daunting laundry-list of open feats from PF1.

Death and dying. Death and dying aren't binary, as they are in D&D. My number one house rule in D&D has been to add some kind of wound condition, and it looks like PF2 provides that.

Monster abilities. Combat in 5E can be a generic grind, with many monsters acting as little more than huge sacks of HP. The move to give every monster some kind of special trait or tactical ability should spice up combat.

Basically, I'm square in the market Paizo seems to be aiming at - experienced RPGers who want a few more widgets and tactical heft than 5E offers but who found PF1 too cludgey and fiddly.

That is a nice list of stuff there Haffrung.  

The critical success/failure system also looked good in principal in the playtest but somewhat underdeveloped as far as I could see.  Hopefully that is something that can be fleshed out in PF2.

Quote from: sureshot;1095179Gamers are very lazy and many rather than convert over to 3.5. decided to switch over to Pathfinder 1E completely. For some I can see the same. PF 1E pretty much nearly killed off all 3.5. gaming in my area.

Will it do the same for PF 1E I don't know. Gamers also need to thinking that because they hate something EVERYONE will. As for posters claiming to see continuous playtest threads where those participating in them are saying the game is terrible and will not buy it. Either Paizo is making an effort to take down those threads or they are simply not as many as they are claiming. Unlike many gamers here many can and will (GASP) play both. If I was not tired of the new edition train and more interested in the newer Pazio material i might be one of them.

I am far from a 2E PF and will probably not buy it. What will hurt them is the lost of the current version of Herolab where you pay for what you need and it is yours. Instead they are now switching over to a monthly subscription. Which I know has angered many fans such as myself and many in my gaming group. We all enjoy Pathfinder not enough to pay monthly subscription for Herolab. Last I heard they are also no longer offering a free SRD at least on their end and through 3pp. Though don't quote me on that part. It is also not helped is that many of the new rules such as the three step action economy are already in print with PF Unchained. So less of a reason for many to switch over.

As for monsters having something unique to do it was never the issue for myself in PF 1E many did have unique attacks it was the monster surviving long enough to pull it off.

At this point it can go either way imo.

I think you are right sureshot, you do not seem like a gamer that changes systems with every new hotness that comes on the market.  And I am sure that there are many people that are in the middle of one campaign or another that just dont want to change course mid stream.

Nothing wrong with holding off and getting into a system when it has a proven track record behind it.

Between 10-20 years ago I would have. With getting older and hopefully wiser I can't justify it personally and on a financial level. It's not to say I won't as I am interested in Torg Eternity and Shadowrun 6.

Quote from: sureshot;1095205Between 10-20 years ago I would have. With getting older and hopefully wiser I can't justify it personally and on a financial level. It's not to say I won't as I am interested in Torg Eternity and Shadowrun 6.

Yeah I know.  20 years ago you have plenty of time but no money and now plenty of money and no time. I used to love Shadowrun back in the day but who has time for new funky systems now when the d20 system just does what you want.

I am deeply disturbed by the DC 33 of the Stormflash.  At 14th level, to have a chance to succeed, you need a +13 bonus, but it sounds like a +23 bonus has to be more likely.  Probably a +28 bonus for classes (like Rogue) that are good at dodging Lightning Bolts.  

It sounds like they could compress their numbers a fair bit.

Quote from: Shasarak;1095209Yeah I know.  20 years ago you have plenty of time but no money and now plenty of money and no time. I used to love Shadowrun back in the day but who has time for new funky systems now when the d20 system just does what you want.

I swore never to play or buy PF 1E and next to 5E it is the rpg I play the most. So a person attitudes and feelings towards an rpg can change over time. I hated the system in Shadowrun 1E to 3E found that 4E was a good step in the right direction imo. 5E was good as well just horribly edited and over complex with 6E I hope it will be better. Torg next to Torg Eternity I have heard good things and may get that even then more PDF than print as being a Canadian it can cost between 65-890$ for a core rule book because of the terrible state of our dollar. Given I might not play the rpg i seems wise to just get the PDf. I like what they did with Star Trek adventures though the system is not the greatest imo and not something I may want to run at least for now so I buy in PDF

What will help Paizo sales and what some of those who are overly negative are forgetting about that beyond a few PF 1E hardcovers such as the Inner Sea series of books and others who have tie ins to Golarion. Most of the PF 1E material will be available in pocket editions. If I was not lucky enough to get 10 PF 1E hardcover books at a good price from a used seller from Kijiji I would be buying the pocket editions. I wonder if the seller stole them from a gaming store as beyond him not using them they all have the brand new book smell.

Either way unlike WOTC who did not make their 3E books available at the time even in PDF Paizo is publishing the pocket editions so they have a second stream of incoming that comes in from those sales. As well unless this changes after the release of PF 2E the smaller sourcebooks for as long as print stocks last. Even then they can get money with PDF versions of most of their products. As well unless the Paizo devs are lying to the fans according to them they make the most of their money from the sales of their APs.

Then again I could be wrong and PF 2E will cause Paizo to fail though I don't think so and more importantly nowhere near as fast as some imagine. Unlike some here who forget that Paizo sells more than just PF material they are also trying to release 5E material. They had to take a risk and another recycled, rehash of 3E was not the way to go imo especially with 5E taking away their sales. Though for a company releasing a new edition they should imo be releasing some of their old PF 1E material at discounted prices now rather than later. Maybe that will change as we get closer to the release date of PF 2E.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1095232I am deeply disturbed by the DC 33 of the Stormflash.  At 14th level, to have a chance to succeed, you need a +13 bonus, but it sounds like a +23 bonus has to be more likely.  Probably a +28 bonus for classes (like Rogue) that are good at dodging Lightning Bolts.  

It sounds like they could compress their numbers a fair bit.

You get a +1 for each level so a 14th level character is getting a base +14 to start.

There has been a few more updates on Pathfinder 2.

This one seems interesting: Adventure Marches On (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgrx?Adventure-Marches-On)

Looks like you get maximum hit points every level which seems nice until you realise that you are probably going to be taking a few more hits.

There are a lot of choices to make every level with feats falling like rain so that is a plus for those of us that prefer a thinking mans DnD.

Honestly not sure how much I like this jargon they are adding, Strike, Press, Flourish, Frightened condition 1, 2, 3.  Sounds like I will need a cheat sheet printed out to save paging back and forth through this 600 page tome.

Quote from: Shasarak;1096314There are a lot of choices to make every level with feats falling like rain so that is a plus for those of us that prefer a thinking mans DnD.

OH good lord. Some day you may figure out it means the opposite. It means stuff you could have thought up for a given situation in-game is instead hamfistedly put into feat rules, disallowing role playing it that way on the fly during the game for anyone in an appropriate situation. It's video-gaming RPGs to have feats falling like rain...the opposite of a thinking mans DnD.

Quote from: Mistwell;1096315OH good lord. Some day you may figure out it means the opposite. It means stuff you could have thought up for a given situation in-game is instead hamfistedly put into feat rules, disallowing role playing it that way on the fly during the game for anyone in an appropriate situation. It's video-gaming RPGs to have feats falling like rain...the opposite of a thinking mans DnD.

Its OK for you to prefer other people to make the choices for your character.  Just relax and let someone else decide.

Quote from: Shasarak;1096317Its OK for you to prefer other people to make the choices for your character.  Just relax and let someone else decide.

What you just described is exactly what feats do. It tells you what you may do, but only with that feat, and exactly how it has to work. So if someone without that feat wants to try that same thing, they cannot because they don't have the feat. You're letting the game designer make the choice for you, rather than thinking through the situation and coming up with the idea on your own on how you want to do something and what you want to do. A thinking mans DnD isn't being spoon fed cool powerz from the book and others not being able to try those things if they didn't take that cool power.

I am listening to Mark Seifter and Linda Zayas-Palmer on Know Directions Twitch stream so dont take this as confirmed, I thought I heard them say that you start with a hero point each session.

That looks like it maps to the Playtest version.  The bonuses were a little anemic in the Playtest so interesting to see if that changes at all.

Skills:

The example Fighter Kaliban starts with 9 skills  Acrobatics, Athletics, Crafting, Desert Lore, Intimidation, Nature, Society, Stealth, and Survival.

I presume that at least 2 of them could be because of his 14 Int and 2 from his background and maybe another 2 if he took the Skilled human ancestry feat.  That means that base Fighter class gives you 3 (as per Playtest)

At level 2  he picks up training in Arcana thanks to his Wizard multiclass feat.

That does look like a significant amount of skills especially for a Fighter (a class that traditionally gets shafted when it comes to Skills) and also a number of non Fighter skills.  On the other hand he did make a significant investment in Attribute score and ancestry feat to get an extra 4 skills

Level 3: Skill increase

So you can choose to improve one of your trained skills to Expert or learn a totally new skill.  Hopefully this allows you to pick your own choice of what skills you can become Legendary at rather then the Playtest version that pushes Signature skills but that was Level 7 in the Playtest.


I think on balance this version of skills is an improvement over the original.

Quote from: Mistwell;1096315OH good lord. Some day you may figure out it means the opposite. It means stuff you could have thought up for a given situation in-game is instead hamfistedly put into feat rules, disallowing role playing it that way on the fly during the game for anyone in an appropriate situation. It's video-gaming RPGs to have feats falling like rain...the opposite of a thinking mans DnD.

Also unless a crunchy ruleset is very well put together the "thinking" is just reading and online guide and choosing the good options and avoiding the bad ones after the community reaches a consensus. Not much thinking there, or much thinking in choosing options based on which sounds the most fun/in-character and ending up with a character that's a lot weaker than the rest of the party. Even if you do a lot of good thinking and set up a good character you might end up with a one trick pony and having a big hammer that treats everything it meets as a nail isn't really about thinking too much in play either.

Quote from: Daztur;1096327Also unless a crunchy ruleset is very well put together the "thinking" is just reading and online guide and choosing the good options and avoiding the bad ones after the community reaches a consensus. Not much thinking there, or much thinking in choosing options based on which sounds the most fun/in-character and ending up with a character that's a lot weaker than the rest of the party. Even if you do a lot of good thinking and set up a good character you might end up with a one trick pony and having a big hammer that treats everything it meets as a nail isn't really about thinking too much in play either.

If your example of a thinking man is someone who copies someone else and ends up with a one trick pony then maybe that word does not mean what you think it means.

I may wait and see what the reviews are for PF2 though still not sure if I will buy it. It is weird I think I'm going through what I call my rpg settling phase if that is even the right terminology. With D&D I just find myself either reading mostly PF 1E with looking through some 1E and 2E D&D. I barely have looked through my 5E books in like months. PF 1E has many flaws yet I think I'm coming to terms with them. Being older and hopefully wiser it is just harder and harder to justify buying more and more rpgs even in PDF format if all they do is take up space either on a shelf or digitally. I'm also not that interested in what WoTC has been releasing for 5E in terms of sourcebooks.

From what I can see from Pathfinder Unchained much of what they included in that book made it into PF 2E and I like most of what was in that book. So maybe I will get it after all. Though I will wait a few months unlike PF 1E which I bought they day it arrived my FLGS. I want to make sure the binding is solid on the core. As I have seen more than one PF 1E core post first printing have binding issues. Good idea in principle just no real good reason at least with PF 2E to not split the books into a PHB and DMG imo.

I lost all interest in the playtest when it became apparent that anything can change, also I felt bored with reading new rules.
I remember reading from Jason Bulhman that he prefers gradual changes to revamps of the system and now they are doing a complete system overhaul.

All that said I remember people being pretty negative about 5e edition dnd and it came out pretty well, I also trust the folks in paizo know what they are doing, they have been working on this system for quite some time.

All THAT said creating sth new is very tricky and I can easily see them fail or succeed.

I can also understand why they aimed for a radical change to the system, instead of continiuing to expand and fix 3.5. They want their game to be stream friendly which is understandable, but I fear they may lose more than they gain, sth 3.0 and 3.5 had that was rare for a dnd edition a short of realism/simulation people liked.

I want to mention they have some cool ideas, especially where monsters are concerned, monsters special abilities seem very spicy indeed.

Reading pathfinder 2nd edition playtest also made consider what all these +1s actually mean, because the difference between a 1st level and 20th level pc is so huge. (In P2e you gain a +1 to basically everything for every level you gain)
It made appreciate system like GURPS more where it easier to compare sth to real word phenomena.

Experience.

Seems the same as the playtest everyone needs a 1,000 XP to level.  You dont need that leveling chart anymore and means those ad hoc roleplaying XP bonuses stay relevant for every level.

I saw someone making a comment that this also lets the DM change to a fast (800 XP) or slow (1500) leveling game just by making an easy adjustment to the XP needed.

Quote from: Shasarak;1096392Experience.

Seems the same as the playtest everyone needs a 1,000 XP to level.  You dont need that leveling chart anymore and means those ad hoc roleplaying XP bonuses stay relevant for every level.

I saw someone making a comment that this also lets the DM change to a fast (800 XP) or slow (1500) leveling game just by making an easy adjustment to the XP needed.

Do you get less XP for defeating the same monster as your level increases, or do you still get the same XP for a rat at level 1 as you do at level 20?

Quote from: Mistwell;1096401Do you get less XP for defeating the same monster as your level increases, or do you still get the same XP for a rat at level 1 as you do at level 20?

I have not seen the PF2 rules.  The Playtest rules were based on the level of the challenge overcome, so Goblins would give you XP at level 1 and no XP at level 20.

There is a thread on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/ce6knu/live_next_to_paizo_got_2e_books_early_ama/?sort=new) where someone has been spoilering some more PF2 info.

I think so far the most shocking thing for me was the official character sheet (https://i.imgur.com/TvpJHNg.jpg).

I was told that there was going to be a place for my pronouns!  Right, where is my twitter mob?  Who can i get fired over this travesty?

I think what I'm looking forward to is watching Paizo send forth their storm troopers to forcibly collect everyone's first edition Pathfinder books, much like White Wolf did when Mage Second edition was released.
I remember being part of the underground, and warning others in my area when I saw their APCs and they came for my books.  By the time Revised was released we were all broken and knew that there was no use in trying to hide our books, and we surrendered them without a fuss.

Granted, that was before PDFs were the thing, and you pretty much HAD to have hardcopy books.  Now, Paizo will be able to delete your 1st edition books from your harddrives and media with a push of a button.

As someone pretty non-plussed about the initial playtest rules, I've been pleasantly surprised by the changes over the past year and i'll be picking the books up.

Quote from: remial;1096438I think what I'm looking forward to is watching Paizo send forth their storm troopers to forcibly collect everyone's first edition Pathfinder books, much like White Wolf did when Mage Second edition was released.

I hope that the Paizo storm troopers give more experience then the WotC Ninjas did.

Quote from: shoplifter;1096498As someone pretty non-plussed about the initial playtest rules,

You were surprised and confused so much that you were unsure how to react?

Quote from: Mistwell;1096514You were surprised and confused so much that you were unsure how to react?

Yes actually

Mastering Pathfinder (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgsf?Mastering-Pathfinder) blog

They cover a bit on Skills and DCs but the more interesting thing for me is the Monsters.

I can see why all characters get maximum Hit Points because looks like these are not your Old School 1d6 damage monsters any more!  Well ok, yes the Skeleton guard (https://cdn.paizo.com/image/content/Blog/072219_skeletons.jpg) is a 1d6 monster but still, look at that Skeletal Giant!  That Terrifying Charge doing two +12 Attacks and 1d8+11 Damage plus Demoralization if it hits - that is Terrifying!

My favourite though is the special abilities especially Screaming Skull.  I cant wait to see what happens when that Skeleton hanging out in the back row chucks its head at the Wizard hiding behind his mates.

Quote from: Shasarak;1096720Mastering Pathfinder (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgsf?Mastering-Pathfinder)

So looking at those monsters, they didn't fix the saving throws. I've read that they increased the proficiency bonus to compensate, I wonder by how much?

A L12 playtest caster has a spell DC of 28 (I know this because there was a L12 meatgrinder playtest adventure that we tried a few times, and I still have the sheets) and that L12 spider has +25 to Fortitiude save, so fails only if he rolls a 1 or 2. if the spell also requires an attack roll (like Disintegrate) you are looking at under 1% chance to land unsaved. You will likely need to land 3 unsaved Disintegrates to kill the spider.

When people say the casters were weak in the playtest, this is how weak they were. Have they increased the spell DC by 6,8,10 points? I'm skeptical. If they haven't, IMO I would have preferred they just leave the offensive casters out.

I think that there was word that Spell Resistance is outright gone and replaced by higher than normal saving throws, but that there are ways around that for certain character builds.  

Not sure if that is the case for this skittering horror, but it is possible.

Quote from: shoplifter;1096498As someone pretty non-plussed about the initial playtest rules, I've been pleasantly surprised by the changes over the past year and i'll be picking the books up.

I'd be interested to hear about this in more detail if you have time. What changes specifically struck you as pleasant surprises?  (I've seen the playtest rules but not the final version.)

Quote from: Conanist;1096756So looking at those monsters, they didn't fix the saving throws. I've read that they increased the proficiency bonus to compensate, I wonder by how much?

A L12 playtest caster has a spell DC of 28 (I know this because there was a L12 meatgrinder playtest adventure that we tried a few times, and I still have the sheets) and that L12 spider has +25 to Fortitiude save, so fails only if he rolls a 1 or 2. if the spell also requires an attack roll (like Disintegrate) you are looking at under 1% chance to land unsaved. You will likely need to land 3 unsaved Disintegrates to kill the spider.

When people say the casters were weak in the playtest, this is how weak they were. Have they increased the spell DC by 6,8,10 points? I'm skeptical. If they haven't, IMO I would have preferred they just leave the offensive casters out.

That would be a problem for me if those numbers were correct.  Using two actions to cast your 1 spell per day with only a 10% chance of it failing its save, 50% of it saving and 40% chance of it critically saving?  Thats pretty weak sauce.

Quote from: Conanist;1096756A L12 playtest caster has a spell DC of 28 (I know this because there was a L12 meatgrinder playtest adventure that we tried a few times, and I still have the sheets) and that L12 spider has +25 to Fortitiude save, so fails only if he rolls a 1 or 2. if the spell also requires an attack roll (like Disintegrate) you are looking at under 1% chance to land unsaved. You will likely need to land 3 unsaved Disintegrates to kill the spider.

Mark Seifter's math degree in action, folks.

Lol at everyone who thinks Paizo knows what they're doing.

Quote from: Shasarak;1096798That would be a problem for me if those numbers were correct.  Using two actions to cast your 1 spell per day with only a 10% chance of it failing its save, 50% of it saving and 40% chance of it critically saving?  Thats pretty weak sauce.

I don't think it is correct anymore.  A 12th level wizard's spell DC, assuming 18 INT, is no less than 30.  Ten + Level (12) + Expert Spellcaster (4) + Int mod (4) and then whatever extra abilities, bonuses from allies, or gear can be picked up.

Better off focusing on the Will saves, which should at least give the thing some negative conditions for a bit.

I have been seeing reports from a few people that the Pathfinder 2 books are arriving.  Anyone on here received anything yet?

It seems like Book Depository has let me down for release day delivery.

Quote from: Mistwell;1096401Do you get less XP for defeating the same monster as your level increases, or do you still get the same XP for a rat at level 1 as you do at level 20?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3615[/ATTACH]

[video=youtube;dqk6CDa6SgE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqk6CDa6SgE&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

[video=youtube;HeL2kATm0Gc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeL2kATm0Gc[/youtube]

The 25 best reasons to play PF2 (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/ck8rsq/the_25_best_reasons_to_play_pf2/)

How is PF2 different from 5e? (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/ck985d/how_is_pf2_different_from_5e/)

Any good written reviews out yet? I don't like watching videos.

Quote from: Morblot;1097909Any good written reviews out yet? I don't like watching videos.

Complexity vs. Depth -- A Look Inside Pathfinder 2nd Edition (https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?661125-Complexity-vs-Depth-A-Look-Inside-Pathfinder-2nd-Edition)

It's Finally Here! The Pathfinder 2E Review  (https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?661199-It-s-Finally-Here!-The-Pathfinder-2E-Review)

The second reviewer worries about problematic representation of female demons.

QuoteSpeaking of demons, the only two demons with non-monstrous appearances are both illustrated as female-presenting, and are representative of the sins of Lust and Pride. Yes, the descriptions of both creatures say that gender is fluid and arbitrary for said demons; and yes, they're both clothed very tastefully; but that's still a misstep in this day and age. Heck, D&D 5E isn't perfect in this regard, but it at least depicts both male and female versions of succubi on equal footing and with equal appeal. In a similar vein, the page on orcish culture does nothing to diminish their role as sometimes problematic stereotypes.

Want to play Pathfinder 2 but you got no money?

Try it out now for free at Archives of Nethys (https://2e.aonprd.com/).

Owner and lead developer Blake Davis explains what has changed [Archives of Nethys] Pathfinder 2nd Edition is Live! (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/ckozpt/archives_of_nethys_pathfinder_2nd_edition_is_live/)

Quote from: Shasarak;1097918https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?661125-Complexity-vs-Depth-A-Look-Inside-Pathfinder-2nd-Edition

Holy God Almighty! That character sheet burned out my retinas!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1097921Holy God Almighty! That character sheet burned out my retinas!

It is indeed a +3 character sheet of burning.

Hm. After reading the writeups, I'm intrigued. The three action system looks interesting, as it's integrated into the spell system. (Using more actions makes the spell do different things) Using other skills for Initiative is interesting (And reminds me of d6 Star Wars a bit) I might have to play a session when my local SFS switches over to the new system to see it in action.

Read through several reviews and a lot of it sounds pretty neat in theory, but I have a horrible feeling it's going to be a cumbersome beast to actually play or run.

I bought the 1st edition corebook for Pathfinder.   I  ALMOST bought the PF2 playtest rules.  I read the page that went pretty deep on preaching to me about being sensitive to LOTS of things.  I put it down.  I wanted to separate the art from the artists.  They seem to be making that very hard to do.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1097941Read through several reviews and a lot of it sounds pretty neat in theory, but I have a horrible feeling it's going to be a cumbersome beast to actually play or run.

From what I have heard most of the complexity is loaded into character creation and the actual rules for playing only take up 27 pages, which is pretty slim for a DnD game.

Quote from: Shasarak;1097953From what I have heard most of the complexity is loaded into character creation and the actual rules for playing only take up 27 pages, which is pretty slim for a DnD game.

I am curious to hear honest reviews. But coming from you, PF2 could come with a sacrificed human baby and a bag of feces and you'd spin those aspects of it as a positive. I suspect you're more biased than the creators of PF2 even :)

Quote from: Mistwell;1097960I am curious to hear honest reviews. But coming from you, PF2 could come with a sacrificed human baby and a bag of feces and you'd spin those aspects of it as a positive. I suspect you're more biased than the creators of PF2 even :)

Dont believe me because I will not be able to play a game until, well next week will be character creation night I guess, the 15th at the earliest.

Why not check out the links to a couple of reviews of PF2 further up the thread.  

**edited for snark**

Shasarak, thank you for all the links. I'll be reading through the rules just for yanking cool tidbits.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1097921Holy God Almighty! That character sheet burned out my retinas!

It's an OSR recruiting device!

Quote from: Shasarak;1097923It is indeed a +3 character sheet of burning.

+5, but I love it.

Quote from: Shasarak;1097963Dont believe me because I will not be able to play a game until, well next week will be character creation night I guess, the 15th at the earliest.

Why not check out the links to a couple of reviews of PF2 further up the thread.  

**edited for snark**

I'll wait for real reviews, rather than the hand picked reviews from people given it by Paizo (Like Morrus and Ben Reece, both of whom are about as excited going in as you are and Paizo knew that which is why they sent them early review copies for free publicity), or the fanbois who waited in line at GenCon just to get their hands on an early copy. You know, reviews which don't start with squealing all-caps multiple exclamation-mark comments about how excited they are the book arrived. Real reviews will take a month or so, and some sessions played.

If you want real reviews then why not try these ones:  Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad? (https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?660435-Pathfinder-Second-Edition-I-hear-it-s-bad-Why-Bad-How-Bad)

PF2 overtakes D&D5 in two years.

Remember THIS.

When they get tired of 5e --- it was 4e's *blah blah* that made Paizo king. 5E has a lot of *blah blah* chargen & play.

Jason is maybe the smartest developer in tabletop gaming (resume uninserted).

Edit: Why?

Paizo will release books faster. More "stuff". I ran a game with 5e players HUNGRY for more material.

Paizo will address combat & spellcasting options faster than 5e with supplements.

If Paizo gets a "Path of War" like supplement first, which they will --- more.

Paizo is all about supplements. That principle drove the franchise. 5e is slower, to their detriment.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032PF2 overtakes D&D5 in two years.

Remember THIS.

When they get tired of 5e --- it was 4e's *blah blah* that made Paizo king. 5E has a lot of *blah blah* chargen & play.

Jason is maybe the smartest developer in tabletop gaming (resume uninserted).

I'd take that bet.  Pathfinder is more complex without that complexity paying off.  You spend 4 hours on character options to end up with a +2 to ride checks you don't care about.  I don't care for either system, but Pathfinder came out at the perfect time.  They had a lot of good will and some of that has eroded.  They have the same fans they had for Pathfinder, but not a lot to draw in new interest.  This is a cash infusion as they stumble on in a death spiral.  They can keep milking those superfans for a long time, but age and inevitable disagreements will take their toll.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098033I'd take that bet.  Pathfinder is more complex without that complexity paying off.  You spend 4 hours on character options to end up with a +2 to ride checks you don't care about.  I don't care for either system, but Pathfinder came out at the perfect time.  They had a lot of good will and some of that has eroded.  They have the same fans they had for Pathfinder, but not a lot to draw in new interest.  This is a cash infusion as they stumble on in a death spiral.  They can keep milking those superfans for a long time, but age and inevitable disagreements will take their toll.

I just made a character (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40952-PF2-I-got-99-characters-and-that-aint-one) and I can assure you that it does not take 4 hours to make and your choices are more then a +2 to ride.

You can really tell who has not even bothered looking at Pathfinder 2.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032PF2 overtakes D&D5 in two years.

Remember THIS.

It's undeniably true Palladium Fantasy 2e is way more fun than 5e, but that's a big bet!

As for Paizo, I do agree that Paizo 2.0 has the advantage of "new hotness" and new gamers who began with 5e 3 to 5 years ago might be drawn by the allure of something new and crunchier.

We will see.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032Paizo will release books faster. More "stuff". I ran a game with 5e players HUNGRY for more material.

I actively discourage such players from joining my games because supplements are rarely playtested and so often ludicrous with imbalance. However, I know they exist in droves and those players will be drawn to Paizo's crack mill.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098033You spend 4 hours on character options to end up with a +2 to ride checks you don't care about.

It's 30 minutes of chargen, 2 hours of choosing one of the 84 genders and 90 minutes min/maxing your pronoun power combo.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1098045It's 30 minutes of chargen, 2 hours of choosing one of the 84 genders and 90 minutes min/maxing your pronoun power combo.

I think you forgot to include the Character Trigger section.

I'll take the bet against PF2e overtaking 5e in 2 years.

I'll go farther and bet that PF2e dies down after one year. Not quite to Starfinder levels but enough that "Uncategorized" and Call of Cthulhu soundly beat it on the Roll20 number of campaigns report for 2021.

5e is feeding people into other games based on all available data while still pulling in enough new people that it seems like people just play d&d.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1098045It's 30 minutes of chargen, 2 hours of choosing one of the 84 genders and 90 minutes min/maxing your pronoun power combo.

Well played, sir!!!

Any decent written reviews NOT written by the sycophants on ENWorld out yet?

Yeah, there are heaps of them.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032PF2 overtakes D&D5 in two years.
When they get tired of 5e --- it was 4e's *blah blah* that made Paizo king. 5E has a lot of *blah blah* chargen & play.

Which is never a good indicator as the same people who liked playing PF 1E complained about it many flaws with some going to 5E as to them it was a faster and easier game to play, run and create characters for.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032Jason is maybe the smartest developer in tabletop gaming (resume uninserted).

Very highly debatable. This is the same company who when told the flaws of their gun rules during playtest left them in when the final rules were released. The company instead of releasing an optional book on fixing the flaws of 3.5. instead sat on their collective asses and let their main competitor learn from their mistakes and take away their market share and fanbase. To the point that they needed to release a new edition. I concede a good rpg developer the smartest not by any stretch of the imagination. If he was the company would not be getting woke and possibly broke. I just ordered their new Sandpoint book and from what I see in the reviews on Amazon Sandpoint is now thee equivalent of an SJW. Diveristy and Inclusivity aside everyone seems to get along. Including the new Goblin population in town.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032Paizo will release books faster. More "stuff". I ran a game with 5e players HUNGRY for more material.

Again highly debatable as while some fans want more material others hate the constant stream of sourcebooks and supplements. Instead of blaming themselves for being incapable of not being the new material. They try to make themselves out to be some kind of victims where they are "forced" to buy because Paizo releases more product. Even them more products does not always equal quality product.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032Paizo will address combat & spellcasting options faster than 5e with supplements.

They released Pathfinder Unchained which was a book that was both a test of PF 2E and Starfinder and an attempt to fix some of the flaws of PF was released almost seven years after the PF 1E core. Some like myself were asking them
to fix the flaws pretty much the first year intp PF 1E and Jason essentially accused us of having some kind of personal agenda. With the Paizo devs being very much hit and miss on how they fix the issues of the rules. Either they errata something into being fucking useless or leave what actually needs errata alone. Even after the fans tell the,m about. No proper middle ground at all. I will concede maybe with the new edition they will be better at this. I'm not holding my breath.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032If Paizo gets a "Path of War" like supplement first, which they will --- more.

IF they get such a supplement. With 5E as it is gives martial and melee classes nice things baked into the core. So unlike PF, 5E as an rpg has no need to prove that Fighters are given more options. Nor any such need of an supplement.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032Paizo is all about supplements. That principle drove the franchise. 5e is slower, to their detriment.

One can make money with a quality rpg and lesser release schedule as has been shown with Wotc and 5E. As well see the issue above too many or too little new books and people complain about it. One can't win that kind of battle with the consumer. Most of the PF 1E books were good the majority rot away on my library gathering dust. More options is nice and all they also most be quality options. With Paizo it was less is sometimes more. If it was not the Archetypes that were not worth the paper they were printed on and only good for toilet paper. It was the stubborn refusal to find the proper middle ground when developing more new options. Fluff at least with PF 1E very much won over crunch. No matter how much flavorful prose one writes about a +1 bonus or very situational +3 bonus from a feat or class ability. It still is just going to be a +1 bonus to hit or skill bonus. While that +3 bonus is good having it work when two other classes have the same teamwork feat, surrounded by a very specific enemy, at specific time during the day not so much.

I'm not saying PF 2E has no chance of beating 5E. At this point Paizo really needs to set the standard very high. Simply tossing new books with subpar options is no longer going to work. They need to show uswhy we should leave 5E to og back to playing PF 2E.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1098060I'll take the bet against PF2e overtaking 5e in 2 years.

I'll go farther and bet that PF2e dies down after one year. Not quite to Starfinder levels but enough that "Uncategorized" and Call of Cthulhu soundly beat it on the Roll20 number of campaigns report for 2021.

5e is feeding people into other games based on all available data while still pulling in enough new people that it seems like people just play d&d.

At this point with PF 2E it maybe too little too late.

I concede it is too early to say yet 5E fixed many of the flaws of 5E while also realizing that one rpg will not please everyone and they would run the risk of losing some of the fanbase. Pf 2E too me tries to be everything for everyone and I['m not sure if that is the right way to publish an rpg as sometimes one can't please everyone. Then again I went from saying that PF 1E would die the first year and never play it. To it lasting longer than my predication and playing only that version of D&D.

I would also bet against it overtaking 5e. It is a good system for those who like relatively complex grid combat games but I think a simpler system has more mass appeal. I think if D&D did lose popularity the playerbase would fragment toward OSR and more narrative games as well as things like PF2.

Personally I liked the system and gave them a lot of detailed feedback on the problems I found while playtesting. Looking through the new books, they at least tried to address those issues and fix the most obviously broken things. They also tweaked things that didn't need to be tweaked, and added complexity to things that didn't really need it. If the overall goal was a system with 12 balanced classes, I think they failed. But I still think the system is very interesting.

I'll post a cheerleading-lite review on here soonish, that hopefully people will find to be helpful and objective.

Quote from: Conanist;1098097It is a good system for those who like relatively complex grid combat games but I think a simpler system has more mass appeal.

How tied is PF2 to the grid? Is it like 3.5e and PF 1 where many abilities depend on using the grid, or can it easily be played "theater of the mind" without losing anything like 5e?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1098105How tied is PF2 to the grid? Is it like 3.5e and PF 1 where many abilities depend on using the grid, or can it easily be played "theater of the mind" without losing anything like 5e?

You certainly could play it theater, but I think you would lose a lot. The Paladin can take a free attack against an enemy within reach who attacks one of their comrades within 15'. So in theater is that always available? Flanking provides a large buff (generally +2 to hit and +10% to crit)...which characters are flanking which enemies at which point in the round? The Monk has a deep pile of combat tricks via stances and different weapons that are really effective but might not seem that way in the theater style.

Quote from: Conanist;1098115You certainly could play it theater, but I think you would lose a lot. The Paladin can take a free attack against an enemy within reach who attacks one of their comrades within 15'. So in theater is that always available? Flanking provides a large buff (generally +2 to hit and +10% to crit)...which characters are flanking which enemies at which point in the round? The Monk has a deep pile of combat tricks via stances and different weapons that are really effective but might not seem that way in the theater style.

I've grown away from using tactical maps for positioning in my games, so this is a big strike against PF2 for me and I'm much more likely to stay with Shadow of the Demon Lord and D&D5e for my fantasy games.

Quote from: Conanist;1098115You certainly could play it theater, but I think you would lose a lot. The Paladin can take a free attack against an enemy within reach who attacks one of their comrades within 15'. So in theater is that always available? Flanking provides a large buff (generally +2 to hit and +10% to crit)...which characters are flanking which enemies at which point in the round? The Monk has a deep pile of combat tricks via stances and different weapons that are really effective but might not seem that way in the theater style.

How is 'take a free attack against an enemy within reach' not TotM?  If that is not TotM then how is anything TotM?

I took a quick look at the Monk stances and I could only see one which ignores 1 square of difficult terrain that might even need a tactical map.  Nothing else in the first ten levels of stances though.

Quote from: sureshot;1098086Very highly debatable. This is the same company who when told the flaws of their gun rules during playtest left them in when the final rules were released. The company instead of releasing an optional book on fixing the flaws of 3.5. instead sat on their collective asses and let their main competitor learn from their mistakes and take away their market share and fanbase. To the point that they needed to release a new edition. I concede a good rpg developer the smartest not by any stretch of the imagination. If he was the company would not be getting woke and possibly broke. I just ordered their new Sandpoint book and from what I see in the reviews on Amazon Sandpoint is now thee equivalent of an SJW. Diveristy and Inclusivity aside everyone seems to get along. Including the new Goblin population in town.

If Paizo does a good job of converting the Gunslinger would that convince you to give it a go?

Quote from: Shasarak;1098040I just made a character (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40952-PF2-I-got-99-characters-and-that-aint-one) and I can assure you that it does not take 4 hours to make and your choices are more then a +2 to ride.

You can really tell who has not even bothered looking at Pathfinder 2.

I'll accept that Pathfinder 2 at the moment lacks the complexity of Pathfinder 1 for character options, but I don't think they've shown an ability to restrain themselves from publishing additional new sub-systems and multitudes of options.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that you can spend a lot of time reviewing options and most of them don't REALLY matter.  

I just looked at backgrounds (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/variant-rules-3rd-party/adamant-entertainment/backgrounds-occupations/) and it appears that there are 103 of them.  

Here's one:

QuoteCourier
Couriers are messengers, often selected for their quick feet. Couriers are found in castles and cities. A variant of the courier is the town crier, who travels from place to place to publicly deliver news.

Alignment: Any, usually lawful or good
Skills: Choose 2 of the following skills as class skills. If a skill you select is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill.
Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (local), Knowledge (nature), Linguistics, Ride, Survival
Bonus Feat: Choose either Animal Affinity or Run

That's only one part of the character, and yes, I used hyperbole.  I might have gotten +1 to ride and +1 to another skill.  :)  And a feat.

My experience with Alpha Playtest, Beta Playtest, and the game after it was released is that you can spend a lot of time reading through hundreds of options when you're only supposed to choose one.  I like options, but one of the major problems with 3.x is that a 'standard character' would get 7 feats over 20 levels (and most games ended by 10th level) so you had thousands of feats to consider, but only a few slots to use.  All of Pathfinder feels like that to me.  

Quote from: Shasarak;1098129How is 'take a free attack against an enemy within reach' not TotM?  If that is not TotM then how is anything TotM?

I took a quick look at the Monk stances and I could only see one which ignores 1 square of difficult terrain that might even need a tactical map.  Nothing else in the first ten levels of stances though.

Are you bullshitting us?  

How is it that you don't understand that the monk and the paladin could be standing next to each other and it won't be clear if the attacker is threatening both or not?  Clearly the attacker could choose to move to a position where he can't get attacked by both.  So even if you're not drawing it out, you're needing to specify things.  There are ways you can make abilities less dependent on specific positioning.  I doubt Pathfinder is interested in doing that.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098033I'd take that bet.  Pathfinder is more complex without that complexity paying off.  You spend 4 hours on character options to end up with a +2 to ride checks you don't care about.  I don't care for either system, but Pathfinder came out at the perfect time.  They had a lot of good will and some of that has eroded.  They have the same fans they had for Pathfinder, but not a lot to draw in new interest.  This is a cash infusion as they stumble on in a death spiral.  They can keep milking those superfans for a long time, but age and inevitable disagreements will take their toll.

Character effectiveness is everything. "How well do I do X?"

5e only marginally does this. Pathfinder ANSWERS this question, during chargen. All the colors you want to paint a character with an improved action economy that winks at Martials.

Yeah, Casters are better but, casters are better in any rpg. They save the party.

Shadowrun casters are primal. WoD casters are dominant. Choose a game and the casters are KING.

It's not a DnD thing - casters are great EVERYWHERE.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098141I'll accept that Pathfinder 2 at the moment lacks the complexity of Pathfinder 1 for character options, but I don't think they've shown an ability to restrain themselves from publishing additional new sub-systems and multitudes of options.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that you can spend a lot of time reviewing options and most of them don't REALLY matter.  

I just looked at backgrounds (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/variant-rules-3rd-party/adamant-entertainment/backgrounds-occupations/) and it appears that there are 103 of them.  

Here's one:

That's only one part of the character, and yes, I used hyperbole.  I might have gotten +1 to ride and +1 to another skill.  :)  And a feat.

My experience with Alpha Playtest, Beta Playtest, and the game after it was released is that you can spend a lot of time reading through hundreds of options when you're only supposed to choose one.  I like options, but one of the major problems with 3.x is that a 'standard character' would get 7 feats over 20 levels (and most games ended by 10th level) so you had thousands of feats to consider, but only a few slots to use.  All of Pathfinder feels like that to me.  

To use your language: Are you bullshitting us?   3rd party rules for Pathfinder 1e, really?

Can you at least look at the Pathfinder 2e rules before you make comments about the Pathfinder 2e rules.

QuoteAre you bullshitting us?  

How is it that you don't understand that the monk and the paladin could be standing next to each other and it won't be clear if the attacker is threatening both or not?  Clearly the attacker could choose to move to a position where he can't get attacked by both.  So even if you're not drawing it out, you're needing to specify things.  There are ways you can make abilities less dependent on specific positioning.  I doubt Pathfinder is interested in doing that.

Do you even play TotM?  How is it not clear to you if the DM says that the monster is moving away from the Paladin to attack the Monk that it is no longer within Striking range of the Paladin?  Ok lets say it is not clear to you so you say "Hey DM, are they within 15 feet and am I in range of the monster to make a Strike?"

Gawd, do you need a tactical map to try and parse that?

Zero chance PF2 overtakes D&D 5E. Zero

But it doesn't have to overtake D&D to be a success. If even 20 per cent of 5E players buy the Pathfinder core books and a couple adventure paths, it will be a profitable game for Paizo and keep the lights on. Nothing is going to beat D&D in today's market. But being the #2 or #3 RPG isn't a failure in the booming tabletop scene.

I just stumbled across this 'early impressions' video of PF@, in case anyone here is interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhw_jqdqX_M

Quote from: Shasarak;1098136If Paizo does a good job of converting the Gunslinger would that convince you to give it a go?

I still plan to probably purchase PF 2E core af least. Thst being said  I have zero faith that  the Paizo devs will listen ttol feedback. They ignored the feedback on ther own initial playtest. Lied to their fans about actually listening to the feedback. While pulling a last minute bait and switch with the final gun rules.

I am watching with curiosity the debacle that is parrying provoking an AoO and the Iajitsu feat that lets you draw and attack as a single action also provoking an AoO.  It appears that they have added the [manipulate] tag in some ways that cause unplanned interactions.

Edit
Here's the Link (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42noc?Is-Interact-problematic)

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098310I am watching with curiosity the debacle that is parrying provoking an AoO and the Iajitsu feat that lets you draw and attack as a single action also provoking an AoO.  It appears that they have added the [manipulate] tag in some ways that cause unplanned interactions.

Edit
Here's the Link (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42noc?Is-Interact-problematic)

Only Fighters get those kind of Aoos right?

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098032PF2 overtakes D&D5 in two years.

Remember THIS.

When they get tired of 5e --- it was 4e's *blah blah* that made Paizo king. 5E has a lot of *blah blah* chargen & play.

Jason is maybe the smartest developer in tabletop gaming (resume uninserted).

Edit: Why?

Paizo will release books faster. More "stuff". I ran a game with 5e players HUNGRY for more material.

Paizo will address combat & spellcasting options faster than 5e with supplements.

If Paizo gets a "Path of War" like supplement first, which they will --- more.

Paizo is all about supplements. That principle drove the franchise. 5e is slower, to their detriment.

I think not.   The tables playing RPGs at all the LFGS I go to are dominated heavily by d&d.  New people I see come in asking about RPGs, ask about d&d (they even have that stranger things boxed set to draw those people right to them).  A few years ago it sure looked like PF was making serious progress, now it looks a lot different.  I guess d&d could try to pull another 4th edition again, but I think they have a pretty serious wave to ride right now.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1098318Only Fighters get those kind of Aoos right?

That's not my understanding.  Some classes get it later (Paladin 6th) and some get to use Reactions for other things (not AoO).

I think some monsters get AoO, and there is a lot of speculation that additional monsters will be given it.  

From my perspective, the monsters/players having different rules is a big disappointment.  If you're going to have AoO, I think they should be available to everyone (or at least everyone with combat training).

I know a crunch loving lady hoping for PF2 to give her that sweet sweet charop sugar she craves. Personally I can't imagine it replacing 5e for me, but I'm willing to give it a go.

Quote from: S'mon;1098363I know a crunch loving lady hoping for PF2 to give her that sweet sweet charop sugar she craves. Personally I can't imagine it replacing 5e for me, but I'm willing to give it a go.

Be prepared for an "OK" time more dependent on your GM than the merits of the game.

Uninspired does not mean bad.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098355That's not my understanding.  Some classes get it later (Paladin 6th) and some get to use Reactions for other things (not AoO).

I think some monsters get AoO, and there is a lot of speculation that additional monsters will be given it.  

From my perspective, the monsters/players having different rules is a big disappointment.  If you're going to have AoO, I think they should be available to everyone (or at least everyone with combat training).

Yeah quite a few of the combat classes can take it eventually, and anyone that meets the reqs can get it via multiclass fighter feats. At 1st level only the Fighter will have it.

A good chunk of monsters do have it, especially warrior like or alert monsters have a good chance to have it, but its not uniform. Some Orcs have it and some don't, for example.

It took some getting used to at my table. My players never knew which enemies had it and which didn't, and assumed they all did. Some of the players NOT having it made it a lot harder to protect their low AC squishy buddies. The keywords are new so the edge case in the thread never came up. I don't think it will have much impact.

Quote from: Haffrung;1098163...
But it doesn't have to overtake D&D to be a success. If even 20 per cent of 5E players buy the Pathfinder core books and a couple adventure paths, it will be a profitable game for Paizo and keep the lights on. Nothing is going to beat D&D in today's market. But being the #2 or #3 RPG isn't a failure in the booming tabletop scene.

Not a failure for most RPG companies, but Pazio has been the uncontested #2 RPG company since it took 4e to the cleaners. WOTC, Pazio, then everyone else.

PF2e will get strong initial sales. Never underestimate the desire for the new hotness! Hell, Shadowrun 6 sold out at gencon yet it is getting panned on reddit and its own forums!

Now I don't think Pazio will outright fold over the 2e failure, but in 3-5 years we should see the effects.

I would define PF2e as a failure if in 3-5 years Pazio is just another RPG company jousting for the #2-3 spots with FFG and friends.

I think it more than likely given that there is nothing in 2e that is likely to gain them the number of new converts they need to stop the bleeding 5e is giving them.

Paizo should be able to hold 2nd position for many years. I have a hard time imagining them not.

So did Paizo ever make an announcement that they had sold out of all the PF2 books they brought to Gencon, like they did with Starfinder 2 years ago, the Playtest doc last year, and the PF1 books years ago?

They did not sell out of the PF2 books because they calculated how many books that all of their cashiers could sell over the whole of Gencon and brought along even more books then that.

I do not envy the book delivery guys.

Quote from: Mistwell;1098565So did Paizo ever make an announcement that they had sold out of all the PF2 books they brought to Gencon, like they did with Starfinder 2 years ago, the Playtest doc last year, and the PF1 books years ago?

They had a small mountain of books left over.

They also had shopping charts and theme park level line management. It was packed Thursday, pretty quite Sunday.

They also had a separate pre-order pick up area, so nearly all business in the booth were con goers buying the new-hotness.

Paizo prepared for PF2e to be the #1 item. Our group won't look at the game for awhile. We kind of hate it. A few years from now they may have re-released the skald. The new srd is low-key hideous.

So someone directed me to the Amazon page.  Pathfinder Core Rules is available for a 40% discount off the list price, but is still only #2 in Hourly Sales behind the 5th edition Player's Handbook.  

For the 'new hotness', that doesn't seem like a good sign.

That is certainly a first world problem when your 'new hotness' is only the second best selling product.

I also noticed that the 5th edition Players handbook was selling at 45% discount off list price.  It is almost as if Amazon is famous for selling products at a discount off list price. :eek:

Quote from: Shasarak;1098677That is certainly a first world problem when your 'new hotness' is only the second best selling product.

I also noticed that the 5th edition Players handbook was selling at 45% discount off list price.  It is almost as if Amazon is famous for selling products at a discount off list price. :eek:

Actually the 5th edition PHB is 44% off the cover price.  I'm just curious to know what overwrought explanation you have for why it isn't doing better.  Surely not EVERYONE who was going to buy a copy went to GenCon.  

While I don't expect Pathfinder 2 to do well for a litany of reasons, I still expected it to take the #1 spot in gaming on the week of its release.  I earlier indicated that I would consider a failure to do so as a very clear portent that it is not going to do well.  So seeing it at #2 surprises me because while I didn't think it would do well, I didn't think it would do THIS BAD.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098679Actually the 5th edition PHB is 44% off the cover price.  I'm just curious to know what overwrought explanation you have for why it isn't doing better.  Surely not EVERYONE who was going to buy a copy went to GenCon.  

While I don't expect Pathfinder 2 to do well for a litany of reasons, I still expected it to take the #1 spot in gaming on the week of its release.  I earlier indicated that I would consider a failure to do so as a very clear portent that it is not going to do well.  So seeing it at #2 surprises me because while I didn't think it would do well, I didn't think it would do THIS BAD.

Of course you think it is doing poorly.  If it was best seller for one week then it would fail your expectations because it was not best seller for 2 weeks.

Lisa Stevens said (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgt4?Paizo-at-Gen-Con#45):

Quote

QuoteDid the books sell out at GenCon?

Nope. But that was by design. We literally took more books than we could actually sell given the number of cashiers that we had there. I didn't want a repeat of the Starfinder release where we ran out on Friday. So we took quite a lot. And sold more than we have ever sold of anything at GenCon. So it was a huge success for us.

Heh, "overwrought explanations" thats rich coming from the "+1 to Riding" guy.

Sorry but after the pathfinder online fiasco where Lisa stevens was saying it was all great literally up to a day before Ryan dancey left and they laid off almost all there staff I tend to take anything she says with a big ol bag of salt.

Quote from: Shasarak;1098682Of course you think it is doing poorly.  If it was best seller for one week then it would fail your expectations because it was not best seller for 2 weeks.

Sure.  For me to consider Pathfinder 2 to be successful, I would expect them to take the #1 spot in RPGs for 2 months or so.  The 5th edition PHB was released in July of 2014, more than 5 full years ago.  If you've had five years to buy something and you haven't done so, you're not highly motivated to buy it.  

By contrast, Pathfinder 2 was released less than a month ago.  If people were highly motivated to buy the book, as one would expect from an eagerly anticipated new release you'd expect sales to spike.  After that initial spike, considering it is 5 years newer than 5th edition, you could get a sense of how well it is competing/winning converts based on how long it stays on top.  

I'm glad you like Pathfinder.  I hope you have fun.  Hopefully your fun doesn't depend on objective measures of success or popularity.  

I'm curious to see how a big release does, and what lessons the industry learns.  I don't expect Lisa Stevens to be frank if there are lessons learned and things that could have been done better, but I certainly hope she is.  

I didn't care much for Pathfinder despite being excited during the Alpha and Beta tests.  In fact, it was the way they handled feedback that was a big turn off.  I felt that they opted for higher levels of complexity unnecessarily.  I'm watching discussions of Pathfinder 2, and I feel like it was another step in that direction.

For example, grappling has been complex in a lot of games.  Currently, in Pathfinder 2, Grappling is an Athletics action (so it is described in the skill section, not the combat section).  It does have the 'attack' trait, so it is subject to the Multi-Attack Penalty (MAP).  If you succeed on a grapple the opponent gains the 'grabbed' condition.  If you want to do more than grab them, further Grapple checks don't necessarily help.  Instead, you need a critical success; than they will move from 'grabbed' to 'restrained'.  Feel free to correct my misunderstandings because I honestly don't care enough to read 600+ pages to see if I've missed something.  

That's more complexity than I want in my game at the moment.  I'm confident that they could have streamlined it significantly.  

So hey, you liked Pathfinder 1 and you think Pathfinder 2 is an improvement.  Good for you.

I personally don't feel like Pathfinder 1 improved enough compared to 3.x to make it worth switching for despite a sincere desire to support Paizo at the time.  I personally don't feel that doubling down on complexity was the right call now.  

I don't want to see Paizo fail - I actually like having more successful publishers in the industry!  This isn't me sitting here gloating because they're not doing well.  This is me observing and trying to read the signs to see what's happening.  I'm wondering if there is going to be a seismic shift in the hobby - and I'm not seeing it.  I think some Pathfinder players are switching to 2nd edition, and I think that there are a lot who aren't.  For Pathfinder 2 to be successful, it either needs to convert ALL of the existing Pathfinder fanbase or it needs to bring in new players.  I don't see it doing either.

I'm sorry that it offends you that I don't think it looks like it is doing well.  I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary.  I don't think the quote you provided does much to dispel the perception.  I know that Paizo brought 10x as many Pathfinder 1 books as Beta Books to Gencon 2009 (I went in 2008) and I think they sold out.  I can't fathom why Lisa would have brought more books than they COULD have sold.  Not every sale is 1 book to 1 customer, so there's no reason they COULDN'T have sold out if there were bulk orders.  Likewise, even as a small operation it wouldn't have been difficult to add additional bodies to help with the sales.  To me, failure to sell out sounds like they didn't hit their own expectations.

I'm looking forward to what else we can discern over time.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098690Sure.  For me to consider Pathfinder 2 to be successful, I would expect them to take the #1 spot in RPGs for 2 months or so.  The 5th edition PHB was released in July of 2014, more than 5 full years ago.  If you've had five years to buy something and you haven't done so, you're not highly motivated to buy it.  

By contrast, Pathfinder 2 was released less than a month ago.  If people were highly motivated to buy the book, as one would expect from an eagerly anticipated new release you'd expect sales to spike.  After that initial spike, considering it is 5 years newer than 5th edition, you could get a sense of how well it is competing/winning converts based on how long it stays on top.  

I'm glad you like Pathfinder.  I hope you have fun.  Hopefully your fun doesn't depend on objective measures of success or popularity.  

I'm curious to see how a big release does, and what lessons the industry learns.  I don't expect Lisa Stevens to be frank if there are lessons learned and things that could have been done better, but I certainly hope she is.  

I didn't care much for Pathfinder despite being excited during the Alpha and Beta tests.  In fact, it was the way they handled feedback that was a big turn off.  I felt that they opted for higher levels of complexity unnecessarily.  I'm watching discussions of Pathfinder 2, and I feel like it was another step in that direction.

For example, grappling has been complex in a lot of games.  Currently, in Pathfinder 2, Grappling is an Athletics action (so it is described in the skill section, not the combat section).  It does have the 'attack' trait, so it is subject to the Multi-Attack Penalty (MAP).  If you succeed on a grapple the opponent gains the 'grabbed' condition.  If you want to do more than grab them, further Grapple checks don't necessarily help.  Instead, you need a critical success; than they will move from 'grabbed' to 'restrained'.  Feel free to correct my misunderstandings because I honestly don't care enough to read 600+ pages to see if I've missed something.  

That's more complexity than I want in my game at the moment.  I'm confident that they could have streamlined it significantly.  

So hey, you liked Pathfinder 1 and you think Pathfinder 2 is an improvement.  Good for you.

I personally don't feel like Pathfinder 1 improved enough compared to 3.x to make it worth switching for despite a sincere desire to support Paizo at the time.  I personally don't feel that doubling down on complexity was the right call now.  

I don't want to see Paizo fail - I actually like having more successful publishers in the industry!  This isn't me sitting here gloating because they're not doing well.  This is me observing and trying to read the signs to see what's happening.  I'm wondering if there is going to be a seismic shift in the hobby - and I'm not seeing it.  I think some Pathfinder players are switching to 2nd edition, and I think that there are a lot who aren't.  For Pathfinder 2 to be successful, it either needs to convert ALL of the existing Pathfinder fanbase or it needs to bring in new players.  I don't see it doing either.

I'm sorry that it offends you that I don't think it looks like it is doing well.  I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary.  I don't think the quote you provided does much to dispel the perception.  I know that Paizo brought 10x as many Pathfinder 1 books as Beta Books to Gencon 2009 (I went in 2008) and I think they sold out.  I can't fathom why Lisa would have brought more books than they COULD have sold.  Not every sale is 1 book to 1 customer, so there's no reason they COULDN'T have sold out if there were bulk orders.  Likewise, even as a small operation it wouldn't have been difficult to add additional bodies to help with the sales.  To me, failure to sell out sounds like they didn't hit their own expectations.

I'm looking forward to what else we can discern over time.

I am not offended that you think that Pathfinder 2 is not doing well.  I think that your criteria for "doing well" is nonsensical but it does not offend me or frankly even surprise me.  Its like seeing Razor 007 or GeekyBugle give Pathfinder 2 a failing grade - is it Tuesday already?

If you had any experience in business then you would understand that selling out of a product is probably the worst thing that could happen because it means that you have missed out on all of the sales that you could have made if you had printed enough stock.  Selling out sounds good but what about all of those potential Starfinder players that could not buy because they sold out on Friday?  Thats not good business.  

Just for interest I had a look at the top selling books and I see that Pathfinder 2 is 69th and the 5e Players Handbook is 96th.  That does put doubt on your whole initial premise.  So has the sales algorithm changed, were you wrong, did you even bother looking?  I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You should look.  

Right now - roughly 5 hours after I posted - Pathfinder is ahead of the D&D 5th edition Player's Handbook.  

Is there any 'historical information' that we can look at?

Quote from: Shasarak;1098706If you had any experience in business then you would understand that selling out of a product is probably the worst thing that could happen

True normally; not really true of Convention sales since you have to cart the books there & back; most retailers hate the 'back' bit. Plus there is the propaganda value for a publisher of "we sold out!", The usual aim for cons is to sell out late on the last day of the convention. I expect that's what they were going for. It makes no sense to take "more than we could possibly sell".

Quote from: S'mon;1098756True normally; not really true of Convention sales since you have to cart the books there & back; most retailers hate the 'back' bit. Plus there is the propaganda value for a publisher of "we sold out!", The usual aim for cons is to sell out late on the last day of the convention. I expect that's what they were going for.

That sounds great if you are the worker that has to pack up everything at the end of the Con.

QuoteIt makes no sense to take "more than we could possibly sell".

Honest question S'mon, how many books do you bring to "sell out late on the last day of the convention"?

For my money it is easier to bring more books then you could possibly sell then it is to try and aim for that mythical "sold out but not on Friday" number.

Besides you realise that Paizo is a publishing company, yes?  Any books they dont sell at Gencon just get taken back to their warehouse to be sold online or sent to their distributor anyway.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098714You should look.  

Right now - roughly 5 hours after I posted - Pathfinder is ahead of the D&D 5th edition Player's Handbook.  

There you go, first week of sales and Pathfinder 2 still outselling 5th Edition.  How long until that success goal post gets moved?  3, 2, 1

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098714You should look.  

Right now - roughly 5 hours after I posted - Pathfinder is ahead of the D&D 5th edition Player's Handbook.  

Is there any 'historical information' that we can look at?

I checked Amazon's bestsellers in Gaming just now and D&D is #1, Pathfinder is #2. It'll likely change again.

I'd love to see weekly sales ranks, rather than hourly.  Still seems to me that a failure to maintain the number #1 spot is a bad sign for Paizo.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098840I'd love to see weekly sales ranks, rather than hourly.  Still seems to me that a failure to maintain the number #1 spot is a bad sign for Paizo.

Didn't Starfinder actually outsell D&D5e for awhile after release? Or am I mis-remembering?

I'm late to party. Did PF2 slaughter any sacred cows in need of slaughtering or did it just tweak some parts of the experience while leaving a bunch (https://www.livingdice.com/7729/ten-dumb-things-dd-wont-change/) of the other (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) big underlying issues (http://daegames.blogspot.com/2014/12/5-problems-with-magic-in-dungeons.html) untouched? From where I'm standing, we still have sacred cows like separate armor class and reflex saves, martial caster disparity, the Christmas tree effect, min-maxing, and nonsensical alignment. 4e fixed problems like that over a decade ago to great success until Wizards reversed every good decision they made for reasons I can never hope to understand. Fantasy Craft, Trailblazer, 13th Age and countless other retroclones and 3pp introduce amazing helpful innovations that Wizards and Paizo completely ignore.

Why are Wizards and Paizo so resistant to improving their rules? Why does the community not demand better?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1098894I'm late to party. Did PF2 slaughter any sacred cows in need of slaughtering or did it just tweak some parts of the experience while leaving a bunch (https://www.livingdice.com/7729/ten-dumb-things-dd-wont-change/) of the other (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) big underlying issues (http://daegames.blogspot.com/2014/12/5-problems-with-magic-in-dungeons.html) untouched? From where I'm standing, we still have sacred cows like separate armor class and reflex saves, martial caster disparity, the Christmas tree effect, min-maxing, and nonsensical alignment. 4e fixed problems like that over a decade ago to great success until Wizards reversed every good decision they made for reasons I can never hope to understand. Fantasy Craft, Trailblazer, 13th Age and countless other retroclones and 3pp introduce amazing helpful innovations that Wizards and Paizo completely ignore.

Why are Wizards and Paizo so resistant to improving their rules? Why does the community not demand better?

The first article lists these 'problems':

Attribute Bonuses
Wizard Spells (Vancian Casting)
Monks
Saving Throws
Armor Class
Annoying Deaths
Too Many Spellcasters
Power Gaming
Alignment
Magic Items

All of those are still in Pathfinder 2.  I don't think his criticism of Saving Throws is entirely fair, nor do I think claiming that 'all spellcasters using the same basic rules' indicates too many spellcasters.  

The second article  lists these 'problems':

Classes aren't balanced
Class specializations aren't balanced
Gear Grind is worse than ever
Easy to fail character generation
Physics Issues Persist
Building an Encounter is Hard

There are a lot of classes that aren't out yet, and Paizo fans seem to think it is because they haven't had a chance to properly balance them.  Personally, I don't think that it LOOKS like there's been an effort to balance options appropriately, but that's something that's hard to say definitively without a lot of play testing.  I think the physics issues that it has are different from 5th edition, and they somewhat derive from the way actions are allocated.  My impression is that all of these remain something of a problem with probably 'building an encounter' the closest to being solved.  I'm interested in other people's takes on these for sure.

The third article lists these 'problems' (only referring to magic):

Some spells have daily limits, but it is inconsistent
Spell Slots
Different Flavor, Same Mechanics
Magic is 'safe'
Magic is everywhere

I don't know that 'magic being safe' is necessarily a problem - if you want people to make a wizard and survive to high levels, they can't be carted off to hell by a demon they just summoned very often.  In my opinion, the game doesn't solve any of these.  The 'different flavor, same mechanics' is complex and OUTSIDE of magic, I think Pathfinder 2 has a lot going on but WITHIN magic, I think this is probably generally true.

I can say this regarding experience in business, selling out is never the worst thing to happen,  every small business knows (and really every business) the worst thing to have and what kills you, is inventory that does not move.  I hope PF2 does well, but I think they may have missed their window to become what looked to me a few years a possible juggernaut.  I have no idea how their profit and loss sheet looks like, I hope they didn't extend too far and I hope they do well.  Pf1 didn't grab my attention, and PF2 did not change in ways to make me buy it, but full disclose I only play one game that is D20 (DCC) so they would have to do something special to have brought me in.  I think that is their weakness right now, they are unable to draw in the players D&D resurgence (and the folks d&d has brought back to table top) has created.  IME people like to look around for alternatives to the first game.  PF seems to have gone from having nostalgia as its biggest strength to now looking like an imitation of the big kid on the block.

Quote from: oggsmash;1098896I can say this regarding experience in business, selling out is never the worst thing to happen,  every small business knows (and really every business) the worst thing to have and what kills you, is inventory that does not move...

This. Selling out and keeping up with demand is the kind of problem businesses want to have.

And no business wants to have to cart back inventory from any convention/trade show. Ever.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1098894I'm late to party. Did PF2 slaughter any sacred cows in need of slaughtering or did it just tweak some parts of the experience while leaving a bunch (https://www.livingdice.com/7729/ten-dumb-things-dd-wont-change/) of the other (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) big underlying issues (http://daegames.blogspot.com/2014/12/5-problems-with-magic-in-dungeons.html) untouched??

My Advice. Don't play PF2/D&D.

Plenty of other fantasy games out there.

If Pazio/PF2 started slaughtering sacred cows they would ensure that PF2 would fail.

If WOTC starts slaughtering sacred cows they are in for another 4e backlash.

Because:

 

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1098894.... Fantasy Craft, Trailblazer, 13th Age and countless other retroclones and 3pp introduce amazing helpful innovations that Wizards and Paizo completely ignore.

Why are Wizards and Paizo so resistant to improving their rules? Why does the community not demand better?

Because the Hobby, wants their D&D the way they want it. And they want it to be just like it was before, only better.

Get it?

We all saw what happened with 4e. WOTC has to walk a fine line with its future editions lest they have a situation like 4e where they get outsold by a clone.

Here is Amazon pricing history data:

(https://i.imgur.com/uRZ7q9v.jpg)

RPG Best Sellers List:

(https://i.imgur.com/QyBNdKT.jpg)

First review I've read from someone not gifted the rules, from Jester David (http://www.5mwd.com/archives/5692) (who I tend to like on a variety of forums, though we certainly don't always agree).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1098894I'm late to party. Did PF2 slaughter any sacred cows in need of slaughtering or did it just tweak some parts of the experience while leaving a bunch (https://www.livingdice.com/7729/ten-dumb-things-dd-wont-change/) of the other (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) big underlying issues (http://daegames.blogspot.com/2014/12/5-problems-with-magic-in-dungeons.html) untouched? From where I'm standing, we still have sacred cows like separate armor class and reflex saves, martial caster disparity, the Christmas tree effect, min-maxing, and nonsensical alignment. 4e fixed problems like that over a decade ago to great success until Wizards reversed every good decision they made for reasons I can never hope to understand. Fantasy Craft, Trailblazer, 13th Age and countless other retroclones and 3pp introduce amazing helpful innovations that Wizards and Paizo completely ignore.

Why are Wizards and Paizo so resistant to improving their rules? Why does the community not demand better?

I am sorry man, but Paizo doubled down on all of those things and you dont even want to know how many different types of Dragons they have now.

Quote from: Mistwell;1098952First review I've read from someone not gifted the rules, from Jester David (http://www.5mwd.com/archives/5692) (who I tend to like on a variety of forums, though we certainly don't always agree).

I read his review and it seems pretty balanced and non-biased as can be. The one statement that stood out was that in PF2E "Over the course of a level 1 to 20 campaign, each character will find thirty-six permanent magical items." Any system that guarantees that to the players is one I have no interest in playing.

Quote from: Mistwell;1098952First review I've read from someone not gifted the rules, from Jester David (http://www.5mwd.com/archives/5692) (who I tend to like on a variety of forums, though we certainly don't always agree).

His review seems to be as fair and non-biased as can be. The one statement that stood out to me was "Over the course of a level 1 to 20 campaign, each character will find thirty-six permanent magical items." Any game that is balanced around magic items and hands it out to the players just for participating is one I have no interest in playing.

Quote from: Ninneveh;1098976His review seems to be as fair and non-biased as can be. The one statement that stood out to me was "Over the course of a level 1 to 20 campaign, each character will find thirty-six permanent magical items." Any game that is balanced around magic items and hands it out to the players just for participating is one I have no interest in playing.

For me it was:

QuoteThis is not an easy game to learn. While arguably simpler (or at least more streamlined) than Pathfinder 1, it's still one of the more complicated RPG rulesets currently being published. If not the most complicated in-print RPG.

:eek:

Dungeon Musings Review of Pathfinder 2

[video=youtube_share;HeL2kATm0Gc]https://youtu.be/HeL2kATm0Gc[/youtube]

Quote from: Aglondir;1098992For me it was:

:eek:

Thats right, put on your big boy pants, we are not playing a story game now Toto.

Quote from: Shasarak;1098958I am sorry man, but Paizo doubled down on all of those things and you dont even want to know how many different types of Dragons they have now.

I don't care for PF 1ed but you have to give them credit. They took all of the most distinctive things about 3ed and doubled down on them. It was purely a game for people who loved 3.5ed and wanted MOAR not people who wanted to fix it. Which makes good business sense, the squeaky wheel often gets the grease but it's generally better business sense to focus on keeping the people who love what you're selling happy. That's certainly been a good course of action in my own small business which just passed 5 years as a brick and mortar operation despite fate doing its best to try to fuck us.

Quote from: Jaeger;1098930If WOTC starts slaughtering sacred cows they are in for another 4e backlash.

Don't bother.

Box actually likes 4E, and the guys that wrote those objections also love 4E.

I've learned not to talk to crazy people.

Diamond Announces Top Products for July 2019 (https://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/597?articleID=106830)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3709[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Daztur;1099005I don't care for PF 1ed but you have to give them credit. They took all of the most distinctive things about 3ed and doubled down on them. It was purely a game for people who loved 3.5ed and wanted MOAR not people who wanted to fix it. Which makes good business sense, the squeaky wheel often gets the grease but it's generally better business sense to focus on keeping the people who love what you're selling happy. That's certainly been a good course of action in my own small business which just passed 5 years as a brick and mortar operation despite fate doing its best to try to fuck us.

The whole irony imo is that even though as you say Paizo doubled down with PF 1E all the flaws of 3.5. Some of the same players who praised PF 1E were then complaining about Paizo have doing the same thing. As the wanted both access to the 3.5 ruleset. Yet also expected and assumed that Paizo would fix the same flaws. When they received the first and Paizo stubbornly took forever to fix the second Wotc released 5E. Then some of them who despised 4E suddenly become hypocrites and bought massively into 5E. Even though 5E borrows heavily from 4E D&D.

People will say what they want to get more product yet not really purchase the product. Fans said they would buy more Gurps 4E books andHero System books. With them also saying not to change the complexity. When no one is looking switch over to Fate and Savage Worlds instead. Many gamers don't know what they truly want.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;10988944e fixed problems like that over a decade ago to great success until Wizards reversed every good decision they made for reasons I can never hope to understand. Fantasy Craft, Trailblazer, 13th Age and countless other retroclones and 3pp introduce amazing helpful innovations that Wizards and Paizo completely ignore.

Very simple answer for myself at least. I had to sell of much of my rpg collection for fast cash yet mostly for space reasons. Out of all my collection I kept D&D. In an emergency if I needed to sell more of my rpgs for whatever reasons I can always find buyers. More importantly I can also always find new players/DMs  to run and play D&D with. The others not so much at least in my area. D&D unlike the others even with all the progress they made with their rules does not have the name and brand recognition that D&D has. The days of buying at least in print rpgs that I cannot find gamers to play or run for for myself is over.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1098894Why are Wizards and Paizo so resistant to improving their rules? Why does the community not demand better?

Honest answer imo most gamers do not know what the fuck they want. They want to complain about martial caster disparity. Then whine even louder that one took away the power of their caster and that they are now "nerfed". Let me put some glycerin tears in my eyes while I pretend to care. They want to be able to complain about the flaws of any rpg yet don't you damn dare change a thing about it. It is why I ban that kind of talk at my games non-negotiable no exceptions . One does not complain about the flaws of an rpg continually then turn around and say not to change anything so those flaws can be improved. I can respect not liking changes in an rpg. Not the weird dichotomy of point out flaws and being resistant to fixing the same flaws.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099017Diamond Announces Top Products for July 2019 (https://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/597?articleID=106830)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3709[/ATTACH]

Do they distribute D&D books?  I see they have Magic Cards.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1099027Do they distribute D&D books?  I see they have Magic Cards.

At least they did in 2017... There's an old catalog to be found here: http://www.alliance-games.com/Home/11/1/79/1162?articleID=127270

Edit: Diamond and Alliance are affiliates, in case anyone was wondering: https://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/305?articleID=36047

Quote from: sureshot;1099025The whole irony imo is that even though as you say Paizo doubled down with PF 1E all the flaws of 3.5.

Yup, very much so. I remember making a list of all of the flaws of 3.5ed (from my point of view at the time) and PF1 made just about all of them worse.

I remember the specific moment that I noped out of PF1. During the playtest I noticed they were giving new bells and whistles to all the classes including giving powerups to fucking core casters. I asked a dev about why they were doing that. He said that they needed to boost the core classes in order to help them compete with overpowered splat options. That just showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how powercreep worked in 5ed. It wasn't that core options were weaker than splat options, if anything at least half of the most powerful classes were right there in core along with a lot of the most powerful feats and spells (natural spell, etc.). The powercreep happened because:

1. People could go through scores of splat options and cherry pick out the most powerful ones. This didn't mean that the individual options were more powerful than in core.

2. One failing of 3.5ed is that they looked for interactions between each individual splatbook and core they didn't really pay attention to what happened if you combined different splatbooks with each other. So in a lot of cases there would be mechanical widgets that were basically fine by themselves but got overpowered really quickly if you combined them because of the synergies. For example there were a whole bunch of slightly different feats that basically said "I'm good at running at a guy and hitting them hard" because there was a lot of duplicated effort/left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing in 3.5ed, they were basically all fine by themselves but if you combined them all in one character you got something that could dish out crazy damage.

Giving boost to core casters doesn't do anything to address those problems and made me realize that the PF devs weren't going to do fuck-all to address what I didn't like about 3.5ed. And, hey, they didn't. Still good business decisions since they got the people who wanted more 3.5ed instead of fixed 3.5 and a lot of people liked the extra bells and whistles.

If you make a really crunchy game you have to be good at  the ins and outs of the rules and have a really good grasp of how crunchy mechanical systems work. And PF devs just really don't... I mean they hired SK Reynolds for fuck's sake and he wrote the second dumbest thing ever written about D&D mechanics by a dev: https://web.archive.org/web/20140202043441/www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html that shows a really fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work. The other devs just seem to have a much worse grasp of the ins and outs of d20 rules than a lot of CharOp board nerds and it really shows.

Still pretty leery about PF2 being able to do well beyond initial sales (even 4ed had good initial sales). In retrospect what they should've probably done is partnered with 5ed right from the get-go when they had more bargaining power before 5ed was a proven success, put out a lot of 5ed adventure paths, etc. etc. Too late now though, don't think any amount of business smarts can prevent Paizo from losing market share in the long run, but they have enough to keep on coasting and making an OK profit for a good long time.

QuoteThen some of them who despised 4E suddenly become hypocrites and bought massively into 5E. Even though 5E borrows heavily from 4E D&D.

While 5ed does borrow a lot from 4ed under the hood in actual play it feels a lot more like a cleaned up 3.5ed. There's nothing hypocritical about disliking 4ed and liking 5ed. I find 5ed a bit bland but it's basically fine and I'd rather play it than 4ed.

4ed does have some good aspects though. It was a lot of fun reskinned for a mecha vs. kaiju game I played with CaveBear a while back. My PC was a shardmind grapple fighter reskinned as a Tremors worm/shai halud (got to use a gummiworm as my mini) and it was good for long epic smashy battles. Just not too good for standard D&D attrition-based dungeon crawling.

QuoteOne does not complain about the flaws of an rpg continually then turn around and say not to change anything so those flaws can be improved. I can respect not liking changes in an rpg. Not the weird dichotomy of point out flaws and being resistant to fixing the same flaws.

Right, but on the other hand just because you think a flaw sucks and that flaw got fixed doesn't mean you can't complain about HOW that flaw got fixed. For example I complained a lot about 3.5 martial/caster disparity and 4ed fixed that (while for some bizarre reason retaining the idiotic 3.5ed decision to give fighters hardly any skills) however I didn't much like HOW 4ed fixed that so instead of playing 4ed I went and played OSR games instead which tend not to have 3.5ed's martial/caster disparity, at least in the single digit levels. 5ed has that disparity but not as bad as 3.5ed so I can deal with it and get my martial casters up to par with the party's casters by doing some charop.

Quote from: Daztur;1099054he wrote the second dumbest thing ever written about D&D mechanics by a dev:

1st?

Quote from: BronzeDragon;10991291st?

Ryan Dancey?

Quote from: BronzeDragon;10991291st?

Idk how many of you play 3.5, but his assessment that a lot of feats suck is spot on.

He also lays the groundwork there for PFs powerseep problem.

Quote from: Catulle;1099134Ryan Dancey?

That is not a name widely associated with designing DnD mechanics.

Quote from: BronzeDragon;10991291st?

Quote from: Catulle;1099134Ryan Dancey?

Monte Cook. The infamous Ivory Tower Game Design essay: http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=13812.0

Quote from: Jaeger;1098930My Advice. Don't play PF2/D&D.

Plenty of other fantasy games out there.

So true. Is there an index of RPGs by genre? Like pulp, pseudo-medieval fantasy, etc?

Quote from: Shasarak;1098958I am sorry man, but Paizo doubled down on all of those things and you dont even want to know how many different types of Dragons they have now.

I never understood why they couldn't have used a random generation table. Having a bazillion types of dragons complete with nonsensical naturalistic ecologies is just silly. Dragons are magic. They don't have to make sense!

Quote from: BronzeDragon;1099006Don't bother.

Box actually likes 4E, and the guys that wrote those objections also love 4E.

I've learned not to talk to crazy people.

I'm not saying that I liked 4e. I only said that it fixed some long-standing problems with the rules. It was not perfect, but a lot of the backlash was misinformed and 4e didn't bomb financially despite what propaganda would tell you. WotC's response was to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In fact, during the development of 5e their blogs included numerous instances where they recreated mechanics from 4e without realizing it.

The problem with 4e wasn't the rules, but all the other PR stuff that went horribly wrong. The tiefling mocking the gnome video, the promised online tools never materializing, that truly awful replacement for the OGL that forced publishers to stop selling supplements for previous editions, and countless other things I can't remember.

The kinds of stuff they elaborated on in the Wizards Presents: Races and Classes and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters preview books wasn't inherently bad. I found much of it refreshing and logical, because I myself found the thirty years of accumulated baggage unworkable.

If you really think that I'm crazy, then I implore you to provide solid rebuttals of the various critiques of the D&D mechanics. Although you can certainly decry 4e for making classes feel homogeneous, it at least tried to address problems that even Gygax complained about back in the day as well as problems introduced by Wizards of the Coast in the first place.

Quote from: sureshot;1099025Honest answer imo most gamers do not know what the fuck they want. They want to complain about martial caster disparity. Then whine even louder that one took away the power of their caster and that they are now "nerfed". Let me put some glycerin tears in my eyes while I pretend to care. They want to be able to complain about the flaws of any rpg yet don't you damn dare change a thing about it. It is why I ban that kind of talk at my games non-negotiable no exceptions . One does not complain about the flaws of an rpg continually then turn around and say not to change anything so those flaws can be improved. I can respect not liking changes in an rpg. Not the weird dichotomy of point out flaws and being resistant to fixing the same flaws.

It is so annoying, too.

Quote from: Daztur;1099054While 5ed does borrow a lot from 4ed under the hood in actual play it feels a lot more like a cleaned up 3.5ed. There's nothing hypocritical about disliking 4ed and liking 5ed. I find 5ed a bit bland but it's basically fine and I'd rather play it than 4ed.

4ed does have some good aspects though. It was a lot of fun reskinned for a mecha vs. kaiju game I played with CaveBear a while back. My PC was a shardmind grapple fighter reskinned as a Tremors worm/shai halud (got to use a gummiworm as my mini) and it was good for long epic smashy battles. Just not too good for standard D&D attrition-based dungeon crawling.



Right, but on the other hand just because you think a flaw sucks and that flaw got fixed doesn't mean you can't complain about HOW that flaw got fixed. For example I complained a lot about 3.5 martial/caster disparity and 4ed fixed that (while for some bizarre reason retaining the idiotic 3.5ed decision to give fighters hardly any skills) however I didn't much like HOW 4ed fixed that so instead of playing 4ed I went and played OSR games instead which tend not to have 3.5ed's martial/caster disparity, at least in the single digit levels. 5ed has that disparity but not as bad as 3.5ed so I can deal with it and get my martial casters up to par with the party's casters by doing some charop.

Execution is everything. In order to fix the problems, you need to know what those problems are. Given that the writers have demonstrated their ignorance of the rules at length, I propose that we place the munchkins in charge of development. Given their clearly competent grasp on game design, they are obviously the best suited to fixing the rules.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1099190Given that the writers have demonstrated their ignorance of the rules at length, I propose that we place the munchkins in charge of development. Given their clearly competent grasp on game design, they are obviously the best suited to fixing the rules.

Honestly, I have a couple of munchkins I run each iteration of game system project by specifically to find abuse-able elements in the system. Especially early on they found some truly egregious combos that enabled me to close them.

In short, munchkins do have a place in game design. I wouldn't want one to be lead developer, but for finding unintended exploits, they're fantastic.

Quote from: Morblot;1099052At least they did in 2017... There's an old catalog to be found here: http://www.alliance-games.com/Home/11/1/79/1162?articleID=127270

Edit: Diamond and Alliance are affiliates, in case anyone was wondering: https://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/305?articleID=36047

It looks like they no longer supply the D&D books, but agreed, they did at one point.

On Amazon, I've been spot-checking the relative position of Pathfinder versus D&D Player's Handbook, and pretty consistently I've seen the 5th edition PHB in 1st place.  

There are 56 user reviews on the site now and most are positive (overall 4 star rating compared to 5th edition PHB 4.5 star rating).  For something that's 600+ pages, I think splitting into a volume boxed-set would have been appropriate (like having all the spells in a separate book) so you can more easily reference the parts you need.  It sounds like the size of the book and the insufficiently durable covers are problems for some people (covers ripped, bending, etc).  

3 (out of 5, currently) 1-star reviews appear to be upset that Paizo represents 'PC culture'.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1099190I never understood why they couldn't have used a random generation table. Having a bazillion types of dragons complete with nonsensical naturalistic ecologies is just silly. Dragons are magic. They don't have to make sense!

What is wrong with monster ecologies?  It is not as if they spring into existence from someones head.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1099190So true. Is there an index of RPGs by genre? Like pulp, pseudo-medieval fantasy, etc?.

No index that I know of.

OSR/D&D5e has made other fantasy RPGs thin on the ground by comparison.

The "D&D genre" of fantasy has absolutely run roughshod over the hobby. The true legacy of the OGL was to increase and cement D&D's dominance of the RPG industry.

So outside of established systems (Like d100) there is little incentive to make an promote a non d20 fantasy rpg.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1099190I'm not saying that I liked 4e. I only said that it fixed some long-standing problems with the rules. It was not perfect, but a lot of the backlash was misinformed and 4e didn't bomb financially despite what propaganda would tell you. WotC's response was to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In fact, during the development of 5e their blogs included numerous instances where they recreated mechanics from 4e without realizing it..

While technically true in some respects, many did not like the specific implementation of the fixes. And the WOTC PR department did not do them any favors either.

Not that there weren't some god ideas. This can be seen by 5e implementing some of the better ideas with its own spin. And while WOTC made money with 4e, but then to be outsold by their clone was a humiliation not to be borne. So, 5e.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1099203It looks like they no longer supply the D&D books, but agreed, they did at one point.

On Amazon, I've been spot-checking the relative position of Pathfinder versus D&D Player's Handbook, and pretty consistently I've seen the 5th edition PHB in 1st place.  

There are 56 user reviews on the site now and most are positive (overall 4 star rating compared to 5th edition PHB 4.5 star rating).  For something that's 600+ pages, I think splitting into a volume boxed-set would have been appropriate (like having all the spells in a separate book) so you can more easily reference the parts you need.  It sounds like the size of the book and the insufficiently durable covers are problems for some people (covers ripped, bending, etc).  

3 (out of 5, currently) 1-star reviews appear to be upset that Paizo represents 'PC culture'.

Lets look at the top 1 star review:

QuoteYou want to play a paladin but not a sword-and-board style (as you could do in 1E)? Too bad, you gotta take a shield feat anyway. Want to be devoted to good but not a deity (as you could do in 1E)? Too bad, gotta serve a deity. Want to use a spear with grace instead of brute force (as you could do in 1E)? Too bad, it's not an option anymore. Want to take an AoO as a paladin (as you could do in 1E)? Too bad, that's only for fighters now.
Want to take a 1 level dip into fighter (as you could do in 1E)? Too bad, multiclassing is insanely complicated now and will take a feat tax, a feat and wait until 4th level to get that basic option back.

Half of these complaints are wrong, half are nonsensical and the other half are complaints about how Paizo can not seem to fit 10 years of character options into the core book.

Yes the rest of us seem to understand that some options are not going to be in the first book but not this brainiac. Oh I can not make a Cleric without worshiping a Deity?  No shit Sherlock, its a Cleric.  Oh my Paladin can not make attacks of Opportunity!  Just read the rules dumb ass.  Come on.

A one star review from someone who can not even read the book he is supposed to be reading, can not understand the game that he is supposed to be playing and can not even comprehend the concept of space-time in the world that he is supposed to be inhabiting.  My only possible explanation is an over dose of soy based products.

I remember when everyone said that Starfinder was going to tank.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1099230I remember when everyone said that Starfinder was going to tank.

Did it?  

I know a lot of gamers, but I don't know anyone who is playing it.  I do know some people who were interested, but I don't think they ever got a group going with it.  

I remember when Eric Mona really wanted to keep Polyhedron going, even though nobody else seemed to care.  I would wager that as long as StarFinder covered the production costs, it could have been allowed to continue as a vanity project.  They do need to move product and good companies will take a stab at 'the next big thing'.  As long as they're prudent, they can experiment.  

In any case, I do participate in a lot of gaming discussions, and even there, I don't hear people bringing up Pathfinder as an example of any type of interesting game design.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1099241Did it?  

I know a lot of gamers, but I don't know anyone who is playing it.  I do know some people who were interested, but I don't think they ever got a group going with it.  

I play biweekly in my local Starfinder Society sessions. There's continuing support for the game with the Society and regular book releases. I didn't expect it to knock D&D off the top of the hill, but it seems to be a solid RPG product.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1099190Execution is everything. In order to fix the problems, you need to know what those problems are. Given that the writers have demonstrated their ignorance of the rules at length, I propose that we place the munchkins in charge of development. Given their clearly competent grasp on game design, they are obviously the best suited to fixing the rules.

Yeah, it boggles the mind that WotC etc. never hired some of the biggest CharOp nerds as at least consultants to do some sanity testing of their rules. Would catch so many things like the BS 5ed Lucky feat even aside from obscure synergies that the designers don't foresee. One thing that 5ed does well, however, it it's harder to synergize a lot of stuff because of stuff like Advantage and the Concentration rule so a hypothetical 6ed could clean up a lot of little things by making small tweaks instead of an overhaul that'd piss off a lot of people.

For Pathfinder the way the game is set up you really NEED some huge munchkins to make sure all of the rules work well together and I don't think the devs that they have are all that good at that sort of thing. The more crunchy a ruleset you have the more munchkin power you need to make everything work well together. If you don't then the sort of behavior the rules reward will be different than the sort of behavior that the devs WANT the rules to reward and things go sideways.

Of course you probably don't want the munchkins in the driver's seat or you'll get silly shit like The Gaming Den (//www.tgdmb.com/viewforum.php?f=1) but they should be an important part of the development process of any half-way crunchy game.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1099190So true. Is there an index of RPGs by genre? Like pulp, pseudo-medieval fantasy, etc?.

This page is more Products by Genre, but sorting by rank will push the major systems to the top.

https://www.rpggeek.com/browse/rpggenre

Pathfinder 2e is the first game to be awarded the Polygon Recommends (https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2019/8/1/20727563/pathfinder-2e-review-second-edition) Badge.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099265Pathfinder 2e is the first game to be awarded the Polygon Recommends (https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2019/8/1/20727563/pathfinder-2e-review-second-edition) Badge.

I read a polygon review on PF2e, they decided to go through the history of D&D and expressed just how ignorant they were on the topics discussed.

I tend to ignore the five star reviews as they tend to be for the most part shills for Paizo. While ignoring the one star as they tend to be wrong or focus too much on one element of the rpg. Most of the ones I take into account and base my purchases one are the three star reviews. Willing to mention both the flaws and merits of an rpg.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099212What is wrong with monster ecologies?  It is not as if they spring into existence from someones head.

I can understand why it bothers some to have too many dragons. Giants in PF 1E are the same. What is truly the difference between an ocean, river, lake or stream giant. Looking at the stats and ecology not much. Variety is nice making them not stand out from each other not as much.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099265Pathfinder 2e is the first game to be awarded the Polygon Recommends (https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2019/8/1/20727563/pathfinder-2e-review-second-edition) Badge.

Yet another "Reviewer copy provided early for free to a fanboi" review. They even mention it in small print at the very bottom of that "article". Hall had done prior articles on Pathfinder before PF2 came out, and Jason had given him an exclusive interview (https://www.polygon.com/2018/5/10/17337396/pathfinder-playtest-interview-jason-bulmahn-erik-mona-availability) during the playtest.

Quote from: Mistwell;1099287Yet another "Reviewer copy provided early for free to a fanboi" review. They even mention it in small print at the very bottom of that "article". Hall had done prior articles on Pathfinder before PF2 came out, and Jason had given him an exclusive interview (https://www.polygon.com/2018/5/10/17337396/pathfinder-playtest-interview-jason-bulmahn-erik-mona-availability) during the playtest.

You are right, professional reviewers get review copies.

Shirley this is not a new concept for you?

Jeff McAleer (Gaming Gang) - Pathfinder Second Edition Core Book - Review and Page Through (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yy162h5qek)

Quote from: Shasarak;1099313You are right, professional reviewers get review copies.

Shirley this is not a new concept for you?

It's not "professional reviewers". It's "Professional reviewers in your pocket before product release" which is a meaningful subset of "professional reviewers". It's not a coincidence that this "professional reviewer" had an exclusive interview with Jason during the beta test, and then was sent an early review copy for the review to be released on the product release date.

I know you understand this concept. And I know you're playing dumb, because you're a shill on this topic and have been for years.

I am perfectly open to PF2. But it's not unreasonable to want to limit reviews to "guys not already biased to like PF2 before they even see it for the first time".  Because to me, the purpose of a review is to get as close to an objective analysis of the product as you can.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099316Jeff McAleer (Gaming Gang) - Pathfinder Second Edition Core Book - Review and Page Through (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yy162h5qek)

Better. It's still a free review copy, and was produced prior to the release date to coincide with the release date (and he says that, and that he was under embargo). So someone at Paizo assumed he'd be positive about the game for whatever reason before sending him a free copy. Probably because Jeff is heavily invested in, and a big fan of, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game (and the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Society and Pathfinder Adventure Paths)?

Anyway, it's definitely better than the other stuff you've posted.

I found it interesting he felt the people who are least likely to be into PF2 are...those who are most into PF1.

Drop Lowest - Review Pathfinder 2e (https://droplowest.com/2019/08/01/review-pathfinder-2e/)

QuoteIf you're the kind of player who gets a kick out mechanics you'll find a lot to enjoy in this modernised take on Pathfinder's classicly crunchy ruleset.

Actual Play reports are coming through now:

Danbala - So I ran 2e for the First Time (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time)

Quote from: Shasarak;1099323Drop Lowest - Review Pathfinder 2e (https://droplowest.com/2019/08/01/review-pathfinder-2e/)

Quote"Instead, Pathfinder 2E seems to have found a niche of its own. A place where mechanically complex characters sit alongside a refined and (comparatively) smooth combat system. It has its flaws, including a thoroughly intimidating character sheet and some thoroughly fiddle minor rules, but for me these are outweighed by the chance to build a halfling barbarian who wields a large-sized greatsword, and have that mean something mechanically."

I feel like this sums up PF2e's problems. See the faults he points out for the gain he likes, other games do that better. Specifically 4e D&D and for his particular example some settings of Savage Worlds.

Most people on this site will tell you that PF2e is a shitty game. I am not of that opinion. I think it is an OK game, but that isn't good enough. RPG enthusiast like myself read more RPGs than we will even have time to play. So when I pitch (and by pitch I mean run) a system to my group, I am only picking the best that I know of. Pathfinder 2e is a heavy crunch game that is a damn hard sell to a group already familiar with PF1e and has plenty of character concepts they want to try. And for me, GMing PF1e is easier because I already know the rules and can improve monsters off of the bestiary 1 tables. Now for players that never played PF1e, then I would recommend PF2e after they exhausted and enjoyed playing 4e D&D (which in my opinion is just a better game than PF2e). Chances are you don't run out of 4e material and instead just lose interest in the playstyle, which PF2e is just more of same in that regard.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1099332I feel like this sums up PF2e's problems. See the faults he points out for the gain he likes, other games do that better. Specifically 4e D&D and for his particular example some settings of Savage Worlds.

Most people on this site will tell you that PF2e is a shitty game. I am not of that opinion. I think it is an OK game, but that isn't good enough. RPG enthusiast like myself read more RPGs than we will even have time to play. So when I pitch (and by pitch I mean run) a system to my group, I am only picking the best that I know of. Pathfinder 2e is a heavy crunch game that is a damn hard sell to a group already familiar with PF1e and has plenty of character concepts they want to try. And for me, GMing PF1e is easier because I already know the rules and can improve monsters off of the bestiary 1 tables. Now for players that never played PF1e, then I would recommend PF2e after they exhausted and enjoyed playing 4e D&D (which in my opinion is just a better game than PF2e). Chances are you don't run out of 4e material and instead just lose interest in the playstyle, which PF2e is just more of same in that regard.

What do you rank 4e highly in?  Personally I can not see much overlap between the two systems.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099333What do you rank 4e highly in?  Personally I can not see much overlap between the two systems.

4e is a relatively balanced "combat as sport" class based system with highly customizable characters and the resulting tactical situations are interesting.

Out of combat capability is contained to mainly a robust skill system, ritual magic, and magic items (likely DM crafted OSR magic items will have the most utility). The critique from 3e (or 5e) is that your class features rarely help you out of combat. PF2e has similar problems (especially with the way magic was nerfed).

Where I find 4e D&D just better is:
1. Martials are more interesting
2. 4e emulates high fantasy better
3. 4e has way more content, is an overall deeper more enjoyable game while also having less crunch than PF2e.

Personally I can't look at PF2e and not see an inferior D&D 4e. They made the same kind of compromises for that same kind of goals that 3e did to 4e as PF1 did to PF2.
Aside from PF2e having vancian magic and a  + level to everything (rather than + 1/2 level), it's basically the same kind of game with less offensive word choices (no encounter powers, which are actually once per 15 minute short rest powers).

I would also note that with minion rules, combat as war playstyles are fairly easy to pull off. You can even run megadungeons in the system if most foes are minions.

I argue that 4e D&D could easily play like high level OSR characters still going on adventures. (from level 1 with healing surges, your 4e HP is about as high as a level 10 OSR character).

Quote from: Rhedyn;10993834e is a relatively balanced "combat as sport" class based system with highly customizable characters and the resulting tactical situations are interesting.

Out of combat capability is contained to mainly a robust skill system, ritual magic, and magic items (likely DM crafted OSR magic items will have the most utility). The critique from 3e (or 5e) is that your class features rarely help you out of combat. PF2e has similar problems (especially with the way magic was nerfed).

Where I find 4e D&D just better is:
1. Martials are more interesting
2. 4e emulates high fantasy better
3. 4e has way more content, is an overall deeper more enjoyable game while also having less crunch than PF2e.

Personally I can't look at PF2e and not see an inferior D&D 4e. They made the same kind of compromises for that same kind of goals that 3e did to 4e as PF1 did to PF2.
Aside from PF2e having vancian magic and a  + level to everything (rather than + 1/2 level), it's basically the same kind of game with less offensive word choices (no encounter powers, which are actually once per 15 minute short rest powers).

Yes I can definitely see 4e as being better for playing 'combat as a sport' then well any other version of DnD really.  It does not look to me that Pathfinder 2 is even aiming to try and compete for that space.

In contrast though, it looks like Pathfinder 2 has done a much better job of balancing Martial characters with out making every class use the same system.  The three action, 1 reaction economy of Pathfinder 2 looks like a much better version of the Attack, Move, Minor economy of 4e as well making choices in combat more tactical - especially compared to the even older system of full attacking.

It is quite interesting to compare the Pathfinder 2 +level with the 4e + 1/2 level because when you take everything into account 4e characters are actually advancing at +1 level.  Especially if you use the math fix feats they introduced later in the edition, so really the math is a wash.

If we compare launch day content then Pathfinder has way more then 4e did and on the other hand that was an intentional decision by the 4e devs to try and milk out as many extra books as they could.  Looking at the Pathfinder book you can see that they tried to cram in as much stuff as they possibly could.

If I had 2 or 3 hours to play out a set piece battle then 4e would be the obvious choice.  For at the table play then it would be Pathfinder.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099428If we compare launch day content then Pathfinder has way more then 4e did and on the other hand that was an intentional decision by the 4e devs to try and milk out as many extra books as they could.  Looking at the Pathfinder book you can see that they tried to cram in as much stuff as they possibly could.

If I had 2 or 3 hours to play out a set piece battle then 4e would be the obvious choice.  For at the table play then it would be Pathfinder.

Ah but PF2e does not get to exist in a vacuum. You can argue that it is off to a better start and will grow into a more rich game, but right now it is lacking compared to it's equivalents; PF1e, D&D4e.

Honestly combat length in almost any system depends more on the GM than anything else. 4e healing surges add a lot of flexibility to encounter structure and I've been in sessions that were more "combat as war" and it works fine with minions (better than D&D 5e at least IMHO).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1099445Ah but PF2e does not get to exist in a vacuum. You can argue that it is off to a better start and will grow into a more rich game, but right now it is lacking compared to it's equivalents; PF1e, D&D4e.

Honestly combat length in almost any system depends more on the GM than anything else. 4e healing surges add a lot of flexibility to encounter structure and I've been in sessions that were more "combat as war" and it works fine with minions (better than D&D 5e at least IMHO).

If you compare the Pathfinder 2e core book with the current 5e offerings then the options look pretty comparable swapping the Warlock for the Alchemist and the Dragonborn for the Goblin.  And if you believe the scuttlebutt around the water cooler then "less is more" is the new black with the Millennials not being able to handle the old wall'o'books.

Healing Surges were a little too gamist for my tastes, no real reason why a Healing Potion would stop working just because you had run out healing surges.  In my experience it limited the game when you had to stop because your Striker had exhausted his healing while your Defender was only halfway through.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099454If you compare the Pathfinder 2e core book with the current 5e offerings then the options look pretty comparable swapping the Warlock for the Alchemist and the Dragonborn for the Goblin.  And if you believe the scuttlebutt around the water cooler then "less is more" is the new black with the Millennials not being able to handle the old wall'o'books.

Healing Surges were a little too gamist for my tastes, no real reason why a Healing Potion would stop working just because you had run out healing surges.  In my experience it limited the game when you had to stop because your Striker had exhausted his healing while your Defender was only halfway through.

Not really because my friends who actually like D&D 5e play with tons of unearthed arcana and online homebrew. 5e already isn't balanced at all so at worse the homebrew balances their games. In my opinion this is the way 3.5 Players play D&D 5e (because the whole edition is meant to be ran however the DM thinks D&D should be ran). That young ultra progressive group I know about is PF2e's target audience and they are actively repulsed by PF2e.

Healing potions in D&D 4e are not like healing potions in other editions. They help you dip into your shonen anime protagonist reserves of strength that you could have easily done without the potion.
As someone who plays a defender, I like having extra healing surges left over. It allows me to play a lot more recklessly. Which is like half the fun of playing a Human Fighter.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1099384I would also note that with minion rules, combat as war playstyles are fairly easy to pull off. You can even run megadungeons in the system if most foes are minions.

I argue that 4e D&D could easily play like high level OSR characters still going on adventures. (from level 1 with healing surges, your 4e HP is about as high as a level 10 OSR character).

I think that the main things that make 4ed a not so good fit for "Combat as War"* playstyle would be:
-Combat takes a long time.
-Harder to attrition down PCs.
-More abstract skill system.
-More tightly defined spells etc. They're defined in terms of specific mechanic effects not in fiction terms of what they actually DO so it's harder to use them in off-label ways which a Combat as War playstyle really thrives on. In 4ed it's sometimes unclear what exactly is happening in fiction terms when you use an ability. As a general rule of thumb the easier a game is to reskin to worse it is at Combat as War since the things that make it hard to reskin stuff (being tied very tightly to specific fiction) is the sort of thing Combat as War thrives on.

Of course you can speed up combat and make the PCs more attrition-prone (the best way to do this in 4&5ed is make a short rest a night's sleep and a long rest extended bed rest) but it's still less than ideal. Some of this applies to high level OSR as well which is why stereotypical Combat as War play is usually associated with the low levels.

The other problems with 4ed were that the execution was a botched in places. Due to problems with the dev cycle (murder/suicide will do that) the different bits of the system, especially PCs and monsters didn't fit together so well which lead to problems with sloggy combat etc. The game really needed some more time for balance, speed, etc. It also would've helped a lot if some things were put in to make it less than idea for people to nova with their best powers right off the bat. Stuff like Daily powers working better when bloodied or when out of healing surges or somesuch.

Would really like a game that plays like a cleaned up version of 4ed (kind of like in actual play 5ed plays like a cleaned up version of 3.5ed, at least for me) for when I want big smashy high fantasy fights, it's just not a good fit for rat bastards surviving by their wits in Fantasy Fucking Vietnam. Doesn't mean that it's a bad or unfun way to play though. I've played a lot of different styles of RPGs and the only thing that I really can't stand is "frustrated novelist" railroading bullshit. As long as what's happening is determined by the choices I made I'm usually pretty happy.

*So weird to still see that term pop up after so many years. I've written so many random long-winded forum screeds and none of them made the slightest impact on anyone except that one.

Quote from: Daztur;1099491I think that the main things that make 4ed a not so good fit for "Combat as War"* playstyle would be:
-Combat takes a long time.
-Harder to attrition down PCs.
-More abstract skill system.
-More tightly defined spells etc. They're defined in terms of specific mechanic effects not in fiction terms of what they actually DO so it's harder to use them in off-label ways which a Combat as War playstyle really thrives on. In 4ed it's sometimes unclear what exactly is happening in fiction terms when you use an ability. As a general rule of thumb the easier a game is to reskin to worse it is at Combat as War since the things that make it hard to reskin stuff (being tied very tightly to specific fiction) is the sort of thing Combat as War thrives on.

Of course you can speed up combat and make the PCs more attrition-prone (the best way to do this in 4&5ed is make a short rest a night's sleep and a long rest extended bed rest) but it's still less than ideal. Some of this applies to high level OSR as well which is why stereotypical Combat as War play is usually associated with the low levels.

The other problems with 4ed were that the execution was a botched in places. Due to problems with the dev cycle (murder/suicide will do that) the different bits of the system, especially PCs and monsters didn't fit together so well which lead to problems with sloggy combat etc. The game really needed some more time for balance, speed, etc. It also would've helped a lot if some things were put in to make it less than idea for people to nova with their best powers right off the bat. Stuff like Daily powers working better when bloodied or when out of healing surges or somesuch.

Would really like a game that plays like a cleaned up version of 4ed (kind of like in actual play 5ed plays like a cleaned up version of 3.5ed, at least for me) for when I want big smashy high fantasy fights, it's just not a good fit for rat bastards surviving by their wits in Fantasy Fucking Vietnam. Doesn't mean that it's a bad or unfun way to play though. I've played a lot of different styles of RPGs and the only thing that I really can't stand is "frustrated novelist" railroading bullshit. As long as what's happening is determined by the choices I made I'm usually pretty happy.

*So weird to still see that term pop up after so many years. I've written so many random long-winded forum screeds and none of them made the slightest impact on anyone except that one.

Combat is pretty quick with minions and minions/traps can widdle away PC health really fast. With healing surges you can't just have tons of Healing Potions.
I personally find the 4e skill system to be one of the most detailed in the industry. Each skill gets definition and target number examples. I think the DMG "skill challenges" tables throw people off because that is an abstract skill system.
I think most of the "combat as war" useful magic comes from rituals which cost money, another resource, and I think fit in right well. Few of the daily powers or utility powers would make a difference and I think that's fair.
We discarded "D&D 4e Essentials" aka Mike Mearls making a pre-5e, and Monster Manual 1. The late edition Monsters combined with the pre-essential classes is a good match up for us.

In my mind 4e basically starts at OSR traveling level 10 characters. If you are doing something like Combat as War it's either an epic affair or something the PCs are going to be able to handle easily. Most of the OSR games seem to end at level 10 and the mechanics tend to not extend well beyond it. And I think that is for good reason. Sure BECMI goes to level 36, but how many wizards are dungeon crawling at level 30? 4e does a lot to enable that kind of story. Most OSR enthusiasts advocate ground the scope of the campaign in high levels, but what if you didn't want to do that and instead just keep adventuring into crazier and crazier situations.

Aside: A big part of "Combat as War" to me is that the world isn't leveled with you. In 4e you can kill minions more than 3x your CR but would die to any regular monster that strong. So once you veer outside of minions you go back to more Combat as Sport, because nothing too crazy can have normal HP without wiping the party.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1099485Not really because my friends who actually like D&D 5e play with tons of unearthed arcana and online homebrew. 5e already isn't balanced at all so at worse the homebrew balances their games. In my opinion this is the way 3.5 Players play D&D 5e (because the whole edition is meant to be ran however the DM thinks D&D should be ran). That young ultra progressive group I know about is PF2e's target audience and they are actively repulsed by PF2e.

I dont think that PF 2 is targeting young ultra progressive people, I think it is more the younger smarter people that want flexibility to make a unique character with real choices that give actual benefits.

QuoteHealing potions in D&D 4e are not like healing potions in other editions. They help you dip into your shonen anime protagonist reserves of strength that you could have easily done without the potion.
As someone who plays a defender, I like having extra healing surges left over. It allows me to play a lot more recklessly. Which is like half the fun of playing a Human Fighter.

Yeah it was one of those gamist choices they made that kinda ruined the high fantasy feeling of DnD for me.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099562I dont think that PF 2 is targeting young ultra progressive people, I think it is more the younger smarter people that want flexibility to make a unique character with real choices that give actual benefits.

When last I looked at it, the choices were tons and tons of boring options that amounted to characters less interesting than in PF1 or D&D5e, let alone D&D 4e that actually succeeded in giving players real choices that give actual benefits.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1099566When last I looked at it, the choices were tons and tons of boring options that amounted to characters less interesting than in PF1 or D&D5e, let alone D&D 4e that actually succeeded in giving players real choices that give actual benefits.

Which is a fantastic observation. If you provide context. What's the difference between a boring option and "real choices that gives actual benefits"?

Quote from: trechriron;1099567Which is a fantastic observation. If you provide context. What's the difference between a boring option and "real choices that gives actual benefits"?

Let me just visualize the Fighter PF2e let's me pick between Double Slice, Exacting Strike, Point-Blank Shot, Power Attack, Reactive Shield, Snagging Strike, and Sudden Charge. I found none

In 4e, my two at-wills were the one where I always do damage even on a miss (which kills minions and saves me from nat 1s) and the other one let me cleave damage to a nearby target (which killed minions).

In 5e, I get to pick a fighting style, it's boring small numbers like PF2e, but in 5e you pick between powerful small numbers like your longsword now doing great sword damage. (I don't even like 5e)

In PF1e, my level 1 human fighter normally picked Blind-fight, Combat Reflexes, and Intimidating Presence. All cooler gems than what is being offered in PF2e. I had more viable fighter builds with different starts than PF2e even has starting options.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1099576Let me just visualize the Fighter PF2e let's me pick between Double Slice, Exacting Strike, Point-Blank Shot, Power Attack, Reactive Shield, Snagging Strike, and Sudden Charge. I found none

In 4e, my two at-wills were the one where I always do damage even on a miss (which kills minions and saves me from nat 1s) and the other one let me cleave damage to a nearby target (which killed minions).

In 5e, I get to pick a fighting style, it's boring small numbers like PF2e, but in 5e you pick between powerful small numbers like your longsword now doing great sword damage. (I don't even like 5e)

In PF1e, my level 1 human fighter normally picked Blind-fight, Combat Reflexes, and Intimidating Presence. All cooler gems than what is being offered in PF2e. I had more viable fighter builds with different starts than PF2e even has starting options.

4e at wills were particularly bad because you are basically stuck with your two at wills for your whole character level 1 to 30.  They are much better then what the choices that they offer you in 5e.  In comparison Pathfinder 2 gives you the option to train out your double slice for what ever you want to take and it also gives a better choice of cantrips that you can change up from day to day.

I see that you feel that feats like Intimidating Presence are "cool" but I dont know if adding your Str bonus to your Intimidation check is actually a real choice, its just a math feat giving an extra +4 to your Intimidation roll.  I see real choices as being able to Intimidate with a glance, or as a reaction using Intimidate when you roll initiative or being so intimidating that you can literally scare someone to death.  Now those are real choices and the best thing is that making those choices does not even affect your combat abilities.  Much better then a +4 bonus.

Quote from: Shasarak;10995874e at wills were particularly bad because you are basically stuck with your two at wills for your whole character level 1 to 30.  They are much better then what the choices that they offer you in 5e.  In comparison Pathfinder 2 gives you the option to train out your double slice for what ever you want to take and it also gives a better choice of cantrips that you can change up from day to day.

I see that you feel that feats like Intimidating Presence are "cool" but I dont know if adding your Str bonus to your Intimidation check is actually a real choice, its just a math feat giving an extra +4 to your Intimidation roll.  I see real choices as being able to Intimidate with a glance, or as a reaction using Intimidate when you roll initiative or being so intimidating that you can literally scare someone to death.  Now those are real choices and the best thing is that making those choices does not even affect your combat abilities.  Much better then a +4 bonus.

Bah at-wills are your advance melee attack and you use them when none of your other powers are applicable. I don't see how the PF2e version of "your level 1 abilities are so lame you will jump to get rid of them" is a selling point (though 4e does get guilty of this when you can start trading out powers).

Intimidating Presence ends up being a +10 bonus eventually. But it's main help is that you give your Fighter a social skill equal to any bard or sorcerer. It also combos off into intimidation builds, but I tend to just use it as it is.

Spoiler

Dwarf(Mountaineer, Sky Sentinel, Craftsman) Fighter || 16 14 16 12 10 8 || Traits: Glory of Old, Seeker|| Perception, Climb, Craft(Clothing)
1. Steel Soul, Combat Reflexes
2. Step-up
3. Master Armorer, Armor Training
4. Power Attack
5. Master Craftsman (Clothing), Weapon Training(Heavy Blades)
6. Disruptive
7. Craft Wondrous Item, Armored Juggernaut
8. Cut From the Air
9. Smash from the Air, Versatile Training(Intimidate, Ride)
10. Spellbreaker
11. Shatterspell, Armor Specialization
12. Combat Stamina
13. Pindown, Defensive Weapon Training
14. Warrior Spirit
15. Armed Bravery, Critical Deflection
16. Fighter's Reflexes
17. Sprightly Armor, Trained Initiative
18. Improved Initiative
19. Armored Sacrifice
20. Weapon Sacrifice

Now that I have some time on my hands, I can talk about my favorite Fighter Build in PF1e. I've yet to see any Fighter ability that would let me do something as cool or cooler than sunder spells or knock arrows/rays from the air. (slight goal post shift here. But main problem with PF2e choices is that they all seem kind of boring. It's not a real choice when I'm picking between crap and more crap).

I always considered situational feats like Blind-Fighting and Combat Reflexes garbage. Useful yes though I'm not a fan of "Feat ABC gives this bonus or ability if conditions XYZ". Combat Reflexes sucks even more as most gamers unless they are using a DEX build are at most are making out STR. Even then unless the enemy has low Intelligence or forced by magic to provoke an AOO the feat remains pretty much a feat tax imo.

Though I get Rhedyn point though. I found many of the feats for PF 2E at least during the read of the playtest lacking imo. Maybe that has changed yet the Paizo devs love their +1 feats.

Quote from: sureshot;1099621I always considered situational feats like Blind-Fighting and Combat Reflexes garbage. Useful yes though I'm not a fan of "Feat ABC gives this bonus or ability if conditions XYZ". Combat Reflexes sucks even more as most gamers unless they are using a DEX build are at most are making out STR. Even then unless the enemy has low Intelligence or forced by magic to provoke an AOO the feat remains pretty much a feat tax imo.

Generally I would agree with you. However level 1 human fighter gets a lot of mileage out of those feats and they continue to be useful. Standard PF1 Fighters need to pump dex to keep their armor training maximally useful, so many fighters tend to start with 14 or higher dexterity. At level 1, you are likely to fight a large group of tiny creatures (suck as rats). Creatures of that size attacking you in melee trigger an AOO, so against traditional level 1 foes you get +3 attacks. The other ribbon ability of "Can AOO when flat footed" helps at times also (no being surprised by rats). But even just having +2 AOOs is useful against smaller foes that want to rush around you to kill the squishy party members. In 3.5, I would have just rushed great cleave since "lots of attacks" > "everything else" at level 1, but PF1 level locked that to later levels.
Blindfight is great for humans in low levels where poor lighting tends to come up the most, but it comes up a lot more for high level fighters because you roll twice on concealment. Mirror Image, Displacement, etc? Just close your eyes and ignore all of that 75% of the time. Enemy blinded you? You are only missing 25% of the time.

Quote from: sureshot;1099621Though I get Rhedyn point though. I found many of the feats for PF 2E at least during the read of the playtest lacking imo. Maybe that has changed yet the Paizo devs love their +1 feats.

*Sigh
I'm more disappointed than anything else. At least Savage Worlds is scratching that character building crunch itch.

Quote from: sureshot;1099621I always considered situational feats like Blind-Fighting and Combat Reflexes garbage. Useful yes though I'm not a fan of "Feat ABC gives this bonus or ability if conditions XYZ". Combat Reflexes sucks even more as most gamers unless they are using a DEX build are at most are making out STR. Even then unless the enemy has low Intelligence or forced by magic to provoke an AOO the feat remains pretty much a feat tax imo.

Exactly, which is why I am surprised that someone is holding up these as a example of the great choices that Fighters had.

QuoteThough I get Rhedyn point though. I found many of the feats for PF 2E at least during the read of the playtest lacking imo. Maybe that has changed yet the Paizo devs love their +1 feats.

It would be helpful to look at the actual feats rather then the ones that you remember from the playtest.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1099620Bah at-wills are your advance melee attack and you use them when none of your other powers are applicable. I don't see how the PF2e version of "your level 1 abilities are so lame you will jump to get rid of them" is a selling point (though 4e does get guilty of this when you can start trading out powers).

Intimidating Presence ends up being a +10 bonus eventually. But it's main help is that you give your Fighter a social skill equal to any bard or sorcerer. It also combos off into intimidation builds, but I tend to just use it as it is.

Spoiler

Dwarf(Mountaineer, Sky Sentinel, Craftsman) Fighter || 16 14 16 12 10 8 || Traits: Glory of Old, Seeker|| Perception, Climb, Craft(Clothing)
1. Steel Soul, Combat Reflexes
2. Step-up
3. Master Armorer, Armor Training
4. Power Attack
5. Master Craftsman (Clothing), Weapon Training(Heavy Blades)
6. Disruptive
7. Craft Wondrous Item, Armored Juggernaut
8. Cut From the Air
9. Smash from the Air, Versatile Training(Intimidate, Ride)
10. Spellbreaker
11. Shatterspell, Armor Specialization
12. Combat Stamina
13. Pindown, Defensive Weapon Training
14. Warrior Spirit
15. Armed Bravery, Critical Deflection
16. Fighter's Reflexes
17. Sprightly Armor, Trained Initiative
18. Improved Initiative
19. Armored Sacrifice
20. Weapon Sacrifice

Now that I have some time on my hands, I can talk about my favorite Fighter Build in PF1e. I've yet to see any Fighter ability that would let me do something as cool or cooler than sunder spells or knock arrows/rays from the air. (slight goal post shift here. But main problem with PF2e choices is that they all seem kind of boring. It's not a real choice when I'm picking between crap and more crap).

I think this is a perfect example of the strength of character creation in Pathfinder 1e.  There is no way that you would be able to build this sort of character using 4e or 5e.

Just forget about it.

Quote from: Shasarak;1099683It would be helpful to look at the actual feats rather then the ones that you remember from the playtest.

Of course and I will keep an open mind when and if I decide to purchase PF 2E. At this time other non-gaming stuff requires my hard earned cash. Even if I could spare it seeing their new releases just feels like buying the same books again. APG, GMG Bestiary 2 I just can't justify it at least for now.

At the same time given how the Paizo devs refused to listen to player feedback unless it suited them it is upon them to prove themselves to myself at least they are willing to think outside of the bok with PF 2E. The sheer amount of +1, situational or even worse fluff style with no crunch substance feats before the release of PF 2E well I'm not going to expect too much from them.

Quote from: sureshot;1099713Of course and I will keep an open mind when and if I decide to purchase PF 2E..

No need.  Free.  There are at least two online SRDs.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1099720No need.  Free.  There are at least two online SRDs.

Good point.  Here is a link to the Archives of Nethys (http://2e.aonprd.com/) for all of your Pathfinder 1e, Pathfinder 2e and Starfinder needs.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1099720No need.  Free.  There are at least two online SRDs.

Thanks will take a look at it.

Pathfinder 2e Designers tell you how great Pathfinder 2e is.  (spoiler: It is very great)

[video]https://www.twitch.tv/videos/468201120[/youtube]

While I usually turn towards the older, lighter mechanic systems, after watching a great series of YT videos by Classic_DM (who is an AD&D fan moving into PF2e), the 2E system intrigued me enough to grab the Core, Bestiary Special Editions and Game Screen from Amazon.

Got interested in trying PF 1 but it was so far along by that time, I felt I would be out of my depth with other players who had played it for years as it does seem a game where intricate rule character build knowledge and success go hand in hand.  I bypassed the D&D 3 era so will not have the extra baggage and feel like I'm missing anything with PF2E.  Getting in on the ground floor along with all the other players feels good as I won't feel like I'm out of my league with others in understanding the nuances of the rule-set as we're all learning together.

Figure it will scratch my old Rolemaster itch for crunch and skills and yet be a game I will have better luck finding people to play with being the hot-new thing and a much larger fan base.  I think it will satisfy my tactical  pursuits as well and the occasional urge to micro-manage things from time to time.

Quote from: Daztur;1099263Yeah, it boggles the mind that WotC etc. never hired some of the biggest CharOp nerds as at least consultants to do some sanity testing of their rules. Would catch so many things like the BS 5ed Lucky feat even aside from obscure synergies that the designers don't foresee. One thing that 5ed does well, however, it it's harder to synergize a lot of stuff because of stuff like Advantage and the Concentration rule so a hypothetical 6ed could clean up a lot of little things by making small tweaks instead of an overhaul that'd piss off a lot of people.

For Pathfinder the way the game is set up you really NEED some huge munchkins to make sure all of the rules work well together and I don't think the devs that they have are all that good at that sort of thing. The more crunchy a ruleset you have the more munchkin power you need to make everything work well together. If you don't then the sort of behavior the rules reward will be different than the sort of behavior that the devs WANT the rules to reward and things go sideways.

Of course you probably don't want the munchkins in the driver's seat or you'll get silly shit like The Gaming Den (//www.tgdmb.com/viewforum.php?f=1) but they should be an important part of the development process of any half-way crunchy game.

In fact, I think Paizo went the exact opposite direction.  Before he became an employee, I generally found Mark Seifter to be a highly mathematically obsessive theory-crafter, as opposed to someone who considered how different PF1 feats and rules would actually play out at the table (I had some significant disagreements with him on the Paizo boards many moons ago before he was hired).  So many of his posts were based around the theoretical yields of certain builds that totally ignored the circumstances at the table that would make such yields unlikely.  Paizo as a whole had this blindness (see the infamous Crane Wing Nerf for a good example).  I think they actually brought in the math-kids and totally ignored the non-mechanical parts of the game that served as soft limits.  PF2e's reduced of "ribbon" and "roleplay" abilities for classes tend to support this...

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies;1099899While I usually turn towards the older, lighter mechanic systems, after watching a great series of YT videos by Classic_DM (who is an AD&D fan moving into PF2e), the 2E system intrigued me enough to grab the Core, Bestiary Special Editions and Game Screen from Amazon.

Got interested in trying PF 1 but it was so far along by that time, I felt I would be out of my depth with other players who had played it for years as it does seem a game where intricate rule character build knowledge and success go hand in hand.  I bypassed the D&D 3 era so will not have the extra baggage and feel like I'm missing anything with PF2E.  Getting in on the ground floor along with all the other players feels good as I won't feel like I'm out of my league with others in understanding the nuances of the rule-set as we're all learning together.

Figure it will scratch my old Rolemaster itch for crunch and skills and yet be a game I will have better luck finding people to play with being the hot-new thing and a much larger fan base.  I think it will satisfy my tactical  pursuits as well and the occasional urge to micro-manage things from time to time.

I find his leap from AD & D to PF2E, to be quite the surprise.  I don't see that scenario being very common, but good for him.  I hope he enjoys the new game.  He's certainly giving it a good effort.

Yes it definitely seems one of the more rare players making such a switch which is why I felt his videos spoke to me a little more than the ones quoting Warhammer 40k etc. and obscure Anime films.  Bit of a speed-talker but his use of the whiteboard belies his classroom-conference teaching background and he's pretty enthusiastic about 2E.

Not a huge fan of the Core book including whole x-card and other items which seem to be over-telegraphing Paizo's stance to a fault but I guess it's there if the GM feels their group of players requires it.  I usually trust a decent DM (GM?) to anticipate these matters ahead of time that will not cause the game to go sideways.  Good gaming just needs enthusiastic, cordial players no matter what the heck they define themselves as or what they ascribe to.  It isn't a soapbox, it's a game session for fun and everyone involved should recognise that and be on the same page before embarking on the quest.  If a player needs physical props to spell out issues for the DM, something has gone horribly wrong.

Much more heavy rule set from what I'm used to but I'm up for the challenge.  It's going to take a while to glean everything before I even attempt to run or join a session but I think it will be a rewarding use of time in the long run.  I noticed that my occasional gaming group loved character customisation so this will hopefully get some play as 2E hits this nail on the head.  I just hope we don't spend a week just making character builds in order to run it.  Tweak, tweak, tweak, etc. Heh.

I am not a big Pathfinder fan. When they started the SJW stuff in the play test I lost all interest.

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies;1100230[...] the Core book including whole x-card and other items [...]

Seriously? :eek:

Quote from: Shasarak;1099454And if you believe the scuttlebutt around the water cooler then "less is more" is the new black with the Millennials not being able to handle the old wall'o'books.

I don't know if it's anything to do with Millennials. The WotC team were clear during the Next playtesting that their feedback showed books and books of crunch make D&D less approachable. There is a fraction of the customer-base (over-represented on forums) who eat that shit up and will buy every splatbook. But for the march larger portion of the market, more books = more rules = intimidating. System mastery just isn't really the appeal of D&D to most players.

Whatever else people may think of 5E, it was designed based on the largest market research project every undertaken in the RPG industry. By far. If the product of that research is surprising to enthusiasts, it's only to the extent that online forums are not in any way representative of the RPG market.

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies;1100230Not a huge fan of the Core book including whole x-card and other items which seem to be over-telegraphing Paizo's stance to a fault but I guess it's there if the GM feels their group of players requires it.  I usually trust a decent DM (GM?) to anticipate these matters ahead of time that will not cause the game to go sideways.  Good gaming just needs enthusiastic, cordial players no matter what the heck they define themselves as or what they ascribe to.  It isn't a soapbox, it's a game session for fun and everyone involved should recognise that and be on the same page before embarking on the quest.  If a player needs physical props to spell out issues for the DM, something has gone horribly wrong.

It's a couple pages in the Running the Game section and it can be ignored, but... man the folks at Paizo have drunken deeply from the moral panic kool-aid. The terminology, the Lines, Veils, and X-Cards, the tone of extreme vigilance and anxiety - all assuming that people getting together to play RPGs are often completely socially dysfunctional. That whenever you sit around a table you're likely dealing with bullying predators and/or survivors of trauma and abuse. And that whatever issues people do have can't be sorted our in a normal, adult manner.

Again, the question is if the people running Paizo really think this is true - that bullying, trauma, and social dysfunction are rampant in the RPG hobby. Of if they just think it's necessary to pretend it is in order to appease the social justice mob.

Quote from: Haffrung;1100550I don't know if it's anything to do with Millennials. The WotC team were clear during the Next playtesting that their feedback showed books and books of crunch make D&D less approachable. There is a fraction of the customer-base (over-represented on forums) who eat that shit up and will buy every splatbook. But for the march larger portion of the market, more books = more rules = intimidating. System mastery just isn't really the appeal of D&D to most players.

Whatever else people may think of 5E, it was designed based on the largest market research project every undertaken in the RPG industry. By far. If the product of that research is surprising to enthusiasts, it's only to the extent that online forums are not in any way representative of the RPG market.

Yeah, nothing to do with millennials afaics. It is about popularising the hobby and broadening the base.

Also women - some of the most gearhead players I know are female, but they tend to be lesbians or "English eccentrics". Girly girls and thespy types tend to prefer simpler rules. Younger players can also struggle with extreme crunch so dnd as a family game benefits from simpler rules.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1100547Seriously? :eek:

I hope you filled your pronouns out on your character sheet where it asks for them... !

Quote from: Graytung;1100600I hope you filled your pronouns out on your character sheet where it asks for them... !

I filled in the pronouns, but I can't find anywhere to record a gender... :confused:

Quote from: Antiquation!;1100602I filled in the pronouns, but I can't find anywhere to record a gender... :confused:

That's what the faces of the blank d20 are for.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1100602I filled in the pronouns, but I can't find anywhere to record a gender... :confused:

That's a separate page (https://www.masstpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/genderunicorn1.jpg) of the character sheet.

Quote from: dungeon crawler;1100546When they started the SJW stuff in the play test I lost all interest.

Yep.  Me too.  I went ahead and bought the Playtest, but I have zero interest in 2E itself.

I see that our very own Conanist did a Pathfinder 2e review (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40977-Pathfinder-2E-Review).

Classic_DM gives an Old School Review of Pathfinder 2e.  His verdict: Pathfinder Second Edition is the evolution of the original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, and Dungeons & Dragons.

[video=youtube;t3DtuekFqoA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3DtuekFqoA[/youtube]

Quote from: HappyDaze;1100636That's what the faces of the blank d20 are for.

LOL

Quote from: Aglondir;1100638That's a separate page (https://www.masstpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/genderunicorn1.jpg) of the character sheet.

Holy shit. I legitimately thought this was a joke piece until I saw the attributions.

It appears 2e has now rapidly dropped to 13 place in amazon best sellers for fantasy gaming

Quote from: Haffrung;1100553Paizo [...] assuming that people getting together to play RPGs are often completely socially dysfunctional.

Well, duh. They know their audience.

...I'm assuming you've never played in Pathfinder Society games? ;)

Quote from: Morblot;1100700Well, duh. They know their audience.

...I'm assuming you've never played in Pathfinder Society games? ;)

For some reason 3e/PF does seem to attract more werdoes than any other RPG I know. It was very noticeable when switching from 3e to 4e how the weirdoes melted away. And they've stayed away for 5e; I don't think they like 5e at all.

Quote from: S'mon;1100707And they've stayed away for 5e; I don't think they like 5e at all.

Have you not played organized play?

They aren't gone, but they may be diluted in your area.

A consequence of popularity is that you don't have to play with people you normally wouldn't associated with to play the game.

4e D&D was only for cool people and only cool people played it.

Quote from: S'mon;1100707. And they've stayed away for 5e; I don't think they like 5e at all.

Depends on your area, I think.  Organized play has always been a mess and the anecdotes I've heard locally aren't any better for 5e than anything else.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1100690Holy shit. I legitimately thought this was a joke piece until I saw the attributions.

The biggest problem I have with the SJW's is that higher forms of humor like parody and satire, are impossible... there is nothing you can think of to make them look crazier than they already are. All that's left is banal mockery which means even making fun of the SJWs becomes a drudgery.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1100709Have you not played organized play?

Nope, no way!

I was thinking Meetup games and advertised home games.

Quote from: S'mon;1100714Nope, no way!

I was thinking Meetup games and advertised home games.

Paizo designs around Organized play.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1100709Have you not played organized play?

They aren't gone, but they may be diluted in your area.

A consequence of popularity is that you don't have to play with people you normally wouldn't associated with to play the game.

4e D&D was only for cool people and only cool people played it.

4E seems like it was designed by, and for people who didn't like what D & D already was.  They made D & D be "different", and...... Well, we all know how that turned out.

Quote from: Kevin197;1100698It appears 2e has now rapidly dropped to 13 place in amazon best sellers for fantasy gaming

PF2 Core book on Amazon is ranked #1,208 in Books.
5e Players Handbook is ranked #94 in Books.

Also, we're now officially looking at numbers in the SIXTH YEAR for the 5e Player's Handbook...and it's STILL in the top 100 for all books. Meanwhile, it's the THIRD WEEK for PF2 on Amazon and it's below the 1200 mark.

Of course none of this counts digital sales, but both companies sell digitally (Paizo sells the books/PDFs and other sources like Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds, and WOTC sells through DnD Beyond, Roll20, FantasyGrounds, and DMsGuild).

Still, those are shocking numbers. I cannot believe 5e remains in the top 100.

Quote from: S'mon;1100707For some reason 3e/PF does seem to attract more werdoes than any other RPG I know. It was very noticeable when switching from 3e to 4e how the weirdoes melted away. And they've stayed away for 5e; I don't think they like 5e at all.

You must not get on the internet much, the 5e weirdos are pretty thick on the ground.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100724PF2 Core book on Amazon is ranked #1,208 in Books.
5e Players Handbook is ranked #94 in Books.

This is the type of 'really bad' that I would expect them to comment on.  Even if it is doing as well or better than they expect, it APPEARS to be a flop.

How well did PF1 do on amazon? or D&D 4E? That would allow for more context.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1100734This is the type of 'really bad' that I would expect them to comment on.  Even if it is doing as well or better than they expect, it APPEARS to be a flop.

I'm sure they'll do well on the Get Woke, Go Broke master list.

Strange Assembly review of the Pathfinder 2 Bestiary

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3772[/ATTACH] (https://www.strangeassembly.com/2019/review-bestiary-pathfinder-second-edition)

Quote from: Shasarak;1100725You must not get on the internet much, the 5e weirdos are pretty thick on the ground.

Well I've seen some weird stuff on ENW and a few places where they try to turn 5e into 3e. Not seen it IRL.

Well a friend of mine bought it, so they have at least one sale in London. I should get to have a look at it at her BBQ (ribs, yumm) on Monday. I don't feel excited but I'm willing to give it a try. I am excited by the prospect of finally getting my mitts on the D&D Essentials box on 6th September though!

Checking amazon.co.uk:
Pathfinder core book is #2,237 in Books, #64 in Hobbies & Games.
5e D&D Player's Handbook is #113 in Books, #3 in Hobbies & Games.

Quote from: S'mon;1100755Well I've seen some weird stuff on ENW and a few places where they try to turn 5e into 3e. Not seen it IRL.

Oh well if we are just considering stuff that we have seen IRL

Quote from: S'mon;1100756Well a friend of mine bought it, so they have at least one sale in London. I should get to have a look at it at her BBQ (ribs, yumm) on Monday. I don't feel excited but I'm willing to give it a try. I am excited by the prospect of finally getting my mitts on the D&D Essentials box on 6th September though!

Checking amazon.co.uk:
Pathfinder core book is #2,237 in Books, #64 in Hobbies & Games.
5e D&D Player's Handbook is #113 in Books, #3 in Hobbies & Games.

Quick do the new Shadowrun game that was released at Gencon - where is that in the rankings?

Quote from: Shasarak;1100760Quick do the new Shadowrun game that was released at Gencon - where is that in the rankings?

it's also got trash.

Quote from: Shasarak;1100760Quick do the new Shadowrun game that was released at Gencon - where is that in the rankings?

Oh I guess you missed PF2 did in fact hit top 100 on Amazon on first release. This is the crash from that point.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1100762it's also got trash.

The best selling non-DnD product, the Call of Cthulhu Rpg Keeper Rulebook is number 15,798 in Books.  In contrast the 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird is number 7 in all Books.

Quote from: Shasarak;1100766The best selling non-DnD product, the Call of Cthulhu Rpg Keeper Rulebook is number 15,798 in Books.  In contrast the 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird is number 7 in all Books.

Because it's back to school week and thousands of kids are required to buy it for school. Obviously.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100776Because it's back to school week and thousands of kids are required to buy it for school. Obviously.

I recall reading the Call of Cthulhu Rpg Keeper Rulebook when I was in school. Good to see the kids are still reading the classics.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100776Because it's back to school week and thousands of kids are required to buy it for school. Obviously.

Of course it is obvious when school is still in the middle of term three.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Aglondir;1100778I recall reading the Call of Cthulhu Rpg Keeper Rulebook when I was in school. Good to see the kids are still reading the classics.

That gave me a good chuckle.
I actually did a Fantasy Literature class in my final year at High school so maybe there's a few stalwart students just getting ahead of the bell curve.  Heh.

Funny, Amazon Canada has the Core PF 2e #1,871, but the 2E Special Edition is #183 in Books.  Probably because the Special Edition is cheaper.  Whaaaat?  It's the one I got.  Looks nice on the bookshelf.

(For reference, the PH 5E is #36 in Books)

Canadian pricing is always so screwed up.  The PF2E core in America is half the price of the special edition now.  Ugh.....eh...

American price of Special is now $75.99 US and comparatively $69.44 CAD.  I suggest those Americans interested use that strong dollar to snag it from Canuckistan and save some bucks on the exchange.

Quote from: Shasarak;1100783Of course it is obvious when school is still in the middle of term three.  :rolleyes:

Maybe in New Zealand it's the middle of term three, but here in the USA school has either just started with most everyone entering a new grade level after a few months off for summer vacation. Back to School is actually big business here and while it may provide service to the world, roughly 60% ($142b of $241b total sales) of Amazon's market is in the United States so the back to school activities here have a disproportionate effect on book rankings.

Put another way, there are 74 million kids heading back to grades K-12 in the USA. Half a percent of them needing a book for school is more book sales than there are students in all of New Zealand.

The point of all this is that there's a demonstrable reason the sales of books generally considered American classics are spiking at the moment.

There's also a reason for PF2E's ranking to be cratering after just a few weeks... people aren't buying it. Just about everyone who wants a copy now and apparently word of mouth is enough of a 'meh' that like a Hollywood bomb it's there and it's gone.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1100762it's also got trash.

Not having read it yet I won't say it is trash though at least when it comes to errata Catalyst will continue to disappoint.

Quote from: Shasarak;1100783Of course it is obvious when school is still in the middle of term three.  :rolleyes:

Sorry, I forgot, New Zealand.

In the United States, this is the first week of school for most students. An epic number of books kids have no interest in reading are being bought right now :)

Anyway, the Pathfinder 2 Core Book got as high as #56 in all books on Aug 1. It dropped to the 1200s in three weeks. That's....rough. It has me worried. Maybe my worries are unfounded. I hope so. I would really REALLY prefer Paizo succeed.

Morrus pointed out that the 1200s is a HUGE success compared to all other RPG books except 5e. Which is a fair point. I hope this is where they thought they would be around now. Because if they over-printed thinking they'd be doing better than they are, it could really damage the company even if the sales would be considered extremely good for, say, Cthulhu.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100834Sorry, I forgot, New Zealand.

It's perfectly normal to forget New Zealand, if you learn geography with a map from Ikea.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1100835It's perfectly normal to forget New Zealand, if you learn geography with a map from Ikea.

I rank New Zealand pretty darn high in my hierarchy of cool nations I'd consider living in.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100836I rank New Zealand pretty darn high in my hierarchy of cool nations I'd consider living in.

Tell it to Ikea; I don't make the maps.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1100835It's perfectly normal to forget New Zealand, if you learn geography with a map from Ikea.

I had to Google this...

For anyone else ignorant of this insult to New Zealand - https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/a26258111/ikea-world-map-missing-new-zealand/

Quote from: S'mon;1100845I had to Google this...

For anyone else ignorant of this insult to New Zealand - https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/a26258111/ikea-world-map-missing-new-zealand/

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3774[/ATTACH]

Quote from: HappyDaze;1100846[ATTACH=CONFIG]3774[/ATTACH]

I like how they sold it in Australia. Reminds me of visiting Dublin and seeing the map of Europe on the pub wall that ommitted Great Britain! :D A bit like those Arab maps that omit the Zionist Entity.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1100846[ATTACH=CONFIG]3774[/ATTACH]

GI JOE!!

...sorry, had to be done...

I think most Pathfinder players are sticking with 1st ed because they already have the books, but as Paizo drops support for 1st, and the new supplements and Adventure Paths come out, adoption of 2nd edition will increase.
In other words, I think calling 2nd ed a failure is very premature. We'll have a much better idea of 2nd ed's health in a few months.

You certainly can't call a patient dead just because they're in a coma and there's no indication that they'll recover.  Sometimes they do.  

Still can't say they're doing WELL.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1100866I think most Pathfinder players are sticking with 1st ed because they already have the books, but as Paizo drops support for 1st, and the new supplements and Adventure Paths come out, adoption of 2nd edition will increase.
In other words, I think calling 2nd ed a failure is very premature. We'll have a much better idea of 2nd ed's health in a few months.

Another factor to consider is how many groups are willing to change editions mid-campaign.  If you are halfway through an adventure path then there is less of an incentive to switch and therefore I dont think that a few months is going to tell you much.  Yeah your alpha gamers are going to pick up the game asap because thats what we do and your regular gamers, to be honest, probably dont even realise that a new edition has happened. They are not online, they dont regularly visit their LFGS, they just turn up every week or two and play whatever it is that the DM is putting down for them.

It would be interesting to see if your PF1 Traditionalist is going to pick up the new adventure paths and convert them back to PF1.  Looking at the Hellknight Hill book, I cant see anything there which would not be backwards compatible with a little extra work.  Maybe you might need more or less monsters and maybe the scripted treasure is going to be wrong but that seems like an easy fix for a Traditionalist to work through.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1100874You certainly can't call a patient dead just because they're in a coma and there's no indication that they'll recover.  Sometimes they do.  

Still can't say they're doing WELL.

Those goal posts, they keep moving so fast I cant keep up.  Have you seen the schedule for this year?  That "coma" patient is putting out a heap of work with a new playtest due to drop in October.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1100874You certainly can't call a patient dead just because they're in a coma and there's no indication that they'll recover.  Sometimes they do.  

Still can't say they're doing WELL.

Well, I can't call them dead, but some of of the people I work with sure can if the family goes along with it.

I definitely don't think PF2 is dead or in a coma. But, I am mildly worried it's not doing as well as they hoped, and they may have overprinted.

Quote from: Shasarak;1100877Those goal posts, they keep moving so fast I cant keep up.  Have you seen the schedule for this year?  That "coma" patient is putting out a heap of work with a new playtest due to drop in October.

Yeah but they litteraly announced most of that stuff either on the day or just before release. Also if memory serves 4E had tons of stuff announced for it up to the point they canceled it.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100894I definitely don't think PF2 is dead or in a coma. But, I am mildly worried it's not doing as well as they hoped, and they may have overprinted.

I'm not worried about it. It's a boring system that serves no purpose with very little creative ideas behind it.

Quote from: Shasarak;1100877Those goal posts, they keep moving so fast I cant keep up.  

There are no goalposts because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - I'm just observing what information is available to us and trying to determine what impact PF2 is likely to have on the gaming landscape.  

It does not appear to be doing well to me; it appears to be doing worse than I thought was possible.  I think the industry is better for a healthy publisher like Paizo; if they're not making what people WANT that seems to be a problem.  

From my perspective, IF PF2 is not being well-received they can either stick with it or they can change direction.  Since PF2 does not appear to be what I want, there's at least a chance that they'll make awesome stuff that I do like if they change direction.  But that's not really my hope - I'm fine as is.

Paizo is seeing lots of YouTube reviews for Pathfinder 2nd Edition, from the same crowd who grew their channels by releasing D & D 5E videos.  2E is the great big shiny new thing, and it has already received lots of exposure on YouTube.  That's some big time advertising to the masses.

That doesn't mean that 2E will be a big success, long term; but Paizo can never say that people didn't give them an opportunity to market their wares.  They are all over YouTube.

Quote from: Morblot;1100737I'm sure they'll do well on the Get Woke, Go Broke master list.

Laughing hard, at that one.

Some of the online reviewers seem just plum giddy, when talking about PF 2E.  They are acting like kids in a candy store; so there is some excitement about the game.  It's a great big new playground for them to play in.

I'm curious how they will divide their time and resources between D & D 5E, and PF 2E; in the long run.

There's one reviewer who built his channel with Pathfinder 1E videos, then totally dumped PF 1E for D & D 5E; and now he is gushing about PF 2E.

This is a pretty good movie we are watching now....

It's now down to "Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,258 in Books"

Quote from: Mistwell;1101085It's now down to "Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,258 in Books"

It's 2,105 in Books on amazon.co.uk

5e PHB is 394 in Books while 5e DMG is 681 in Books.

It looks a bit of a damp squib to me, but won't really know for sure until early 2020 I think.

Starfinder core rulebook is 27,610 in Books , so there's one RPG it's really thrashing. :D

In Hobbies & Games https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/270453/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_books the D&D Starter Set is #6, the 5e PHB is #9, DMG #16. Upcoming Eberron book to be released in November is #26. And Pathfinder core is #41, behind Xanathar's at #38.

Quote from: S'mon;1101094So there's one RPG it's really thrashing. :D

You mean compared to every other RPG, right?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101104You mean compared to every other RPG, right?

Yes, PF2e is an actual product expected to support a staff of people.

Unlike the vast majority of RPGs which are the result of hobby efforst or at best support a very small (sometimes one-person) business.

Quote from: S'mon;1101094It's 2,105 in Books on amazon.co.uk

5e PHB is 394 in Books while 5e DMG is 681 in Books.

It looks a bit of a damp squib to me, but won't really know for sure until early 2020 I think.

Starfinder core rulebook is 27,610 in Books , so there's one RPG it's really thrashing. :D

In Hobbies & Games https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/270453/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_books the D&D Starter Set is #6, the 5e PHB is #9, DMG #16. Upcoming Eberron book to be released in November is #26. And Pathfinder core is #41, behind Xanathar's at #38.

Years later, a book of options for D & D 5E is outselling the brand new core rulebook for PF 2E.

5E sure looks strong.

Quote from: S'mon;1101094It's 2,105 in Books on amazon.co.uk

5e PHB is 394 in Books while 5e DMG is 681 in Books.

It looks a bit of a damp squib to me, but won't really know for sure until early 2020 I think.

Starfinder core rulebook is 27,610 in Books , so there's one RPG it's really thrashing. :D

In Hobbies & Games https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/270453/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_books the D&D Starter Set is #6, the 5e PHB is #9, DMG #16. Upcoming Eberron book to be released in November is #26. And Pathfinder core is #41, behind Xanathar's at #38.

Starfinder is considered a success by many, at least for its genre.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101115Yes, PF2e is an actual product expected to support a staff of people.

Unlike the vast majority of RPGs which are the result of hobby efforst or at best support a very small (sometimes one-person) business.

That is a good point.  Using staffing level metrics then Pathfinder 2 is the most successful RPG.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101127That is a good point.  Using staffing level metrics then Pathfinder is the most successful RPG.

Fixed that for you. We don't know about PF2e yet.

I wonder what would have to happen for Shasarak to admit maybe PF2 isn't a success? Would it take Paizo layoffs? Removing books from the schedule? A specific Amazon rank? Is there any metric that could result in Shasarak saying he has any doubts at all about the success of PF2?

Quote from: Mistwell;1101164I wonder what would have to happen for Shasarak to admit maybe PF2 isn't a success? Would it take Paizo layoffs? Removing books from the schedule? A specific Amazon rank? Is there any metric that could result in Shasarak saying he has any doubts at all about the success of PF2?

In that vein, is there anyway to convince people it IS a success?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101146Fixed that for you. We don't know about PF2e yet.

PF2 looks like being a 4e D&D situation - successful compared to every RPG except the market leader (4e was only beaten by Pathfinder until 2012-14 when it was no longer supported), but in corporate terms a failure since it did not have the kind of sales the company needed to support the sizable resources invested in it.

I had my first look at the book on Sunday. My 4e-fan gearhead friends are definitely keen on it; I was not keen on the 4e style design with walls and walls of very weak looking Feats (rather than Powers in 4e - I found Powers more fun). Going over options for a Fighter 1 I wondered why I was even bothering to pick the Feats when they were so weak & fiddly. Also the 4e layout was generally superior.

And the PF Iconics look sad now.

Quote from: trechriron;1101192In that vein, is there anyway to convince people it IS a success?

If it beat the 5e PHB on amazon sales rank that would be a strong indicator to me.

Sure PF 2E may not be the success that Pf 1E is yet any rpg companies would kill to have such level of sales. Comparing it to sales of 5E is imo unfair as nothing can really match it in sales. Quite frankly with Paizo doing too little too late I don't think it ever will. So on one hand it maybe a failure for Paizo in comparison to others a success.

Quote from: sureshot;1101208Sure PF 2E may not be the success that Pf 1E is yet any rpg companies would kill to have such level of sales. Comparing it to sales of 5E is imo unfair as nothing can really match it in sales. Quite frankly with Paizo doing too little too late I don't think it ever will. So on one hand it maybe a failure for Paizo in comparison to others a success.

Yet Paizo has a lot more full time rules devs than 5e D&D.

That's why I compare it to 5e, because it needs PF1 levels of success to maintain their staff (which must be the goal of PF2e because they could have stayed in business on the backs of PF1 diehards that subscribed to buy every book they put out).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101219Yet Paizo has a lot more full time rules devs than 5e D&D.

5E is run by a publicly-traded mega corporation that bases all of its decisions on return on investment and shareholder value. If they can sell piles of D&D books with a skeleton staff, that's what they'll do.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101219That's why I compare it to 5e, because it needs PF1 levels of success to maintain their staff

That's a strange assumption. 5E today is enjoying unprecedented success for an PRG. Nobody sane is using it as a measuring stick for other RPGs.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101219(which must be the goal of PF2e because they could have stayed in business on the backs of PF1 diehards that subscribed to buy every book they put out).

Nope. The customer-base of every RPG attrits away relentlessly over time. People leave college and have nobody to play with. They move on to other hobbies. They grow up and start families. Any commercial RPG that doesn't have a steady intake of new customers/players has no long-term future. Paizo could not have just continued to support PF1 and continued selling the same number of books. Take a look at Paizo's forums, at how few comment and reviews there are for recent books vs books published 5 or 7 years ago and it's clear their customer-base has been declining.

PF2 was a necessary reboot of the game. Will it be as successful as 5E? Of course not. And I find it hard to image the people running Paizo expect it to be. Will it continue to be the second most popular RPG in the industry, and sell well enough to support a steady release of new content? I think so. Though absent access to Paizo's balance sheet, we're all just guessing. And it's way too soon to tell anyway. Paizo themselves won't be making any real assessment of the success and trajectory of PF2 for a year anyway.

Quote from: S'mon;1101194If it beat the 5e PHB on amazon sales rank that would be a strong indicator to me.

IIRC only PF1 beat D&D 4e, and that only because of a very specific set of circumstances that are not likely to occur again soon.
So by that definition no RPG besides D&D has ever been a success.

Quote from: Haffrung;1101228...Will it continue to be the second most popular RPG in the industry, and sell well enough to support a steady release of new content? I think so...

I will go in record to say that PF2e will not continue to be the second most popular RPG for the long term.

I think it will hold that slot for a bit and then die down.

It's not a particularly fun game. Similar problem with Starfinder. Paizo is really testing if good art +  good layout + bland rules = $$$

Quote from: trechriron;1101192In that vein, is there anyway to convince people it IS a success?

Yes. Of course. I think it's a success if it maintains decent Amazon sales for a year. Decent meaning I don't know, maybe at least top 400 on all books, for the core book? (Which is far lower than 5e, but far higher than other RPGs).

I definitely do not think it has to beat 5e to be a success (though I thought it would for at least the first quarter after publication). It just need to be around as big as PF1 was a few years ago.

Quote from: sureshot;1101208Sure PF 2E may not be the success that Pf 1E is yet any rpg companies would kill to have such level of sales. Comparing it to sales of 5E is imo unfair as nothing can really match it in sales. Quite frankly with Paizo doing too little too late I don't think it ever will. So on one hand it maybe a failure for Paizo in comparison to others a success.

Comparing it to "any other rpg company other than WOTC" is also unfair, as clearly the amount they had printed (IE their up front investment) combined with the number of employees they're maintaining to support the system, is so far and away greater than all the other RPG companies are devoting to their RPGs (other than WOTC) that it's silly to say others would "kill" for those sales. Of course they would - because they're not investing the kind of cash, resources, and employees behind their RPGs.

If Paizo printed as many of those core books as I think they did, they MUST maintain high sales to just break even. Not "as high or higher than 5e" but there is some level they have to maintain just to break even.

I don't know this for a fact, but as a broad generalization publishing companies like Paizo would typically run a line of credit with a bank to make a purchase of this size from the Chinese printing company. They usually have, roughly, a year to pay it off. They would know in a matter of months what ongoing sales will likely look like, and be able to run projections.

If projections are falling short, they'd probably start with some soft layoffs. IE, when people naturally leave the company on their own, the company doesn't replace their position and instead assigns their duties to others in the company (this wouldn't even be announced). Then, if that's not enough, they will do a few things to encourage some employees to become independent contractors accepting some of the same jobs from the company, but on a lesser scale ("[Designer] is excited to branch out and work on some other projects they've had their eye on in addition to Paizo projects!"). Then, you may see some planned books outsourced to third party companies in some sort of joint venture ("We're excited to work with [Brand X] to utilize the synergy between Paizo and this well-respected author!"). You might also see a sudden churning out of old PF1 material simply re-vamped for PF2, in a way which takes little actual work so they can spread that work out across fewer employees. You might see a bigger price cut to the Amazon price eventually too, to start moving that inventory. And finally, you might start to see a slower release schedule ("We're emphasizing quality over quantity!"), and maybe some experimental projects in publishing existing adventures for 5e under the OGL.

If those things start to happen, particularly more than one of them, they're a likely sign they're not hitting their sales projections, in my estimation.

The amount of time that passes before a 2nd printing of the Core Rulebook is announced, will be interesting; to say the least.

Quote from: S'mon;1101194If it beat the 5e PHB on amazon sales rank that would be a strong indicator to me.

That is an absurd measurement. There are literally NO RPGs that would stack up to that.

Quote from: Mistwell;1101263Yes. Of course. I think it's a success if it maintains decent Amazon sales for a year. Decent meaning I don't know, maybe at least top 400 on all books, for the core book? ...

This is a much more reasonable, thoughtful and realistic measurement.

I'm curious S'mon, I apparently missed a lot of this thread, but can you show me on the doll where Paizo touched you? You obviously have some issue, your obvious hyperbole is obvious.

Quote from: Mistwell;1101164I wonder what would have to happen for Shasarak to admit maybe PF2 isn't a success? Would it take Paizo layoffs? Removing books from the schedule? A specific Amazon rank? Is there any metric that could result in Shasarak saying he has any doubts at all about the success of PF2?

**cough**sour grapes**cough**

Has the game even been out for a month yet?  And the same guy that said it was going to be a failure before it was released is still the same guy who thinks that it is a failure now.

News at 11 Water is still wet.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101287**cough**sour grapes**cough**

Has the game even been out for a month yet?  And the same guy that said it was going to be a failure before it was released is still the same guy who thinks that it is a failure now.

News at 11 Water is still wet.

Dude if you look I said it would be a success before it was released. You seem to have me confused with someone else. Do I need to quote myself?

I note you did not answer the question.

Quote from: Mistwell;1101264If those things start to happen, particularly more than one of them, they're a likely sign they're not hitting their sales projections, in my estimation.

There we go, it is confirmed Owen K.C. Stephens and Stephen Radney-MacFarland have left Paizo.  

Therefore QED Pathfinder 2 is a failure.  OK who had money down on Paizo failing in August 2019?

Quote from: Mistwell;1101289Dude if you look I said it would be a success before it was released. You seem to have me confused with someone else. Do I need to quote myself?

I note you did not answer the question.

Oh sorry, you are right.  The answer is yes, you do seem to have some kind of obsessive compulsive fixation on Amazon sales rankings.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101292Oh sorry, you are right.  The answer is yes, you do seem to have some kind of obsessive compulsive fixation on Amazon sales rankings.

Quote from: Mistwell;1098507Paizo should be able to hold 2nd position for many years. I have a hard time imagining them not.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100894I definitely don't think PF2 is dead or in a coma.

Quote from: Mistwell;1072161I think they're going to do just fine with it, but then I have not read whatever you have read at The Big Purple or Paizo's own boards. What makes you think the consensus is it's not going well?

Quote from: Mistwell;1079221I think Paizo will do fine with PF2.

Quote from: Mistwell;1081146Is there any data, anything at all, which might tend to indicate Pathfinder 2e is not being well received by Pathfinder fans? Or that their sales are down? Or presales are down? Or Layoffs are happening at Paizo?

I say again, you have me confused with someone else. I was not on the doom and gloom train for PF2 prior to release. In fact I was arguing with guys like Pundit about it, here, who were saying Paizo was screwed. I kept saying I thought they'd be fine. And now, because I asked you what it would take for you to have doubts, suddenly I am "the enemy"?

Hey Shasarak, what would it take for you to have some doubts about the success of PF2? I've repeatedly said I think it will do fine, I spelled out what I think "fine" means (around top 400 on Amazon for a year), I've made it clear their standard of success shouldn't be "does better than 5e", I spelled out numerous things which I think could indicate an issue, and I feel I've been pretty fair on this topic. Why won't you answer the question?

Quote from: Mistwell;1101296Why won't you answer the question?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101292Oh sorry, you are right.  The answer is yes, you do seem to have some kind of obsessive compulsive fixation on Amazon sales rankings.

Quote from: Mistwell;1098951Here is Amazon pricing history data:

Quote from: Mistwell;1100724PF2 Core book on Amazon is ranked #1,208 in Books.
5e Players Handbook is ranked #94 in Books.

Quote from: Mistwell;1100834Anyway, the Pathfinder 2 Core Book got as high as #56 in all books on Aug 1. It dropped to the 1200s in three weeks. That's....rough. It has me worried. Maybe my worries are unfounded. I hope so. I would really REALLY prefer Paizo succeed.

Quote from: Mistwell;1101085It's now down to "Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,258 in Books"

I am not saying you are "the enemy".  You just keep on doing stuff that you would expect "the enemy" to do.

Shasarak, with friends like you, Paizo does not need enemies.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101300I am not saying you are "the enemy".  You just keep on doing stuff that you would expect "the enemy" to do.

Mentioning the Amazon rank is something "the enemy" would do? Like...I am the one causing it to dive on Amazon?

I said it before, you're the token Pathfinder 2 fanboi around here. It's either all roses or everyone is the enemy. There is no room for, you know, normal discussion of these topics with you. There is NO scenario, apparently, where you would express any kind of doubts of any kind.

As Manic Modron implied, the stuff you're doing right now, it's the kind of stuff that drives people away from a game.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101229IIRC only PF1 beat D&D 4e, and that only because of a very specific set of circumstances that are not likely to occur again soon.
So by that definition no RPG besides D&D has ever been a success.

D&D, Vampire & Pathfinder.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1101304Shasarak, with friends like you, Paizo does not need enemies.

You know, fuck it you are right.  Shoulda done this a long way back.

Quote from: trechriron;1101285I'm curious S'mon, I apparently missed a lot of this thread, but can you show me on the doll where Paizo touched you? You obviously have some issue, your obvious hyperbole is obvious.

*S'mon points mutely to the doll's brain.*

I guess I have a slight grudge against them for going Full Woke? I dunno, I am a 5e D&D fan though. I'm not that keen on very complex systems.  I ran a PF1 campaign level 2 to 14 from 2014 to 2015 and was very burned out on the system.

Quote from: trechriron;1101285That is an absurd measurement. There are literally NO RPGs that would stack up to that.

I don't know why it's absurd to think PF2 would outsell 5e in its first month or two of release, given Paizo's solid record and the hype around the game. I expected it would, though I certainly didn't expect it to outsell 5e long term. Conversely I'm not surprised the 5e PHB is still ahead of the PF2 core book, and you could still have a fairly solid success with PF2 without ever outselling the 5e PHB. Not outselling Xanathar's in the month of release is surprising to me and notable though.

The funny and irony and mostly hyprocritical aspect of the entire thing is that the same posters accusing Shasarak of being a fanboy would themselves do the exact thing if given the opportunity to their favored rpg. I like PF 1E I guess I must be Paizo fanboy as well. Congratulations you win the bullshit award for the presenting a galaxy sized cop-out of insult.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101317You know, fuck it you are right.  Shoulda done this a long way back.

We may not always see eye to eye on may topics don't let the other posters get to you. They are simply not worth it imo.

Quote from: sureshot;1101355The funny and irony and mostly hyprocritical aspect of the entire thing is that the same posters accusing Shasarak of being a fanboy would themselves do the exact thing if given the opportunity to their favored rpg. I like PF 1E I guess I must be Paizo fanboy as well. Congratulations you win the bullshit award for the presenting a galaxy sized cop-out of insult.

We may not always see eye to eye on may topics don't let the other posters get to you. They are simply not worth it imo.

Thanks Sureshot, I appreciate it.

Quote from: sureshot;1101355The funny and irony and mostly hyprocritical aspect of the entire thing is that the same posters accusing Shasarak of being a fanboy would themselves do the exact thing if given the opportunity to their favored rpg. I like PF 1E I guess I must be Paizo fanboy as well. Congratulations you win the bullshit award for the presenting a galaxy sized cop-out of insult.

I think the fanboy insult comes out when the person is being thoroughly unconvincing.

Shasarak is not the only PF2e fan I've ran across that can only seem to argue technical points rather than offer arguments why the game is fun.

Now to be fair, normally a fan of an RPG does not need argue why their game is fun. Most RPGs are overflowing with fun stuff and what you normally argue about is certain hang-ups or if the game is a right fit for what the GM wants.

The mechanics of PF2e are freely available for anyone to see and many people have looked at them and went, "this seems boring". The challenge then to fans is to explain what we are missing or to recognize that there is just a disparity in what we consider fun.

Not necessarily Shasarak, but many PF2e fans have played very few RPGs and will praise PF2e for doing things we've seen other RPGs do better. It also doesn't help that PF2e is not D&D. A lot of mechanical clunk gets forgiven to keep certain D&D sacred cows. PF2e has to stand on it's own merits and can't just be "pretty good for a class-based fantasy RPG" it needs to be "a pretty good RPG". Which is an uphill battle because the developers have went on record to say that they do not play other games like D&D 5e and thus nothing in PF2e is stolen. I don't like D&D 5e, but I thought this was a pretty stupid approach. My fanboy favorite game, Savage Worlds, shamelessly steals from any RPG they can get their hands on and they play tons of different RPGs. A common criticism of that game is that it is less original and more a decent synthesis of good game design elements other people invented. In the latest edition they stole Fate points and reworked them to function in more traditional RPGs (you can spend a benny to change a story element with GM permission. I tend to use it to clarify skipped over details in my characters favor).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101393I think the fanboy insult comes out when the person is being thoroughly unconvincing.

You know I dont mind the passive aggressive snark because really that is Roleplaying at its core.  On the other hand it dose have its own hyperbolic charm of the Simpsons Comic book guys "worst review evar".

QuoteShasarak is not the only PF2e fan I've ran across that can only seem to argue technical points rather than offer arguments why the game is fun.

Fun is what you put into the game, my friend.

Not enough?  OK, for me one fun aspect of the game is the character creation which is both easy and deep at the same time!  I know, you are thinking that it is impossible to be easy and deep wtf so thoroughly unconvincing but hear me out.

Lets look at the Steve character (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40952-PF2-I-got-99-characters-and-that-aint-one&p=1101343&viewfull=1#post1101343) I posted earlier.  So what is so "easy" about it?

The ABC's of Pathfinder character creation are:

Ancestry: Human
Background: Miner
Class: Fighter

That was easy, so whats the deep part?  Its the personalisation of your character, what kind of ancestry is he, what kind of Fighter is he and you get these choices at every level.

And the best part is that you do all of this work out of the game leaving you free to roleplay Steve at the table where, transitioning so smoothly, you get to the next part of the fun the action economy.

Everyone gets three actions on their turn.  Simple.  But what are you going to do with them.  Deep.  Yes you can attack three times but each attack is getting progressively worse so is that the best use of your turn?  Maybe you can use a shield, maybe you can retreat to stop the enemy from getting three attacks on you, maybe you want to use an action to get a knowledge roll on finding out what the heck you are fighting anyway?

Now my Pathfinder campaign is only at level 1 but combat rounds go fast which keeps everyones attention on the game, characters have high hit points which gives them a little padding but crits can still take you down.  Last night the Fighter did a max damage crit doing 24 damage which would have dropped any character from undamaged to dying.

I could go on and on about what is fun but honestly reading a roleplaying game is like reading the stats of a car, you dont know what they are really like until you drive them around the block a couple of times.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101393... but many PF2e fans have played very few RPGs and will praise PF2e for doing things we've seen other RPGs do better. ...

No just many PF fans. Many D&D fans as well.

In my group a member is taking a crack at GMing, ahem... DMing... - running the waterdeep heist adventure for 5e.

During character creation I told another player: "WTF is it with online crybabies complaining that there are not enough character options in 5e?"

He then proceeded to drop wisdom: "For most people, D&D is literally all that they play..."

My Sunday group is a huge minority in the hobby.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101393... It also doesn't help that PF2e is not D&D. A lot of mechanical clunk gets forgiven to keep certain D&D sacred cows. PF2e has to stand on it's own merits and can't just be "pretty good for a class-based fantasy RPG" it needs to be "a pretty good RPG". Which is an uphill battle because the developers have went on record to say that they do not play other games like D&D 5e and thus nothing in PF2e is stolen. ....

Wait.

WTF!? Is that for real?

The PF2 Developers?

Quote from: Jaeger;1101475Wait.

WTF!? Is that for real?

The PF2 Developers?

Is it a surprise that a Pathfinder developer does not play 5e?  I mean I am no expert on 5e, is there anything there which would work better in Pathfinder?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101483Is it a surprise that a Pathfinder developer does not play 5e?  I mean I am no expert on 5e, is there anything there which would work better in Pathfinder?

Yes...yes it is. Doesn't matter if there is since they decided not to play or study it anyway.

Quote from: imaro;1101490Yes...yes it is. Doesn't matter if there is since they decided not to play or study it anyway.

Because developers need to play every game?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101491Because developers need to play every game?

No, but I would suggest they play THE most popular game in the category they are designing for... especially if it's in the same genre and seeing an unprecedented level of sales, media penetration, longevity, and so on with it's newest edition.

Quote from: imaro;1101494No, but I would suggest they play THE most popular game in the category they are designing for... especially if it's in the same genre and seeing an unprecedented level of sales, media penetration, longevity, and so on with it's newest edition.

Within a couple years, you can probably say THE most successful RPG ruleset of all time.

Quote from: imaro;1101494No, but I would suggest they play THE most popular game in the category they are designing for... especially if it's in the same genre and seeing an unprecedented level of sales, media penetration, longevity, and so on with it's newest edition.

Is there anything in 5e which would work better in Pathfinder?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101502Is there anything in 5e which would work better in Pathfinder?

See my answer the first time you asked...

Quote from: imaro;1101506See my answer the first time you asked...

So, it doesn't matter if there is?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101509So, it doesn't matter if there is?

At this point in time no... but since I wasn't on the development team there's no way to know what benefits might have been gained before PF2e was finalized.

Quote from: sureshot;1101355The funny and irony and mostly hyprocritical aspect of the entire thing is that the same posters accusing Shasarak of being a fanboy would themselves do the exact thing if given the opportunity to their favored rpg. I like PF 1E I guess I must be Paizo fanboy as well. Congratulations you win the bullshit award for the presenting a galaxy sized cop-out of insult.



We may not always see eye to eye on may topics don't let the other posters get to you. They are simply not worth it imo.

There is no irony. I *SAID* I had done the same thing Shasarak is doing, only I did it with 4e in the first year of it coming out. It's why I recognize it so well in Shasarak. I know that fanboyism because I was that fanboy. Let me tell you how this ends - not well :)

Also, note how Shasarak said he was leaving...and then came back a day later? Yeah, I did that back then too.

Quote from: Mistwell;1101519There is no irony. I *SAID* I had done the same thing Shasarak is doing, only I did it with 4e in the first year of it coming out. It's why I recognize it so well in Shasarak. I know that fanboyism because I was that fanboy. Let me tell you how this ends - not well :)

Also, note how Shasarak said he was leaving...and then came back a day later? Yeah, I did that back then too.

https://imgflip.com/i/398nyl :)

Quote from: Shasarak;1101469You know I dont mind the passive aggressive snark because really that is Roleplaying at its core.  On the other hand it dose have its own hyperbolic charm of the Simpsons Comic book guys "worst review evar".



Fun is what you put into the game, my friend.

Not enough?  OK, for me one fun aspect of the game is the character creation which is both easy and deep at the same time!  I know, you are thinking that it is impossible to be easy and deep wtf so thoroughly unconvincing but hear me out.

Lets look at the Steve character (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40952-PF2-I-got-99-characters-and-that-aint-one&p=1101343&viewfull=1#post1101343) I posted earlier.  So what is so "easy" about it?

The ABC's of Pathfinder character creation are:

Ancestry: Human
Background: Miner
Class: Fighter

That was easy, so whats the deep part?  Its the personalisation of your character, what kind of ancestry is he, what kind of Fighter is he and you get these choices at every level.

And the best part is that you do all of this work out of the game leaving you free to roleplay Steve at the table where, transitioning so smoothly, you get to the next part of the fun the action economy.

Everyone gets three actions on their turn.  Simple.  But what are you going to do with them.  Deep.  Yes you can attack three times but each attack is getting progressively worse so is that the best use of your turn?  Maybe you can use a shield, maybe you can retreat to stop the enemy from getting three attacks on you, maybe you want to use an action to get a knowledge roll on finding out what the heck you are fighting anyway?

Now my Pathfinder campaign is only at level 1 but combat rounds go fast which keeps everyones attention on the game, characters have high hit points which gives them a little padding but crits can still take you down.  Last night the Fighter did a max damage crit doing 24 damage which would have dropped any character from undamaged to dying.

I could go on and on about what is fun but honestly reading a roleplaying game is like reading the stats of a car, you dont know what they are really like until you drive them around the block a couple of times.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101469OK, for me one fun aspect of the game is the character creation which is both easy and deep at the same time!  I know, you are thinking that it is impossible to be easy and deep wtf so thoroughly unconvincing but hear me out.

*deep breathe in

No this is not unbelievable at all. I've read a good bit of RPGs. Many beat the shit out of D&D and its children when it comes to depth/crunch (aka deep/ease-of-use) (aka things-the-rules-cover-well/number-of-rules). In the world view of "D&D 5e vs Pathfinder 2e", yes you make a decent point. But I play Savage Worlds, and they stole the 3-action economy limit in the new edition (not the same action economy as PF2e but they stole the 3 part). If I want to play a human miner fighter, I put my 12 skill points in the right areas, select some character defining flaws, grab a couple edges, and then enjoy Common Knowledge bonuses on anything to do with Mining. I would say GURPS 4e is more efficient too, but the crunch is still much higher are both ends of the table. But in that game everyone can play a Human Miner Fighter and have vastly different characters.

Quote from: sureshot;1101526https://imgflip.com/i/398nyl :)

Ha, thats funny.

Yes, this is not the Shasarak that you are looking for.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]3782[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101527*deep breathe in

No this is not unbelievable at all. I've read a good bit of RPGs. Many beat the shit out of D&D and its children when it comes to depth/crunch (aka deep/ease-of-use) (aka things-the-rules-cover-well/number-of-rules). In the world view of "D&D 5e vs Pathfinder 2e", yes you make a decent point. But I play Savage Worlds, and they stole the 3-action economy limit in the new edition (not the same action economy as PF2e but they stole the 3 part). If I want to play a human miner fighter, I put my 12 skill points in the right areas, select some character defining flaws, grab a couple edges, and then enjoy Common Knowledge bonuses on anything to do with Mining. I would say GURPS 4e is more efficient too, but the crunch is still much higher are both ends of the table. But in that game everyone can play a Human Miner Fighter and have vastly different characters.

So did I explain what I find fun about Pathfinder?  

Certainly I am not claiming that other games do not do the same things and on the other hand does Savage Worlds give you that same Pathfinder experience?  What about GURPs?  That was a big part of the design strategy behind Pathfinder 2, that you could still play the same games as you always have.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101491Because developers need to play every game?

When the first edition of your game was a house-ruled clone of the industry leader... I don't know, maybe one would want to take a look at the current edition that is an epic success on levels not seen since the early 80's?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101483Is it a surprise that a Pathfinder developer does not play 5e?  I mean I am no expert on 5e, is there anything there which would work better in Pathfinder?

Utterly irrelevant.

Completely shocking that a "game designer" working on the second edition of a ten year old clone, would be willfully ignorant of the development of the very game theirs is based on.

Quote from: Jaeger;1101534When the first edition of your game was a house-ruled clone of the industry leader... I don't know, maybe one would want to take a look at the current edition that is an epic success on levels not seen since the early 80's?




Utterly irrelevant.

Completely shocking that a "game designer" working on the second edition of a ten year old clone, would be willfully ignorant of the development of the very game theirs is based on.

Ok thats fine.  I just thought there would be at least one thing.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101536Ok thats fine.  I just thought there would be at least one thing.

One Thing: I wish Paizo had brought an emphasis on theater of the mind combat over heavy grid-dependency to PF2. I flipped through the PF2 book for a couple of hours and could see several things that rely heavily upon the grid, and I've seen reviews that say the same. I thought grid-based combat was a drag in 3e & 4e so I'm glad it's heavily downplayed in 5e.

Someone has pointed out to me that a low sales rank in Amazon isn't necessarily a bad sign - apparently you get a free PDF of the book when you purchase directly from Pazio.  Unlike WotC which pushed EVERY sale to Amazon and hyped their sales rank, it is at least possible that Paizo has good sales that nobody can see.  

That doesn't mean I trust their claims - it's in their interest to provide a marketing spin whether it is true or not.  Revealing only numbers that make them look good is something that every business engages in.  But it does mean that, at least compared to WotC, I'd accept that Amazon sales rank is less indicative of success for Paizo.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1101552Someone has pointed out to me that a low sales rank in Amazon isn't necessarily a bad sign - apparently you get a free PDF of the book when you purchase directly from Pazio.  Unlike WotC which pushed EVERY sale to Amazon and hyped their sales rank, it is at least possible that Paizo has good sales that nobody can see.  

That doesn't mean I trust their claims - it's in their interest to provide a marketing spin whether it is true or not.  Revealing only numbers that make them look good is something that every business engages in.  But it does mean that, at least compared to WotC, I'd accept that Amazon sales rank is less indicative of success for Paizo.

That's true.
I find a pretty reliable sign for how a game or game genre is doing, is walking into Orc's Nest in central London and finding which shelves they have the stuff on. Eg in recent years euro-style boardgames have taken most of the best real estate away from RPGs (most RPGs have been banished upstairs with the Conquest of the Third Reich trad-style boardgames), but the prime door-facing shelves still have D&D and Pathfinder. In mid 2010 Pathfinder replaced 4e D&D on the eye-level prime shelf, but was then itself replaced by  5e D&D in late 2014. If Pathfinder 2e takes more prime shelf space than 1e that would be a good sign; if it loses space that's a bad sign.

Well I take everything the Paizo devs say with a planet sized grain of salt. They have tendency to promise fans what they want then change their minds and to hell with the fans when it's too late to do anything as the playtest for the gun rules has clearly shwon. They claim to have never played 5E D&D yet imo I somehow doubt it. After all PF 2E despite the smokescreen they hide behind about "improving and changing the game for the better" was a response of 5E taking away their fanbase and market share. If Wotc had decided to still stay with 4E instead of 4E we would have never seen an 2E imo. Up until 5E release nothing was wrong about 1E Pathfinder and anyone who complained was pushing an agenda. 5E is announced first Pathfinder Unchained then Starfinder than PF 2E. Sorry they are not fooling anyone and being disingenuous on trying to do so. At the very least they probably read 5E as it would have been and is the height of stupidity to not read the rpg that stole away one market share and fanbase. Some may even enjoy or play 5E behind closed doors. They will never admit to it as it might scandalize some of their fans.

Honestly who the hell damn cares if PF 2E took and borrewed ideas from other rpgs. It happens all the time. I use a store brand mouth wash that works and tastes like Listerine though much cheaper. I'm not going to write off a letter to the company of the first product making a clone product of a competitor. Beyond a few geeks with too much time on their hands and perhaps not much of a life outside of gaming almost no one gives a fly fucking about that. Most moderate to casual gamers are there to have fun and play. Most will not start going into an unwanted and mostly unwelcome dissertation on how rpg company X took ideas from rpg company Y to make a new edition of an rpg. They will more than likely politely tell you to either shut up and game or go home eat rocks.

Honestly I get that perhaps Shasarak may be promoting PF 2E too much I rather see someone passionate about an rpg (though not to the extent of the guy who published Zweihander) than just a round table of "It's different I don't like it it's crap" that to many forums descend into. I just don't get the hostility I'm seeing towards the poster.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1101552Someone has pointed out to me that a low sales rank in Amazon isn't necessarily a bad sign - apparently you get a free PDF of the book when you purchase directly from Pazio.  Unlike WotC which pushed EVERY sale to Amazon and hyped their sales rank, it is at least possible that Paizo has good sales that nobody can see.  
.

That is true however at the same time if memory serves 1E stayed in the high rankings for muuuch longer than 2E has

Quote from: Shasarak;1101531So did I explain what I find fun about Pathfinder?  

Certainly I am not claiming that other games do not do the same things and on the other hand does Savage Worlds give you that same Pathfinder experience?  What about GURPs?  That was a big part of the design strategy behind Pathfinder 2, that you could still play the same games as you always have.

A problem for me is that PF2e doesn't give me the experience I had with Pathfinder (though I would argue that PF2e does give a general Pathfinder experience). My characters are always based around key cool abilities that I can have fun with and be eager to get. PF2e doesn't have those right now.

And yes, Savage Worlds does provide what I liked about Pathfinder, but no it is not the same experience. My characters start off with interesting abilities (many abilities being setting/campaign specific) and gain more interesting abilities overtime.

You did describe what you found fun, you find the PF2e design to be more elegant than PF1 and D&D 5e. Which OK, but 5e is a mechanical mess of a game and basically made no attempts to actually be mechanically stable outside of a rigid encounter pacing structure. 5e has thematic strength, you are meant to be excited when you read the small part of the rules that you need to play your class fantasy. I do not like 5e, it's strength is not one I value all that much. Paizo thought they should make another class-fantasy game with levels, HP, and the d20 without getting the thematic strength right (hell their new free SRD site is so ugly as to kill that kind of approach right away).

To counterpoint myself though, I do like Stars Without Number and with the Codex of the Black Sun you could run a fantasy game with it. Combat in that game is a shit-show, if your PCs get into challenging/fair fights all the time, then they are dead. I think what sold me on the game though is the Foci, I could see my friends having fun playing with those abilities and liking the system because of them. You can get a legal free version of Stars Without Number from DriveThruRPG and see if you agree.

SWN 2e's foci are very powerful, unlike PF 2e's feats. PF 1e also had (some!) very powerful feats. I don't understand the watering down Paizo did. Getting new feats was something you used to be excited about, now it's just another thing you gotta do when you level up.

Disclaimer: I'm going on hearsay about the PF 2e release version; I haven't played it, but I did run and play the playtest version of it.

Quote from: Morblot;1101565SWN 2e's foci are very powerful, unlike PF 2e's feats. PF 1e also had (some!) very powerful feats. I don't understand the watering down Paizo did. Getting new feats was something you used to be excited about, now it's just another thing you gotta do when you level up.

Disclaimer: I'm going on hearsay about the PF 2e release version; I haven't played it, but I did run and play the playtest version of it.

Being made to choose from a bunch of crappy feats on level up is definitely a big downer for me.

Quote from: S'mon;1101567Being made to choose from a bunch of crappy feats on level up is definitely a big downer for me.

Doesn't matter what you choose from the limited options available, you'll end up not getting much anyway. It's communist game design.

Quote from: S'mon;1101567Being made to choose from a bunch of crappy feats on level up is definitely a big downer for me.

It was also an issue in PF 1E. That version did have some powerful feats. The majority were garbage or very situational imo. One took either because it was in the list of class feats or a feat tax. Not surprised that it would be the same in 2E.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1101552Someone has pointed out to me that a low sales rank in Amazon isn't necessarily a bad sign - apparently you get a free PDF of the book when you purchase directly from Pazio.  Unlike WotC which pushed EVERY sale to Amazon and hyped their sales rank, it is at least possible that Paizo has good sales that nobody can see.  

It's $60 through Paizo, and it's $36 (or it was) through Amazon, a $24 difference (though the Amazon price sometimes pops up to $48, a $12 difference). That's not a free PDF. Also, as mentioned, they initially were ranked around #56 on Amazon and historically Paizo gamebooks sell just fine on Amazon. It costs Paizo to sell them through Amazon so it wouldn't make much sense to tie up their inventory and sell them through Amazon at a lower profit margin if it was not a previously successful distribution point. Paizo has certainly never publicly suggested that a disproportionate amount of their sales are direct from their website, and they touted the Amazon sale initially when they were strong sales.  

QuoteThat doesn't mean I trust their claims - it's in their interest to provide a marketing spin whether it is true or not.  Revealing only numbers that make them look good is something that every business engages in.  But it does mean that, at least compared to WotC, I'd accept that Amazon sales rank is less indicative of success for Paizo.

OK. How much less? 10% less indicative? I think it would be hard to argue it's 500% less indicative.

Quote from: sureshot;1101578It was also an issue in PF 1E. That version did have some powerful feats. The majority were garbage or very situational imo. One took either because it was in the list of class feats or a feat tax. Not surprised that it would be the same in 2E.

Well in 1e I could play a Ftr-1 and take some fun feats like power attack and cleave. The 2e ftr-1 feats are appalling.

Quote from: S'mon;1101584Well in 1e I could play a Ftr-1 and take some fun feats like power attack and cleave. The 2e ftr-1 feats are appalling.

I will take your word for it as I have not read the official rules yet. Again not surprised though. Majes me wonder if they are making many things in the rules suboptimal preemptively before PFS gets their claws into the rules.from the loojs of it they never will learn that terrible feats etc with fluff are still terrible imo.

Quote from: S'mon;1101567Being made to choose from a bunch of crappy feats on level up is definitely a big downer for me.

Ok, lets talk a little about feat design.  Some of the things that I have heard the Paizo designers talk about was trying to remove feat chains from the game, so that you did not need to pick up a crappy feat to get to the good stuff.  They also did not want you to have to sit down and plan out your character for its whole 20 level span so that you dont pick the "wrong" feats as you are leveling up.  And a third thing was trying to make sure that any one feat was so much better then anything else that it turned into a must have, which essentially destroys your choice if there is only one real choice.

And to be fair I think that they have hit their targets pretty well.  There are some feats that have lower level feats as requirements but they seem to be for the character that has their "thing" and want to get better at that thing.  Like, for example 2nd level Brutish Shove allows you to make an attack and push someone, 4th level Powerful shove lets you Brutish shove someone two sizes larger then you and 12th level Flinging Shove lets you push them further and even push them on a failure.  So they dont gatekeep pushing behind a feat chain instead allowing you to get better at your thing that you like your character to do.

So some people could call Powerful shove a crappy feat and on the other hand when you realise that your Fighter can start to push Huge Ancient Dragons around the battlefield, it does not seem so crappy.

Quote from: S'mon;1101584Well in 1e I could play a Ftr-1 and take some fun feats like power attack and cleave. The 2e ftr-1 feats are appalling.

So PF1 Power attack is fun and PF2 Power attack is appalling?

And PF1 Fighter 1 doing one attack per round is fun and PF2 Fighter 1 doing three attacks per round (with out needing to have cleave) is appalling?

I just want to make sure that I understand the true horror that you are seeing here.

Quote from: Morblot;1101569Doesn't matter what you choose from the limited options available, you'll end up not getting much anyway. It's communist game design.

Communist game design?

Can you explain what you mean by that exactly because choosing from a limited options does not seem inherently communistic.

If we look at the definition of Communism "a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs" how exactly does that apply to game design?

Quote from: Kevin197;1101556That is true however at the same time if memory serves 1E stayed in the high rankings for muuuch longer than 2E has

Are you sure?  Originally Pathfinder 1 came from a very small company known for its production of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.  It does not seem logical that initial sales of Pathfinder 1 would rank highly in sales data at all.

If I remember Erik Mona correctly he said that sales of Core Pathfinder books increased over time as, I am guessing, players left DnD 4e for Pathfinder.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1101539One Thing: I wish Paizo had brought an emphasis on theater of the mind combat over heavy grid-dependency to PF2. I flipped through the PF2 book for a couple of hours and could see several things that rely heavily upon the grid, and I've seen reviews that say the same. I thought grid-based combat was a drag in 3e & 4e so I'm glad it's heavily downplayed in 5e.

I had my second session of Age of Ashes on Thursday.  We had three encounters all using TotM and it seem to play just as well as Pathfinder 1 or 3e.

I dont know what improvements that 5e has made to running TotM?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101618Can you explain what you mean by that exactly because choosing from a limited options does not seem inherently communistic.

They had elections in the Soviet Union, you know. And starvation.

I've answered your question, now answer mine. How much are Paizo paying you for shilling their shitass game?

Quote from: Morblot;1101624They had elections in the Soviet Union, you know. And starvation.

I've answered your question, now answer mine. How much are Paizo paying you for shilling their shitass game?

The shit ass game you have never played because its too communistic?  :confused:

Quote from: Shasarak;1101617So PF1 Power attack is fun and PF2 Power attack is appalling?

And PF1 Fighter 1 doing one attack per round is fun and PF2 Fighter 1 doing three attacks per round (with out needing to have cleave) is appalling?

I just want to make sure that I understand the true horror that you are seeing here.

3 attacks/round is not a Feat thing. I thought it sounded cool until I realised they were keeping iterative attack penalties. :mad:

PF1 Power Attack 2hw is certainly powerful -  https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat/

PF2 Power Attack:

 POWER ATTACK [TWO-ACTIONS] FEAT 1
Fighter Flourish
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you're at least 10th level increase this to two extra dice, and if you're at least 18th level increase it to three extra dice.


Hm, if I'm not missing something I probably will take this. Looks like it does not have any to-hit penalty? This + Raise Shield looks like a good way to avoid iterative attack penalties, which I really hate.

Edit: The feats I was going through with the GM on Sunday, it was all "this looks good - oh wait, it's TWO actions?" Or "What, you mean I can't use this unless I already have a to-hit penalty?" - and it all seemed really fiddly and trivial.

Quote from: sureshot;1101554Honestly I get that perhaps Shasarak may be promoting PF 2E too much I rather see someone passionate about an rpg (though not to the extent of the guy who published Zweihander) than just a round table of "It's different I don't like it it's crap" that to many forums descend into. I just don't get the hostility I'm seeing towards the poster.

Its a sad day when you get accused of loving RPGs too much on a board for discussing RPGs.  :p

But the hostility is most likely just because I am a Non Binary Communist Nazi SJW Paizo shill.  But a guys got to eat, I mean a person.

Quote from: S'mon;11016283 attacks/round is not a Feat thing. I thought it sounded cool until I realised they were keeping iterative attack penalties. :mad:

PF1 Power Attack 2hw is certainly powerful -  https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat/

PF2 Power Attack:

 POWER ATTACK [TWO-ACTIONS] FEAT 1
Fighter Flourish
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you're at least 10th level increase this to two extra dice, and if you're at least 18th level increase it to three extra dice.


Hm, if I'm not missing something I probably will take this. Looks like it does not have any to-hit penalty? This + Raise Shield looks like a good way to avoid iterative attack penalties, which I really hate.

Edit: The feats I was going through with the GM on Sunday, it was all "this looks good - oh wait, it's TWO actions?" Or "What, you mean I can't use this unless I already have a to-hit penalty?" - and it all seemed really fiddly and trivial.

Thats exactly what I mean, how is PF2 Power attack worse then PF1 Power Attack when you actually look at it?  It does what it says right on the tin, let you make a powerful attack and better then that you dont suffer any penalties to make it.

And you may think that you hate iterative attack penalties but just wait until your character is staring down the barrel of an angry Grauladon after you realise that your Power Attack just made it angry and that it also has three actions that it can use to attack with.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101626The shit ass game you have never played because its too communistic?  :confused:

No. More like the shitass game I don't feel like buying after burning my hands with the playtest version a year ago. (I now have that motherfucking faux leather book in a box in the basement because I don't even want to look at it on my shelf.) I also don't personally know anyone who bought it or is even considering buying it, so how would I play it? Even the local Society people seem to be playing old 1e scenarios instead.

Whatever. I guess I should know better than giving you more attention.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101630Thats exactly what I mean, how is PF2 Power attack worse then PF1 Power Attack when you actually look at it?  It does what it says right on the tin, let you make a powerful attack and better then that you dont suffer any penalties to make it.

And you may think that you hate iterative attack penalties but just wait until your character is staring down the barrel of an angry Grauladon after you realise that your Power Attack just made it angry and that it also has three actions that it can use to attack with.

If it counts as two, doesnt it get a -5 for being the second, or does it only count as two attacks after you make it?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1101642If it counts as two, doesnt it get a -5 for being the second, or does it only count as two attacks after you make it?

It counts as two after you do it, so any further attacks would get a penalty.

Roll For Combat, Pathfinder: The Fall of Plaguestone Actual Play Podcast

In this first episode, you'll meet our intrepid crew as they travel through the rolling countryside of the Five Kings range on their way to Almas, when trouble descends upon them!  

Traveling in the caravan are Brixley Silverthorn, the Gnome Champion Liberator; Cade Thistlerot, the Halfing Rogue Thief; Celes Karvasalon, the Human Angelic Sorcerer; and Prue Frosthammer, the Half-Orc Spirit Barbarian. Welcome to Plaguestone!

[video=youtube;GvIHwBcOAMM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvIHwBcOAMM[/youtube]

Pathfinder 2E Announces Bestiary 2

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3783[/ATTACH] (https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/08/28/pathfinder-2e-bestiary-2-cover/)

Over 350 monsters are being added to Pathfinder Second Edition next year. Earlier this week, Paizo announced the Pathfinder Bestiary 2, which will be released in April of next year. The new publication will contain hundreds of new monsters, including classic creatures like the serpentfolk and jabberwock, returning favorites like the primal dragons and the Sandpoint Devil, to new monsters that have never appeared before in a Pathfinder book. Paizo also released the new Wayne Reynolds cover for Pathfinder Bestiary 2, which contains new versions of serpentfolk, morlocks, and a ghostly looking dragon.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101663Pathfinder 2E Announces Bestiary 2

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3783[/ATTACH] (https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/08/28/pathfinder-2e-bestiary-2-cover/)

Over 350 monsters are being added to Pathfinder Second Edition next year. Earlier this week, Paizo announced the Pathfinder Bestiary 2, which will be released in April of next year. The new publication will contain hundreds of new monsters, including classic creatures like the serpentfolk and jabberwock, returning favorites like the primal dragons and the Sandpoint Devil, to new monsters that have never appeared before in a Pathfinder book. Paizo also released the new Wayne Reynolds cover for Pathfinder Bestiary 2, which contains new versions of serpentfolk, morlocks, and a ghostly looking dragon.

The Ravener, perhaps?  The Dracolich, of Pathfinder.

Power Attack is really a great feat, probably one of the best in the early game.

You can't really consider multi action moves to be "missed" attacks because the multi attack penalty is severe. Your average PF2 character has less of a chance to hit an even level mob with their second attack than a 1st level D&D 5e player has of hitting endgame monsters.

If you play your cards right, your Fighter will often be critting on a 16 or even lower. So quite a high chance of getting a "home run" power attack critical hit.

So is that your automatic, must pick feat for a lv 1 Fighter? Not really. For a damage boosting feat, Double Slice might be a better choice if you want to use a shield (with spikes or boss) or dual wield. You'll do more consistent damage with fewer huge home runs.  

Both of those cost two actions so you aren't going to be able to use them every turn, especially moving 4 spaces per action and potentially needing to raise your shield. Sudden Charge gives you 3 actions worth of power (two moves and one strike) for 2 actions which makes it a very viable choice especially for a shield user.

Flanking (or more specifically, making an enemy flat footed) plays a major role in deciding the outcome of a battle so it is a high priority. If all of your buddies use shooting or are otherwise unwilling to flank, Snagging Strike is a useful tool to get that bonus for yourself and them.

The other L1 Fighter feats aren't that great at first level but eventually provide a real value as you level up and combine them with other feats. I can see that the feats might look weak/boring if you haven't tried the system yet. It all does make a lot of difference on the tabletop, especially as you level up. The 2 handed DPS warrior lives by the sword and dies by it. The tank warrior with multiple shield blocks has many, many extra hit points and does not go down easy. The balanced dual wielder is weaker than both but consistently "good", and plenty viable for the game. The tactician with an arsenal of weapons might be the best overall, but will never be as good at all niches as a Fighter with a dedicated style.

I've been getting a kick out of a lot of these replies. While I would definitely not consider myself a "fanboy" or presume to represent "most" PF players, I'd say I've played my share of RPGs, lol. I wasn't sitting in Gary's basement in my polyester slacks at the very beginning but I'm not too far off that. I think its a decent, well considered system. Who knew people would be this invested in not liking a different set of combat rules? I don't get it.

Regarding success or lack of, there is no disaffected D&D playerbase to poach from this time, so taking a big chunk of their market share doesn't seem like a realistic goal. If they can pay all their bills and make 15% more money than they made last year, I'd consider that a win. Its not just the sale of one book. Did this release increase the number of $150 6 part adventures they can sell? Do they sell more battlemats with the grid focused system? Would they have been better off introducing Spyfinder or Zombiefinder or some other new system, and continuing to put out PF1 material? I don't know the answer to that.

Quote from: Conanist;1101666Who knew people would be this invested in not liking a different set of combat rules? I don't get it.

Too many tabletop gamers are just hypocrites. Having gamed since the early 80s I call it as I see it and I'm not at all impressed with much of the tabletop rpg community. If it's a favored rpg it is above reproach, the company a paragon of virtue and the rules the greatest thing EVER! If it's the opposite the rpg is fundamentally flawed even if most never read it. The company the worst ever and the rule crap. Again it is embarrassing to be tabletop gamer sometimes. I do sometimes crap on other rpg companies as well yet so I'm a hypocrite as well. Yet with all due respect some people either need to stop smoking fourth rate drugs or have their heads checked when they are getting on a poster case being positive about an rpg. I sometimes wonder if this forum us turning into TBP.

I can understand if it was truly shilling such as Fox did for Zweihander as that was truly shilling a product. OP creates a thread about talking and promoting PF 2E and he gets called a shill. Seriously communist game design get a fucking clue and more importantly a life.

I'm not a fan of what I see so far and too much of the new product is going to mostly be rehash of older PF 1E material. Plus life and responsibility is also getting in the way of any further rpg purchases. I just don't see why everyone is going out of their way to be so antagonistic towards Shasarak I gues he must be a someone who likes capitalist game design (god that sounds even worse than communist game design)

Quote from: Shasarak;1101663Pathfinder 2E Announces Bestiary 2

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3783[/ATTACH] (https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/08/28/pathfinder-2e-bestiary-2-cover/)

Curse you Shasarak I don't need more temptation lol.

Quote from: Razor 007;1101665The Ravener, perhaps?  The Dracolich, of Pathfinder.

I actually prefer Ravener as opposed to Dracolich in terms of name. Dracolich imo feels redundant.

Quote from: sureshot;1101671Curse you Shasarak I don't need more temptation lol.



I actually prefer Ravener as opposed to Dracolich in terms of name. Dracolich imo feels redundant.

In the Pathfinder 1E Bestiary 2, the Ravener is a CR 22 Red Wyrm variant, that knows three 9th level spells.

Quote from: Conanist;1101666Regarding success or lack of, there is no disaffected D&D playerbase to poach from this time

The people I know who like PF2 liked PF1, but they REALLY liked 4e D&D and have a strong dislike of 5e D&D's simplification of character building & combat.

I definitely think I'm going to take Power Attack for our PF2 game early next year - no I don't think it's as powerful as PF1 (or 3.5) 2hw PA, but then that was extremely powerful, about the only way a melee fighter could start to compare to ranged or caster. At least unlike the other Ftr-1 feats I've looked at it doesn't appear to be conditional/require a penalty.

Quote from: sureshot;1101670Seriously communist game design get a fucking clue and more importantly a life.

I thought something like "communist came design" would be so absurd that no one would take it seriously, so I left out the smileys. Guess I was wrong. My bad!

Sorry you got your feefees hurt by something some fucking retard wrote on the internet. But don't worry, I can take a hint. I won't be darkening the door of this thread until I've got something meaningful to say.

Quote from: Morblot;1101677I thought something like "communist came design" would be so absurd that no one would take it seriously, so I left out the smileys. Guess I was wrong. My bad!

Sorry you got your feefees hurt by something some fucking retard wrote on the internet. But don't worry, I can take a hint. I won't be darkening the door of this thread until I've got something meaningful to say.

Sure whatever keep shifting the goalposts and make bullshit excuses.

You don't get to troll than when called out on it pretend you were joking. No one can stop from trolling so at least have the stones to not play the victim as your anything but a victim.

This has to be the now the third person complaining about buying the playtest version of an rpg. One here two outside of the Internet.

The risk of not liking the rpg is always a factor than why even buy the print version when one could have bought the cheaper PDF version. I don't particularly feel very sympathetic to such buyers as they were never forced to buy the product. While also coming across as not willing to take personal responsibility for the poor purchasing choices. "It's not my fault I stupidly bought the playtest and did not like it. It's Paizo fault for making an rpg I don't like". Yeah..no it is your fault for making a stupid decision. If your a raging diabetic and insist on eating products with a lot of sugar it's not the companies faultthat produce the products for putting them on the market. Your the idiot who can't keep stuffing his mouth with sugar filled products.

Quote from: sureshot;1101690This has to be the now the third person complaining about buying the playtest version of an rpg. One here two outside of the Internet.

The risk of not liking the rpg is always a factor than why even buy the print version when one could have bought the cheaper PDF version. I don't particularly feel very sympathetic to such buyers as they were never forced to buy the product. While also coming across as not willing to take personal responsibility for the poor purchasing choices. "It's not my fault I stupidly bought the playtest and did not like it. It's Paizo fault for making an rpg I don't like". Yeah..no it is your fault for making a stupid decision. If your a raging diabetic and insist on eating products with a lot of sugar it's not the companies faultthat produce the products for putting them on the market. Your the idiot who can't keep stuffing his mouth with sugar filled products.

it should be really easy please someone willing to buy a play test.

It should tell you something when those hard core fans don't like it.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101700it should be really easy please someone willing to buy a play test.

It should tell you something when those hard core fans don't like it.

Yeah screw that apologist, enablist, personal responsibility evading bullshit.

Unless one had a gun to their head or a loved ones head. Or someone threatened physical violence to the buyer or their family no one was forced to buy the product. No one.

Welcome to 2019 where personal responsibility is now a thing of the past and it seems not limited to social progressives either.

Their were three version for sale. The regular version, hardcover with free PDf release. If one is stupid enough to waste money on the more expensive version of a product with the risk of not liking the product it's somehow the company fault. That makes real sense especially given that no one was forced to buy it I stayed away from the playtest as I was both not interested in buy the print nor downloading the free PDF. I was surprised by a close friend with a softcover version of the playtest for my birthday. Even then if I did buy it I would have assumed responsibility for not liking the final product. While waiting and seeing the final product and possibly reviews of the final product. So if I buy a new shirt because the salesperson knew how to sell and promote the shirt it's not my fault for listening to the salesperson it's the salesperson for doing his job. What an asinine way to live and go through life.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101700it should be really easy please someone willing to buy a play test.

It should tell you something when those hard core fans don't like it.

The guy did not like the playtest.  Why? Because it's too Communistic.

So tell me how easy it is to please someone like that?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101700it should be really easy please someone willing to buy a play test.

It should tell you something when those hard core fans don't like it.

I remember FFGs experience with the Dark Heresy 2e playtest.  It went badly and they ended up rewriting almost everything before release because those testers were hard to please.

Photo from Jason Bulmahn at DragonCon Panels

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3784[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Campbell

QuoteI'm curious as to what problems 5E have that PF2 doesn't (besides nothing to spend your gold on....)

In general I do not like to think about game designs in terms of fixing problems. I prefer to think of different games in terms of cultivating different sorts of play experiences. There are some features of 5th Edition that make it difficult for me to manage as a GM at the table and not as exciting as some other games when I am a player. These are my own issues. I do not really want to make a big deal about. I still really enjoy playing it, but not so much running it.

Here are some areas where I anticipate the Pathfinder 2 improving handling time for me.

The text is remarkably clear and concise. It uses templates, traits, and precise language to make it easy to parse and reference rules at the table. This is probably my biggest issue with 5th Edition at the table.

The action economy is a lot more fluid, intuitive, and has much fewer exceptions. It lacks things like split moves, abilities that use movement as a resource, abilities that use up one of your attacks, and the like. Because things just cost a certain number of actions there is no juggling action vs bonus action vs movement. You do a thing and costs 1, 2, or 3 actions. Done.

Almost everything that has a limited use is either a spell that uses spell slots or a focus spell that uses focus points. The way these things work is consistent across character classes. There are no class features on their own resource individual resource schedules like Channel Divinity, Bardic Inspiration, Lay On Hands, Action Surge and the like.

Rules that have a similar effect almost always use the exact same mechanic. Proficiency works the same way for weapons, armor, skills, saves, Perception, Class DC, Spell DC, and spell attack. Every score can be used as a check or a DC. Any effect that counters a spell or ability works in exactly the same way. You learn a rule once and can apply it all over the place.

Interactions between abilities are clear thanks to traits. You do not have to guess if Mind Blank will impact casting a certain spell or if a creature's immunity or resistance applies to a given attack.

Where the game expects you to apply GM judgement it flat out tells you and gives you tools to help determine things like DCs. There is strong advice and examples on how to handle things like Knowledge checks.

Here are the things that have me excited about the game as a GM

Nothing is a sure thing. Blanket player side immunities are gone. Spells have been written so that there is less certainty over the outcome. Spells like Remove Disease now give you a chance to counter the Disease. Mind Blank, Nondetection, and True Seeing now give you a chance to overcome spells and other abilities. Thanks to degrees of success and failure there is now a broader range of outcomes for most spells. They have reinvigorated the drama of playing a spell caster.

The game has a strong focus on exploration. Things like licking your wounds after battle, repairing shields, recovering focus spells, choosing to search or sneak about, and the like are clearly defined parts of the game with implications on encounters. As someone who is very found of B/X this makes me inordinately happy.

Everything is very grounded in the fiction. Abilities describe how your character is doing the thing that they are doing. Anything that is supernatural is called out as such. Martial characters have no limited use abilities. The action economy is their only playground. Focus spells are explicitly supernatural.

Many character classes have features that ground them in the larger setting. If you are a champion you have a specific set of oaths and a connection to a patron deity that impacts your behavior with a specific set of edicts and anathema. Sorcerers blood magic connects them to the setting and there is a sidebar reminding players that their bloodline will impact the way people see them. Powerful rituals require secondary casters that require players to interact with the setting to achieve. Some even require that the secondary casters are followers of the same faith.

Items and spells have an indicated rarity with anything that is Uncommon or Rare assumed to be something that must be acquired through play. It also indicates that we cannot really assume every wizard has access to spells like Mind Blank and Teleport.

The monsters look like a lot of fun. They pretty much all have unique abilities and many have weaknesses, resistances, and immunities. In many ways monsters have become like puzzles to solve. Some like the hydra even require you to kill them in a specific way.

Some advantages of Pathfinder 2e (https://www.enworld.org/threads/my-biggest-concern-for-pathfinder-2e.666774/post-7797799)

Quote from: Shasarak;1101712The guy did not like the playtest.  Why? Because it's too Communistic.

So tell me how easy it is to please someone like that?

The joke there was that everyone gets tons of feats but none of them are good or interesting.

Boomer/conservative internet humor can be hard to parse because plenty of people legitimately believe stuff like that.

Well I can say now they are not helping themselves with some of there encounter design.

 In the first issue of there new Ap they have an encounter where two birds are being used as guard sentries only problem is there in a pitchblack room and have no darkvision this is as not a mistake as the creative director has said "consider this from the original intent that was to give characters with darkvision a chance to enjoy their advantage." and "In cases where no PC needs light, or a PC with darkvision sneaks ahead... this encounter gives that party or that PC a fun reward for a character choice and lets them use something to their advantage. That's a nice change of pace now and then for players to encounter, and makes them feel like the world isn't always perfectly poised to defeat them. Sometimes the bad guys make mistakes too.".

What makes this encounter entirly nonsensical is that from a world building perspective they wouldent be posting sentries against potential pc's (Since there not there when they arrived) but rather against the only large group that would be a threat which is the tribe of Goblins (and I suppose a couple of Kobolds) who all have darkvision. Now I dont mind bad guys making mistakes but theres making mistakes and being a pants on head moron that makes a saturday morning cartoon villain look like a tactical genius.

Quote from: Kevin197;1101770this is as not a mistake as the creative director has said

You should take such statements with a very large grain of salt.

(https://ak3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/25680233/thumb/1.jpg)

Quote from: Shasarak;1101616Ok, lets talk a little about feat design.

Lets!

Quote from: Shasarak;1101616Some of the things that I have heard the Paizo designers talk about was trying to remove feat chains from the game, so that you did not need to pick up a crappy feat to get to the good stuff.  They also did not want you to have to sit down and plan out your character for its whole 20 level span so that you dont pick the "wrong" feats as you are leveling up.  And a third thing was trying to make sure that any one feat was so much better then anything else that it turned into a must have, which essentially destroys your choice if there is only one real choice.

These are all generally respectable goals.  In the game my friends and I play now we did exactly that.  And apparently better than Paizo...  I'll go into more detail in a moment...

Quote from: Shasarak;1101616And to be fair I think that they have hit their targets pretty well.  There are some feats that have lower level feats as requirements but they seem to be for the character that has their "thing" and want to get better at that thing.  Like, for example 2nd level Brutish Shove allows you to make an attack and push someone, 4th level Powerful shove lets you Brutish shove someone two sizes larger then you and 12th level Flinging Shove lets you push them further and even push them on a failure.

This is actually really poor design.  Let's start with the first question - are you automatically SUCCESSFUL if you have Powerful Shove against someone that's two sizes larger than you?  Assuming you're not, there's a really good chance that the 'higher level feat' actually provides less benefit than the original feat.  With the original feat you can shove some people you fight.  Even though you 'technically' can affect more targets, if you're UNLIKELY to succeed, you're not actually getting any more utility.  It's a classic trap option.  

This is the same thing with 3.x two-weapon fighting chains.  A feat a 1st level gave you another attack (100% MORE ATTACKS), likely doubling your damage output (or pretty close).  The next feat in the chain gives you another attack to the 3 you already have (only 25% more attacks) and it is already at -5 compared to your primary; definitely not DOUBLING your damage.  And when you get ANOTHER attack at -10 to go with the five attacks you have already, well, that's actually REALLY sad.  You're just looking for a chance to roll a nat 20 most of the time.  

It probably wouldn't kill Paizo to roll Powerful Shove and Flinging Shove into the same Feat.  You spend one feat, you get a bonus to the action that scales with level, so by the time you are higher level it SOMETIMES works on more powerful people, and if they fail their resist check by 5 or 10 points they go flying further.  Now maybe feats aren't precious things, but I think picking one Feat at 3rd level and finding out that it's still contributing at 15th level is better design than trying to decide if you're going to marginally upgrade an existing ability or add something new and exciting.

Quote from: Shasarak;1101616So they dont gatekeep pushing behind a feat chain instead allowing you to get better at your thing that you like your character to do.

Wouldn't you agree that GENERALLY, just making the first feat choice continue to provide those benefits is easier to grok and leaves you more options for other COOL NEW FEATS that you just KNOW are coming?

Quote from: Shasarak;1101616So some people could call Powerful shove a crappy feat and on the other hand when you realise that your Fighter can start to push Huge Ancient Dragons around the battlefield, it does not seem so crappy.

Actually, I'm not sure I see the general benefit.  Does the dragon provoke from the Fighter?  I'm pretty sure nobody else gets an AoO (at least not generally).  And with the dragon's reach and (at least) 3 actions, there's really nothing stopping it from using a breath weapon, closing the distance and biting again.  What did the dragon LOSE by being moved?  I'm not saying it isn't a good thing, but it isn't a good thing because 'moving dragons is COOL' - it has to have some UTILITY to be worthwhile.  So what is it?  What makes shoving dragons worthwhile?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102159Wouldn't you agree that GENERALLY, just making the first feat choice continue to provide those benefits is easier to grok and leaves you more options for other COOL NEW FEATS that you just KNOW are coming?

That's the point that I arrived at independently in my own "feat" design. Originally each style had a basic, expert and master level that was effectively a feat chain.

This spring I canned that whole pile and merged them together at roughly a two-to-one ratio (sometimes crossing the streams a bit for the odd one out of group, other times just beefing up a lone option) and making each one independently selectable. There were still about three "feats" that worked best with each weapon group or spell school and a host of general ones, but they all did different things (ex. of the three "feats" that worked best with spears; one improved its use when setting against a charge, one improved its ability when making a charge, and the third improved using the butt-end as an additional attack... the one for charging could also be combined to good effect with the one that improved mounted combat if you wanted a knight instead of a pikeman).

All my playtesters agreed it was a VAST improvement over the previous feat chains.

Quote from: Chris24601;1102193That's the point that I arrived at independently in my own "feat" design. Originally each style had a basic, expert and master level that was effectively a feat chain.

This spring I canned that whole pile and merged them together at roughly a two-to-one ratio (sometimes crossing the streams a bit for the odd one out of group, other times just beefing up a lone option) and making each one independently selectable. There were still about three "feats" that worked best with each weapon group or spell school and a host of general ones, but they all did different things (ex. of the three "feats" that worked best with spears; one improved its use when setting against a charge, one improved its ability when making a charge, and the third improved using the butt-end as an additional attack... the one for charging could also be combined to good effect with the one that improved mounted combat if you wanted a knight instead of a pikeman).

All my playtesters agreed it was a VAST improvement over the previous feat chains.

You do see this aspect with the Skill system:  Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary.

You dont just get a numerical bonus with each upgrade, they also "unlock" different things that you can do with your skills.  You can also have things like Traps that only a "Master" can disarm.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102203You do see this aspect with the Skill system:  Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary.

You dont just get a numerical bonus with each upgrade, they also "unlock" different things that you can do with your skills.  You can also have things like Traps that only a "Master" can disarm.

No, you see that PF2e retained the OPPOSITE.

To be clear by way of mild profanity... I shit-canned "Basic, Expert, Master" level crap because no one liked it.

I replaced it with "here are two packages of scaling abilities you can take independently of each other that do everything those three "feats" did and a little more." THAT was met with blanket praise from my testers.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1101700it should be really easy please someone willing to buy a play test.

Wait, it should be really easy to please people accustomed to a long-standing system with a half-built work in progress that hasn't been playtested?

Are you drunk?

Quote from: Haffrung;1102279Wait, it should be really easy to please people accustomed to a long-standing system with a half-built work in progress that hasn't been playtested?

Are you drunk?

That they bought knowing it was a playtest? Should be really easy to please that crowd.

Hell I've been happy with the "playtest" version of games that I kick-started.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102159I'm not saying it isn't a good thing, but it isn't a good thing because 'moving dragons is COOL' - it has to have some UTILITY to be worthwhile.  So what is it?  What makes shoving dragons worthwhile?

I'm inclined to agree with some of your points here. There probably didn't need to be a 3 feat tree for this. I also don't think they succeeded in the "don't pick the wrong feats" area. There are a number of "trap" paths a character can go down that seem like legit options if you don't look under the hood, just like Starfinder. But thats a topic for another day.

So, Shove in itself is an action that everyone can do bare handed with Athletics. If you have the right weapon you can also shove while wielding that, using your weapon bonus. When you shove somebody, you can choose to make a free move to follow them, or hold your ground. It is useful to get an enemy out of/into flanking position, out of cover, etc.

Now with Brutish Shove you are adding the Shove to a regular hit, so you can have this extra effect while still doing normal damage. It is a press action so it can only be used while you have a multiple attack penalty, and most importantly causes the enemy to become flat footed even if it misses, reducing their armor class by 2. So the feat gives you some action economy and a powerful debuff. Looks pretty good to me.

Now lets put it all together. Thorgrim (who is beside himself with grief) takes all of these feats and wields a 2H Warhammer. He has access to the critical specialization effects for hammers and knocks enemies prone on a critical hit. A dragon is circling overhead, and his adventuring party including himself and a wizard/rogue/cleric are spread out in a diamond formation so they hopefully do not all get cooked by the fire breath. The dragon lands and tries to splatter the cleric, then later use his fire breath once the PCs have bunched closer for melee.

Thorgrim uses Sudden Charge to move twice, get into flanking position with the cleric, and hopefully hit the dragon with his attack. He then uses Brutish Shove to try and knock the dragon away from the party. He rolls well and gets a critical hit and knocks the dragon to the side 4 spaces and knocking it prone! He chooses to follow it, and then hits it again with an AoO when it tries to get up (knocking him prone again if its a crit). If it was an enemy without a ranged attack, he might stand his ground instead, and the enemy would be forced to take an action to stand up and then another action to move, leaving one action to attack, raise their shield, etc.

By the time dragons start showing up the Paladin and Barbarian will also have AoO, so using Trip, hammer criticals etc and then pounding the enemy with AoOs as they try to rise can be a key strategy if your group can capitalize on it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1102232No, you see that PF2e retained the OPPOSITE.

To be clear by way of mild profanity... I shit-canned "Basic, Expert, Master" level crap because no one liked it.

I replaced it with "here are two packages of scaling abilities you can take independently of each other that do everything those three "feats" did and a little more." THAT was met with blanket praise from my testers.

I playtested it just to playtest it, no house rules of any kind. We only played the one meatgrinder adventure from the playtest book (twice) otherwise I just reskinned monsters from the bestiary into other adventures within the playtest encounter budget. And I provided a lot of feedback because I liked the game and wanted it to be better.

I quite liked the TEML + crit system. If I was going to fix anything it would be the cloth casters, who don't really have a role in this game. I think using their best spells they should probably be able to kill an even level enemy with 2 of them or one critical hit. The other casters have many of these same spells but also have armor, weapons and heals so buffing the spells themselves might not be the answer. My players might choose this for the next campaign and might not, so I;m not too motivated to find "my" fix for it yet.

Quote from: Conanist;1102298I'm inclined to agree with some of your points here. There probably didn't need to be a 3 feat tree for this. I also don't think they succeeded in the "don't pick the wrong feats" area. There are a number of "trap" paths a character can go down that seem like legit options if you don't look under the hood, just like Starfinder. But thats a topic for another day.

I do like how they made retraining a core part of the game, so if you do have a "trap" option then you can just take some downtime and retrain out of it.

What is Logan trying to tell us?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3807[/ATTACH]

Too soon?

Quote from: Conanist;1102298Now lets put it all together. Thorgrim (who is beside himself with grief) takes all of these feats and wields a 2H Warhammer. He has access to the critical specialization effects for hammers and knocks enemies prone on a critical hit. A dragon is circling overhead, and his adventuring party including himself and a wizard/rogue/cleric are spread out in a diamond formation so they hopefully do not all get cooked by the fire breath. The dragon lands and tries to splatter the cleric, then later use his fire breath once the PCs have bunched closer for melee.

Thorgrim uses Sudden Charge to move twice, get into flanking position with the cleric, and hopefully hit the dragon with his attack.

I wouldn't expect the dragon to land in the middle of the group.  If they're in a diamond formation, he should land in a position with the cleric directly in front of him and the rest of the party further away (but still in front of him).  Can you flank with someone standing next to you?  

Serious question.  In my homebrew, each ally gives you a bonus to hit, regardless of relative position.  

Quote from: Conanist;1102298He then uses Brutish Shove to try and knock the dragon away from the party.

How do you activate it?  Is it automatic on every attack (with MAP)?  Does it require more than a single action?

Quote from: Conanist;1102298He rolls well and gets a critical hit and knocks the dragon to the side 4 spaces and knocking it prone!

When you say critical hit, you mean he rolled 10+ more than he needed to hit?  What does he need to roll to hit?  What does he need to get a critical?  If he hits on a 15+, does he get a critical on a 20?  Or would it require a 25 (impossible on a d20)?  

Is this ability entirely dependent on the AC of the creature?  Ie, a 2 ounce Pixie with an AC of 35 is exactly as difficult to move as a 50 ton dragon with AC 35?  There are no resist checks?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102575Serious question.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect that either. Say the Fighter is on first base, the cleric is on second, and the dragon comes in from center field. "Flanking" in PF terms means that two opponents have to be in front/behind or on either side of the "flanked" enemy, which will make them flat footed and -2 AC to those two opponents. There are other methods to make the enemy flat footed (like Brutish Shove) to everyone, but flanking is easy to accomplish and usually priority #1.

Most feats are "moves" that you choose to do instead of doing something else, and they do cost different numbers of actions. You can't Brutish Shove and Power Attack in the same hit, for instance. You could Brutish Shove twice in your turn with cumulative MAP penalties if you chose and were in the right situation.

The Shove ability itself is defended by Fortitude DC (Fort save +10), not armor. A little pixie is going to be easy to Shove but hard to Trip, as that targets Reflex DC. You can't normally shove huge monsters, the feat is an exception, and if you hit with it the Shove works automatically.

So! We've got our battlefield set up, lets see the numbers. The Fighter needs to be L12 to have all those feats, so that will be the party level and the opponent is a L14 Adult Red Dragon with 37 AC, an appropriate boss level fight.

I've got the Fighter at +29 to hit with a +2 weapon and Heroism, so hit/crit on a roll of 8/18 or 6/16 if it is flat footed. He can probably Sudden Charge 12 spaces, maybe getting behind the dragon and maybe not. The Brutish Shove  second attack would be at 13/20 or 11/20, needing a 20 to critical in either case but the dragon could already be prone if the Sudden Charge crits.

I'd say Brutish Shove is worth a look if you wanted a 2H specialist Fighter. I don't know if I'd take the 3 feat chain but you might save the day once in a while if you do. I don't think its useless.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102354I do like how they made retraining a core part of the game, so if you do have a "trap" option then you can just take some downtime and retrain out of it.

That is a welcome touch, but really it would be better to just not have the really weak/esoteric options or try to make them at least "ok".

Quote from: Conanist;1102614That is a welcome touch, but really it would be better to just not have the really weak/esoteric options or try to make them at least "ok".

If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102621If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

I think that there's room for some subjective balance across groups, but once you choose your balance point, you can be objective about whether feats measure up or not.

Most gamers are familiar with Magic the Gathering and there are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't just play with ultra-rare cards.  If you're on a budget, you'll make the best deck you can with what cards you have.  Since you can play multiple decks, or re-jigger decks, it is easy to play a 'theme deck' that seems fun just to see how it works.  But if you're limited to just one deck and you can pull exactly what you want?  There's still going to be variety - there will be people who opt for a blue deck or a green deck or white/black, but people will gravitate to what works.

If you have 400 feats, and you're allowed to pick 20, you're probably going to pick the 20 that best fit your theme.  If the other 380 feats best fit another theme, they'll still be used.  But usually there are 100 feats that everyone uses and 300 that you'll never see in play.  The benefits are so extremely niche that there's no point.

And when they publish more and more feats, and none of them 'displace' the existing paradigm, there really isn't any point to it at all.  

Regarding the Shove - if you hit it 'works automatically' - meaning that you don't have to spend another action to activate it, but it still resisted, correct?  If you roll a Natural 20 to attack the dragon (Attack 49 against AC 37, so a critical by +10 over or a nat20, either way), does the dragon ALSO get a Fortitude save to resist being shoved at all?  

I'm trying to wrap my head around the failure points.  

What I suspect (and would like to confirm) is that allowing you to shove creatures that are 2 sizes bigger should be automatic because doing so is difficult enough that it won't generally happen.  If you have to hit the dragon with a critical AND the dragon has to roll a 1 or 2 on a Fortitude Save, that'd seem to indicate that the 'marginal utility' of the high level feat is low.  While it allows you to shove creatures you normally couldn't, it still might have a high failure chance.  If I'm wrong and they DON'T get a resist check, well, it might look silly but I could see how it has tactical advantages.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102621If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

I'd say for me its a pretty low bar. Something that would be a big distraction or a massive liability to the party would fall into "not OK".

A number of classes can try to be the "Intimidation Guy" who can frighten an enemy. The frightened enemy has -1 to everything until he ends his turn, when it goes away. So if you just play this straight and the initiative order doesn't work in your favor, its pretty awful. If you try to get the most out of it and try to micromanage which players should delay their turns so everyone can take advantage of the debuff, the tactic is better but still IMO an unnecessarily complicated mess.

Then the Wizard and Sorceror have Bespell Weapon, which lets you charge up your own weapon for more damage. There was a lot of chatter in the playtest about building a character around this and the fighter/mage has always been popular, so you could go down the rabbit hole with this and take a better weapon proficiency and try to fight on the front lines. The problems are myriad: low proficiency bonus, low hp, no combat feats, no armor, etc. This is taking already the weakest character and making it even worse, a walking corpse that doesn't know its dead yet.

An example of something I do think is OK would be the Paladin that takes the steed instead of the sword or shield spirit. Often you won't even be able to use the steed, but you can still be pretty effective without it.

Regarding the feat, this is exactly what it does. The two complimentary feats are also on there.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=365

Quote from: Conanist;1102660I'd say for me its a pretty low bar. Something that would be a big distraction or a massive liability to the party would fall into "not OK".

A number of classes can try to be the "Intimidation Guy" who can frighten an enemy. The frightened enemy has -1 to everything until he ends his turn, when it goes away. So if you just play this straight and the initiative order doesn't work in your favor, its pretty awful. If you try to get the most out of it and try to micromanage which players should delay their turns so everyone can take advantage of the debuff, the tactic is better but still IMO an unnecessarily complicated mess.

You could argue the same thing with something like Flanking in that it only lasts until the Enemies turn so yes you could try to micromanage every bonus.  That is certainly a play style.  On the other hand you dont need to do that.  In my own game, which is only level 1,  the players are playing it pretty straight at the moment.

QuoteThen the Wizard and Sorceror have Bespell Weapon, which lets you charge up your own weapon for more damage. There was a lot of chatter in the playtest about building a character around this and the fighter/mage has always been popular, so you could go down the rabbit hole with this and take a better weapon proficiency and try to fight on the front lines. The problems are myriad: low proficiency bonus, low hp, no combat feats, no armor, etc. This is taking already the weakest character and making it even worse, a walking corpse that doesn't know its dead yet.

An example of something I do think is OK would be the Paladin that takes the steed instead of the sword or shield spirit. Often you won't even be able to use the steed, but you can still be pretty effective without it.

Regarding the feat, this is exactly what it does. The two complimentary feats are also on there.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=365

If you are playing a character off type then you probably are going to be less effective then someone playing to their strengths and on the other hand you probably are going to be more versatile as well.  A Fighter/Wizard is going to be doing things that a Fighter cant and if they are doing it with less AC then thats fine to me.  I can not see that the "Walking Corpse" argument holds much weight to be honest because characters are designed to be able to take a few hits.

You can argue almost anything. In this case Flanking doesn't "go away" until someone moves or goes down.

Regarding playing "off type" I couldn't agree more, and that was kind of my point. There are bound to be a few good combos (I can think of a few myself) but by and large playing to your strengths is the best course. There is a class of player that likes to create these unintuitive characters and that has been rewarded in past games so you still see it.

As for the Wizard, the math doesn't really bear that out and none of this is very hard to evaluate. The HP looks like a lot but he is still in very real danger of being one shot with a critical, especially with that AC. And remember its not 5e where you can just bounce back up indefinitely after being healed for 1 hp. Get dropped with a crit and fumble your recovery, or get dropped twice by a crit before you can rest and heal to full, and you will be dead outright. I don't see a scenario where a Wizard can survive long in melee outside of pure luck.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102621If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

I agree. I might find feats which enhance certain role playing background aspects of my character to be the best feats, even if they're considered esoteric by others. Someone else might find feats which enhance certain combat aspects to be the best feats. And then there are many other interests. Including everything and letting players decide what they want seems wiser.

For example in one of my 5e games, a bard player took the Actor feat. This feat is frequently considered "weak" by other players who focus more on tactics and combat. However, the actor player LOOOOOOOVES this feat and has gotten a huge amount of use out of it. It's changed a lot of where our game headed in meaningful ways for both him and the more combat oriented players.

Quote from: Conanist;1102772You can argue almost anything. In this case Flanking doesn't "go away" until someone moves or goes down.

Regarding playing "off type" I couldn't agree more, and that was kind of my point. There are bound to be a few good combos (I can think of a few myself) but by and large playing to your strengths is the best course. There is a class of player that likes to create these unintuitive characters and that has been rewarded in past games so you still see it.

As for the Wizard, the math doesn't really bear that out and none of this is very hard to evaluate. The HP looks like a lot but he is still in very real danger of being one shot with a critical, especially with that AC. And remember its not 5e where you can just bounce back up indefinitely after being healed for 1 hp. Get dropped with a crit and fumble your recovery, or get dropped twice by a crit before you can rest and heal to full, and you will be dead outright. I don't see a scenario where a Wizard can survive long in melee outside of pure luck.

Yes when you are fighting Bosses then I can see Crits coming at you thick and fast.  One of the PCs (the Ranger) in my game got hit with a critical spear trap that knocked him from full to unconscious (and then got a critical Medicine check to knock him back to full again) so I agree that being hit with a critical can make for having a bad day.

Its tough for even a 600 page core book to support every character.  The Shield cantrip springs to mind as a useful tool for helping a front line Wizard/Fighter soak at least one hit.  Good at-table tactical planning can also help especially having someone else draw initial agro.  Maybe using spells or items like tanglefoot for initial crowd control before wading into combat.  It is hard to white room every possibility.

For all of the complaints about running a front line Wizard, I still remember the old days of 1d4 hp Wizards armed with a dagger.

Just checking in on the sales numbers. PF2 Core Rulebook is now down to Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,688, putting it well below Curse of Strahd, a 5e adventure that's been out since March of 2016.

Even if you think they sell 2 copies direct from Paizo for every one copy sold through Amazon despite the discount and free shipping most people get from Amazon (or even more...heck even 4 to 1 or 5 to 1) I have a hard time imagining they went to print on this book with these kinds of low sales numbers this early in the print cycle.

Quote from: Mistwell;1103316Just checking in on the sales numbers. PF2 Core Rulebook is now down to Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,688, putting it well below Curse of Strahd, a 5e adventure that's been out since March of 2016.

Even if you think they sell 2 copies direct from Paizo for every one copy sold through Amazon despite the discount and free shipping most people get from Amazon (or even more...heck even 4 to 1 or 5 to 1) I have a hard time imagining they went to print on this book with these kinds of low sales numbers this early in the print cycle.

I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. That is probably still the case if they want to keep a business more than just mom & pop (Stevens & Wertz). There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

Quote from: S'mon;1103326I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. That is probably still the case if they want to keep a business more than just mom & pop (Stevens & Wertz). There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

On the selfish side, I really WANT them to convert old PF adventures to 5e and write new ones for 5e.

However I tend to like the guys working there, and would prefer, for their sake, they work on things they love and are proud of. Which I imagine would be their own system, which they worked so very hard on to create.

Quote from: Mistwell;1103330On the selfish side, I really WANT them to convert old PF adventures to 5e and write new ones for 5e.

However I tend to like the guys working there, and would prefer, for their sake, they work on things they love and are proud of. Which I imagine would be their own system, which they worked so very hard on to create.

Just because you work hard, creating something you love; that doesn't mean that it will sell enough copies to pay your salary.  Sometimes, you can't make a living chasing your dream.

Quote from: Mistwell;1103316Just checking in on the sales numbers. PF2 Core Rulebook is now down to Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,688, putting it well below Curse of Strahd, a 5e adventure that's been out since March of 2016.
... I have a hard time imagining they went to print on this book with these kinds of low sales numbers this early in the print cycle.

I agree, I think they mis-understood the market signals as to why they got as big as they did.

In other words: they started to believe their own Hype. Not realizing that at least 50% of their success was due to WOTC's fuckups...

5e = the fucking up by WOTC basically stopped.

Quote from: S'mon;1103326I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. ... There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

Well I will say that Pazio/Baizuo has show some business savvy in the past and weathered some big downturns. Going back to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures is still in their back pocket, and they have tested the waters recently on that front.

What we don't see is how financially tied up they are in this, and how that will impact things down the road. I've read rumors that some relatively big dollars were hemorrhaged with their pathfinder MMO adventure. But getting actual facts on that on is iffy at best.

I still think it will be 2-3 years down the road to see visible fallout. 5 or so to see the PF2 endgame. I think that out of pride PF2 will still exist, but we will see more "real" D&D from Baizuo in 5 years time.

The real sign will be to see if PF2 sales keep it at a strong #2 behind D&D, or PF2  starts to cycle between 2-5th place like every other RPG company's products out there.

Quote from: S'mon;1103326I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. That is probably still the case if they want to keep a business more than just mom & pop (Stevens & Wertz). There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

Sadly, I think that's probably the case. Their eye-rolling politics aside, I really like what Paizo does. They've been a training ground for most of the writers and creatives in the D&D world for years, they put out a lot of professional-quality material, and they make adventures the core of their business. And call me superficial, but the professional part counts a lot to me. I get real value of professionally designed, edited, written, illustrated, and laid-out RPG books. With WotC D&D being operated by a skeleton crew and owned by a megacorp that only cares about return on investment to shareholders, we need more companies doing what Paizo does, not less.

But while I really hope PF2 can survive as a commercially viable alternative to D&D that supports a professional publisher, I'm beginning to have my doubts. It's very early days, of course, but sales numbers aside, there's just not a lot of buzz about PF2 on forums. Even on Paizo's own site there are very few reviews and comments about the new books. Activity on that site has been declining for years, and hasn't seen the uptick you might expect with a new edition.

Some AP chapters and the number of reviews on Paizo's site:

Trial of the Beast (Carrion Crown #2) 2011:  21 reviews

Curse of the Lady's Light (Shattered Star #2) 2012:  14 reviews

Empty Graves (Mummy's Mask #2) 2014:  11 reviews

RELEASE OF D&D 5E

Turn of the Torrent (Hell's Rebels #2) 2015:  7 reviews

Into the Shattered Continent (Ruins of Azlant #2) 2017:  2 reviews

Those numbers suggest to me Pathfinder has been on a steady decline in players for some time now, maybe even predating the release of D&D 5E. I had assumed that the massive popularity of 5E would have a 'rising tide lifts all boats' effect on the RPG hobby. I'm not so sure it has. Not when it comes to D&D-like systems such as Pathfinder, anyway.

The numbers also show why standing pat with Pathfinder 1 was never a real option for Paizo. I expect their player-base and subscriptions have been declining for years.

I hope there's room for two largish, professional publishers in the RPG world. At the very least, I hope if PF2 doesn't take off, Paizo can transition into supporting 5E. Because today's WotC has been a disappointment when it comes to publishing adventures and support for DMs, both in quality of quantity. And Golarion may be a bit over the top, but I fucking despise the Realms.

Quote from: S'mon;1103326I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. That is probably still the case if they want to keep a business more than just mom & pop (Stevens & Wertz). There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

Thanks S'mon, always good to start off the day with a big belly laugh.  Nice one.

(https://i.imgur.com/uKAkZ2G.png)

Even the Paizo 2e forums are really slow compared to what the PF1e forums were just 2 years ago.

It's not looking good.

Quote from: Shasarak;1103349Thanks S'mon, always good to start off the day with a big belly laugh.  Nice one.

Er, you're welcome! :p

I guess I want to see them support 5e since that's the game I play (though I'll be playing some PF2e early next year). Ideally some reissued AP hardbacks with 5e stats - they could presumably have both 5e & PF2E stats in the same book? Or are PF2e stat blocks too bulky/PF fans too hostile?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103360Even the Paizo 2e forums are really slow compared to what the PF1e forums were just 2 years ago.

It's not looking good.

Paizo forums are doing better then the WotC ones.  Oh, burn.

Seriously though all forums are in decline.  It's just not the way that people are talking to each other now.  We have Discord, Facebook, Twitter and probably stuff that I have not heard of.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103346...
... I had assumed that the massive popularity of 5E would have a 'rising tide lifts all boats' effect on the RPG hobby. I'm not so sure it has. Not when it comes to D&D-like systems such as Pathfinder, anyway.
...

I am a 'rising tide lifts all boats' skeptic when all the rising tide has really done is cement D&D's utter dominance of the rpg industry.

5e + 3.x SRD = no can defend.

Yes D&D was always the 800lb gorilla in the room. But now it is fucking King Kong with nary a lowly T-Rex to be seen...

All the other "big systems/games' that people used to play have fallen by the wayside.

Hero, Vampire, Shadowrun? Pffttt...

And objectively speaking D&D has never had anything resembling a serious competitor in the vanilla fantasy genre until they handed their clone 4e.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103346...
Those numbers suggest to me Pathfinder has been on a steady decline in players for some time now, maybe even predating the release of D&D 5E...

It appears they were almost compelled to go the PF2 route, or move to 5e support. I think for obvious reasons they are never going to willingly transition to 5e support.

But I also do not think that PF2 is enough to maintain what they have. And that is not a commentary on whether or not PF2 is even a good game.

PF2 could be a great game.

But in today's D&D saturated market, it just doesn't matter.

Also probably dosent help them that there first few books are pretty them just putting back in the stuff they already had from 1e (Also same deal with the bestiary for the 2nd part of age of ashes.)

Adventure Paths have always been Paizo's bread and butter. They needed to make a big splash with the first PF2 AP. Unless I'm missing some great buzz about it on Discord, Facebook, or Twitter, they seem to have misfired. There actually seems to be even less buzz about Age of Ashes than there was about the last couple PF1 APs. I had hoped to start a PF2 campaign sometime in the next year or so using Age of Ashes, but changed my plans with the lacklustre reviews and a flip through the first chapter at my FLGS. Instead, I'm going to convert Rise of the Runelords to PF2. On that subject, a 5E conversion of RotRL would a no-brainer for Paizo if PF2 falters.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103373Adventure Paths have always been Paizo's bread and butter. They needed to make a big splash with the first PF2 AP. Unless I'm missing some great buzz about it on Discord, Facebook, or Twitter, they seem to have misfired. There actually seems to be even less buzz about Age of Ashes than there was about the last couple PF1 APs. I had hoped to start a PF2 campaign sometime in the next year or so using Age of Ashes, but changed my plans with the lacklustre reviews and a flip through the first chapter at my FLGS. Instead, I'm going to convert Rise of the Runelords to PF2. On that subject, a 5E conversion of RotRL would a no-brainer for Paizo if PF2 falters.

I have not seen a review of Age of Ashes. Do you have a link?

Quote from: Mistwell;1103378I have not seen a review of Age of Ashes. Do you have a link?

https://paizo.com/products/btq01znq/reviews&page=1?Pathfinder-Adventure-Path-145-Hellknight-Hill#tabs

Quote from: Haffrung;1103410https://paizo.com/products/btq01znq/reviews&page=1?Pathfinder-Adventure-Path-145-Hellknight-Hill#tabs

Huh. Yeah, pretty mixed. Seems like "If you want a more simplistic, light hearted intro to the new rules, this is for you. If you're looking for a deeper, more adult and complex adventure, this is not for you."

It's reminiscent of some of the more terrible pathfinder APs out there.

Very one dimensional, a bit of a railroad, and contains pages of NPC dialogue. Didn't we stop doing that years ago?

Edit: I've actually found it relatively easy to convert other adventures over to pathfinder II, given the ease of how encounters are designed using the new XP budget system. It can be done on the fly in fact.

Quote from: Graytung;1103439It's reminiscent of some of the more terrible pathfinder APs out there.

Very one dimensional, a bit of a railroad, and contains pages of NPC dialogue. Didn't we stop doing that years ago?

Ugh. The worst thing about the APs I've read is the pages and pages given over to NPC backstories and canned dialogue. I know that stuff is meant to appeal to the 50 per cent or so of the audience who buys them as reading material rather than game aids. But it's annoying space-waster for the rest of us.

Not sure why Paizo wouldn't lead with their A-team of veteran adventure contributors for the first PF2 adventure path (Greg Vaughan, James Jacobs, Mike Shel, Michael Kortes, Crystal Frazier, etc.). A lot of new writers contributing to Age of Ashes.

Quote from: Graytung;1103439Edit: I've actually found it relatively easy to convert other adventures over to pathfinder II, given the ease of how encounters are designed using the new XP budget system. It can be done on the fly in fact.

Good to hear. I've never played Pathfinder, and want my first campaign to be set in Golarion. The plan is to run a mash-up of Rise of the Runelords and Shattered Star.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103453The plan is to run a mash-up of Rise of the Runelords and Shattered Star.

My 5e Runelords of the Shattered Star (http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.com/) blog may be useful!

Since 2015 I've run SS1-SS2-RL2-RL3-SS3-SS4-RL4-(bit of) RL5-SS5 and now on SS6; RL6 still to come. Didn't use RL1 since a previous PC group had played through it and TPK'd at the end, leading to the destruction of Sandpoint.

RL is consistently good. SS 1, 2, 5 and 6 are good; SS3 is uneven and SS4 really wasn't very good.

Quote from: S'mon;1103457My 5e Runelords of the Shattered Star (http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.com/) blog may be useful!

Since 2015 I've run SS1-SS2-RL2-RL3-SS3-SS4-RL4-(bit of) RL5-SS5 and now on SS6; RL6 still to come. Didn't use RL1 since a previous PC group had played through it and TPK'd at the end, leading to the destruction of Sandpoint.

RL is consistently good. SS 1, 2, 5 and 6 are good; SS3 is uneven and SS4 really wasn't very good.

Thanks for the link.

It's funny, but I think we've come up with almost completely opposite AP chapter choices. SS1 and SS2 both sound dull to me. I'm eager to play in Kaer Maga, so SS3 is a no-brainer. And SS4 and SS5 sound like cool dungeon settings. Neither RL2 or RL3 appeal to me, as urban serial killer and hillbilly horror aren't my jam.


My plan is:

Burnt Offerings (RL1) augmented with Magnimar sourcebook content

Several Cult of Lissala arc Pathfinder Society scenarios

Asylum Stone (SS3) augmented with Kaer Maga sourcebook content

Doomsday Door (SS4)

Fortress of the Stone Giants (RL4)

Into the Nightmare Rift (SS5)

Spires of Xin-Shalast (RL6)

I joined a PF2 group last week. Nice people. I HATE the system, like I hated 3.5. Widgets and feats. But the social experience is worth the pain, and I don't have to GM, so it's a brain break, outside overly long chargen fiddling. The new action economy is a breeze. I just wish our GM didn't make us roll for every fucking thing. Slows down the game.

Quote from: cranebump;1103553I joined a PF2 group last week. Nice people. I HATE the system, like I hated 3.5. Widgets and feats. But the social experience is worth the pain, and I don't have to GM, so it's a brain break, outside overly long chargen fiddling. The new action economy is a breeze. I just wish our GM didn't make us roll for every fucking thing. Slows down the game.

Yeah I feel ya. I'm in the same boat, but I'm the GM instead and feel obligated to at least see the short scenario through. I'm slowly losing faith in the system though and I actually don't imagine seeing it last long term unless they make some big changes. Parts of the system are unnecessarily clumsy (concealed, undetected, unnoticed, hidden, observed, invisible, anyone?) and there's some significant balance issues too I won't get into.

I actually ran a level 0 session. Just HP from ancestry. No class features and only 5 GP. We got 5 characters done in an hour and had 4 hours of play. Encounters were just -1 creatures. Everyone got their first level between session 1 and 2. I'd recommend it, cause it lets new players learn the system first, instead of their unique abilities.

All things considered it's only been two weeks so far and we've done a lot and it's been fun but mostly on account of the group. I definitely feel the grind when it comes to combat. I just think it's slow and not because I'm running it slow, it just is slow. It's like high level play with the 3 action economy and the feat heavy characters (even for level 1) but it starts from level 1, I don't imagine it getting much slower or faster given that becoming accustomed to the rules is just going to be replaced with added complexity instead. Everyone getting max hit points and pretty much two levels worth makes combat last longer since, for the most part, everything does about the same damage as previous editions at 1st level.

With regard to your last point. I've also seen most GMs make players roll for everything, part and parcel of a system that attempts to have rules for every situation. Most GMs however arn't doing secret rolls (I do) and that really does make a difference.

Welp got book 3 of Age of ashes and it seems to be confirming a lot of my fears as well (Bestiary is pretty much almost all monsters from 1e pathfinder one or two of them from the 1st bestiary) So yeah seems like a lot of 2E is buying back stuff you already had in 1e rather than getting new things (In the case of bestiary monsters buying em back twice if you get Ap's)

I have to agree about the intro adventure "Hellknight Hill". I didn't much care for it. The players become level 2 after one elaborate but minor encounter, then go through a series of 3 pretty standard, boilerplate dungeons. The first two dungeons look to be on the easy side with a more challenging finale. Massive walls of text throughout as in other Paizo adventures. I didn't try the other adventure that was released.

I also agree that converting other adventures was pretty easy. We started the playtest with two DCC adventures and I just subbed in the closest Bestiary monster to whatever was in the encounter, and stayed within the PF2 encounter budgets. Use the DC chart for traps and other challenges that don't involve a monster or NPC, etc.

Quote from: Kevin197;1103646Welp got book 3 of Age of ashes and it seems to be confirming a lot of my fears as well (Bestiary is pretty much almost all monsters from 1e pathfinder one or two of them from the 1st bestiary) So yeah seems like a lot of 2E is buying back stuff you already had in 1e rather than getting new things (In the case of bestiary monsters buying em back twice if you get Ap's)

Book 3 already?  My book 2 has not even arrived yet.

Quote from: Graytung;1103575Yeah I feel ya. I'm in the same boat, but I'm the GM instead and feel obligated to at least see the short scenario through. I'm slowly losing faith in the system though and I actually don't imagine seeing it last long term unless they make some big changes. Parts of the system are unnecessarily clumsy (concealed, undetected, unnoticed, hidden, observed, invisible, anyone?) and there's some significant balance issues too I won't get into.

I actually ran a level 0 session. Just HP from ancestry. No class features and only 5 GP. We got 5 characters done in an hour and had 4 hours of play. Encounters were just -1 creatures. Everyone got their first level between session 1 and 2. I'd recommend it, cause it lets new players learn the system first, instead of their unique abilities.

All things considered it's only been two weeks so far and we've done a lot and it's been fun but mostly on account of the group. I definitely feel the grind when it comes to combat. I just think it's slow and not because I'm running it slow, it just is slow. It's like high level play with the 3 action economy and the feat heavy characters (even for level 1) but it starts from level 1, I don't imagine it getting much slower or faster given that becoming accustomed to the rules is just going to be replaced with added complexity instead. Everyone getting max hit points and pretty much two levels worth makes combat last longer since, for the most part, everything does about the same damage as previous editions at 1st level.

With regard to your last point. I've also seen most GMs make players roll for everything, part and parcel of a system that attempts to have rules for every situation. Most GMs however arn't doing secret rolls (I do) and that really does make a difference.

Exactly! I even mentioned, at one point, when I was making a search roll, "Oh, shouldn't you make that one?" to the DM, but he demurred. Okey doke then. I also asked if the system had anything like take 10 or 20. Nobody seemed to know what that was. I stopped asking questions after that.

Anyone not expecting the same material to be recycled again with PF 2E is going out of their way to be both purposefully naive and pretending to be incredibly stupid. Unless one is in their first year in the hobby it is only to be expected.

I dislike some of what went in to PF 2E and next to Rifts Ultimate Edition it is the second time in the hobby that I just can't be bothered to buy it. Let alone run it though possibly play it. Unlike RUE which I stupidly threw away the receipt after purchasing it. PF 2E does not scratch my gaming itch like PF 1E can. Then again getting older and more responsible. After seeing my share of new rpg editions saying something along lines of "did you see they are coming out with the same material again :eek:!" Sorry no I don't do fake naive and/ or stupid and I don't respect anyone who does so either.

Quote from: cranebump;1103714Exactly! I even mentioned, at one point, when I was making a search roll, "Oh, shouldn't you make that one?" to the DM, but he demurred. Okey doke then. I also asked if the system had anything like take 10 or 20. Nobody seemed to know what that was. I stopped asking questions after that.

There is no taking 10 or 20 in PF 2.  There are skill feats that you can take that give you a minimum roll called Assurance (or some such away from book atm)

Quote from: cranebump;1103553I joined a PF2 group last week. Nice people. I HATE the system, like I hated 3.5. Widgets and feats. But the social experience is worth the pain, and I don't have to GM, so it's a brain break, outside overly long chargen fiddling. The new action economy is a breeze. I just wish our GM didn't make us roll for every fucking thing. Slows down the game.

Quote from: cranebump;1103714Exactly! I even mentioned, at one point, when I was making a search roll, "Oh, shouldn't you make that one?" to the DM, but he demurred. Okey doke then. I also asked if the system had anything like take 10 or 20. Nobody seemed to know what that was. I stopped asking questions after that.

Sounds instead of "Roll to Failure" (from the Alexandrian, too many rolls leading to inevitable failure), it is "Roll to Exhaustion," where everyone rolls so much that the session ends accomplishing little and thus save the GM from prep or improv. :D Eventually the party'll succumb and meekly follows the Adventure Path without poking too hard at the prop scenery, or asking the NPC actors unscripted questions. As long as the Cheetos flow and the company is fun, however, what does it matter? :)

Yeah, I only read this topic to see how my low expectations are fulfilled. :p Thankfully comments like these remind me why I am happily not involved with PF. Widgeteering is sorta no longer my thing... I got old. :( :p

I hear a giant sucking sound....

Quote from: Opaopajr;1103748Sounds instead of "Roll to Failure" (from the Alexandrian, too many rolls leading to inevitable failure), it is "Roll to Exhaustion," where everyone rolls so much that the session ends accomplishing little and thus save the GM from prep or improv. :D Eventually the party'll succumb and meekly follows the Adventure Path without poking too hard at the prop scenery, or asking the NPC actors unscripted questions. As long as the Cheetos flow and the company is fun, however, what does it matter? :)

Yeah, I only read this topic to see how my low expectations are fulfilled. :p Thankfully comments like these remind me why I am happily not involved with PF. Widgeteering is sorta no longer my thing... I got old. :( :p

I'm with you, believe me. There were instances where we rolled until someone succeeded, so I was thinking, "Well, why not just rule we succeed then?" I don't think that's the rule system's fault. I think it's a matter of a GM that hasn't run anything dissimilar. But, yeah--good people, so it's minor. I went around giving the other PCs nicknames (or rather, my snarky rogue did). Had a warrior fumble and hit himself in the teeth, so he now "Gragnar Toothbreaker!":-)

Quote from: Shasarak;1103747There is no taking 10 or 20 in PF 2.  There are skill feats that you can take that give you a minimum roll called Assurance (or some such away from book atm)

Guess I better get those, since I'm playing the skill monkey.

Quote from: cranebump;1103922Guess I better get those, since I'm playing the skill monkey.

Just be careful what you get it for. The DC for certain tasks begins at 15 (opening locks, first aid, treat wounds, and just about anything using DC by level above 0, such as identifying magic).

This is because assurance will only get you a 13 at level 1 and 14 at level 2 (unless you get assurance for a skill you have Expert training in).

I'd say it's a trap until level 3.

Also leave it to Paizo in there attempts to be more inclusive at the same time manage to trip up and offend.

I'm looking through the changes to the monster type mechanics. It's pretty hilarious. Paizo basically copied the monster types mechanic from 5e, then did everything they could to make it overly complicated.

Paizo added a "monitor" type for extraplanar creatures neutral with regard to good and evil. This includes the TN aeons, LN axiomites, and CN proteans. Oh, and the axiomites and inevitables have been merged into the aeons, so effectively there's zero cosmological distinction between LN and TN now. Way to stay consistent, Paizo.

Oh, and unlike slaad being aberrations in 5e because that makes total sense (not being sarcastic here, I'm serious), the proteans and other chaotic entities are not aberrations. I have no idea why, but that's Paizo for you.

Paizo's taxonomy doesn't have a monstrosity type, but it does have a beast type (separate from the animal type, dear God) that includes centaurs, chimeras, and winter wolves.

Paizo's world building when it comes to something as simple as monster taxonomy is terrible. And the subtype bloat has become vastly worse than it ever was before. There are 81 creature "families" (https://pf2.d20pfsrd.com/creature-family) in the core rules alone.

Dear God.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104402Paizo's taxonomy doesn't have a monstrosity type, but it does have a beast type (separate from the animal type, dear God) that includes centaurs, chimeras, and winter wolves.

Well I think that goes back to 3e. In 3e natural animals are Animals and monstrous animals are Beasts.

Quote from: S'mon;1104458Well I think that goes back to 3e. In 3e natural animals are Animals and monstrous animals are Beasts.

That is not the case here. The ankheg (named akhrav for some reason), bulette, and griffon are animals.

According to the online SRD, the definition of beast is "A creature similar to an animal but with an Intelligence modifier of -3 or higher is usually a beast. Unlike an animal, a beast might be able to speak and reason."

IMO the distinction between animal and beast is arbitrary and unnecessary.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104468That is not the case here. The ankheg (named akhrav for some reason), bulette, and griffon are animals.

According to the online SRD, the definition of beast is "A creature similar to an animal but with an Intelligence modifier of -3 or higher is usually a beast. Unlike an animal, a beast might be able to speak and reason."

IMO the distinction between animal and beast is arbitrary and unnecessary.

3.5 basically agreed.  

Originally Animals were things that existed in the Real World, like, basically in their current form today.  More powerful animals that no longer exist were Beasts (like Dinousaurs) as well as non-overtly magical creatures that never existed (like Owlbears).  If it was intelligent or had spells/magical abilities, instead of beasts they were Magical Beasts (like Unicorns).

It basically meant that a Druid had a chance to use some spells on a Dire Bear, but not a Tyrannosaur.  

In 3.5 Dinosaurs and Rocs became Animals; Owlbears became Magical Beasts.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11044903.5 basically agreed.  

Originally Animals were things that existed in the Real World, like, basically in their current form today.  More powerful animals that no longer exist were Beasts (like Dinousaurs) as well as non-overtly magical creatures that never existed (like Owlbears).  If it was intelligent or had spells/magical abilities, instead of beasts they were Magical Beasts (like Unicorns).

It basically meant that a Druid had a chance to use some spells on a Dire Bear, but not a Tyrannosaur.  

In 3.5 Dinosaurs and Rocs became Animals; Owlbears became Magical Beasts.

I thought we were talking about Pathfinder? And 5e?

In any case, I still think all those distinctions are bunk. Just call them all beasts. Don't make needless (and inconsistent) distinctions for intelligence or magical.

If your taxonomy (which is by game rules the laws of physics) places centaurs and chimeras and winter wolves in the same category, then your taxonomy is bad.

Pathfinder Core is down to #26 in Fantasy Gaming Products (#3090 in All Books). It had always been in the top 20 before, and is now out of the top 25.

The Beastiary for PF2 is #12,859 in All Books. For a reference point that's right near Starfinder RPG: Alien Archive 3 at #13,676, and below all WOTC D&D products (all the adventures, etc.).

D&D 5e Descent into Avernus, WOTC's newest D&D adventure book in pre-release, is at #57 in All Books. The Essentials kit is #15 in all books. PHB is #74.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104468The ankheg (named akhrav for some reason)

Probably because Ankheg is either not an Open License monster or so that Paizo can produce Akhrav miniatures without having to worry if the Open License covers miniatures or not.

I find it annoying when I realise I have had a mini for a D&D critter for years and never noticed because it's a Paizo mini and they renamed the damn monster! Eg I only just realised my 'Death Demon' mini is actually a Nabassu! :o

Quote from: S'mon;1104569I find it annoying when I realise I have had a mini for a D&D critter for years and never noticed because it's a Paizo mini and they renamed the damn monster! Eg I only just realised my 'Death Demon' mini is actually a Nabassu! :o

I think the additions of English names for the demons and whatever is an improvement. I could never remember those weird gibberish names.

I know I was hard on Paizo, but to be honest in some of the basics their taxonomy system is better than 5e. For example, PF2 doesn't force monsters to only have one type/trait: a monster has as many as fits its concept. The trait bloat is definitely a problem but that's always been the case even in standard D&D.

There are still tons of problems that others have expounded upon at length, but there are genuine improvements scattered here and there. Like discarding the remnants of 3e's often bizarre terminology in favor of something more sensible, like renaming "outsiders" to "immortals."

Other rules leave me shaking my head, like elementals not needing to breathe. This means that air and fire elementals can survive just fine in vacuum, underwater, smothered by sand, etc. Here's an idea: maybe it would make more sense for an element trait to confer immunity to damage from that element including environmental damage like asphyxiation or temperature extremes. That way the air, fire, and earth elementals can still drown in water, but not their native element.

I really shouldn't have to rule zero things that seem like they should be common sense.

FantasyCraft is still pretty much better designed than either PF2 or 5e. It is much easier to build and re-scale monsters in the FC rules. And FC lets you play literal dragons (not dragon humanoids, but horse-sized dragons with wings and four legs) right out of the box.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104620FantasyCraft is still pretty much better designed than either PF2 or 5e. It is much easier to build and re-scale monsters in the FC rules. And FC lets you play literal dragons (not dragon humanoids, but horse-sized dragons with wings and four legs) right out of the box.

FantasyCraft is kick-ass. I love the way the classes and races are built and how well the melee classes scale, plus the huge variety of traits and doodads available to pick from that are actually balanced as well as interesting. Plus the really interesting treasure + holdings system. Easily my favorite D20 variant.

Edit: Oh, and the fantastic art!

Some people keep saying, "once PF 2E has as many options as PF 1E does"; but the way the sales numbers look now, I don't see 6 Bestiaries happening.  I don't think the sales numbers for 2E will support the same massive amount of hardback releases.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104805Some people keep saying, "once PF 2E has as many options as PF 1E does"; but the way the sales numbers look now, I don't see 6 Bestiaries happening.  I don't think the sales numbers for 2E will support the same massive amount of hardback releases.

Some people also say "Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average."

Which just proves that people say a lot of stuff.

Quote from: Shasarak;1104811Some people also say "Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average."

Which just proves that people say a lot of stuff.

Yes.

Regarding the bestiaries...

I noticed that the first bestiary rules include new "type traits" for astral and ethereal creatures (analogous to D&D4e's origins mechanic), but not for creatures from the energy planes, shadow plane, or the other obscure planes. Are those monsters going to be assigned existing type traits or will new type traits be introduced as they appear?