TheRPGSite

Hardly any information is out, but that doesn't mean it isn't too early to make bullshit predictions that are about as accurate as a council of economists predicting what the GDP is going to be next quarter. How do you think PF2 will do, saleswise? Will Paizo maintain steady sales, will this rocket them up to a new plateau or will this be the end for them?

Pathfinder is still doing pretty well, this will boost sales of the brand, and the only way this will hurt Paizo is if the new edition really sucks.  Like some I could mention.

JG

I think it will turn out well enough to turn a decent profit and keep Paizo in the game, so to speak.

With that being said, I doubt that PF2 will completely dethrone D&D 5e like PF1 did to D&D 4e.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1028486I think it will turn out well enough to turn a decent profit and keep Paizo in the game, so to speak.

With that being said, I doubt that PF2 will completely dethrone D&D 5e like PF1 did to D&D 4e.

I agree.  The demand for "something else" isn't there.

jg

I predict;

1) Sales of the PF brand will slow down overall. Because people just don't have the time to invest in system-mastery anymore. It's not popular.
2) This will result in downsizing. More freelancers, less FTEs.
3) Paizo will survive nicely because they're a smart bunch.
4) APs will continue to sell like chocolate-covered crack because you can use them for any version of D&D you want to play. And they are widely regarded as well done.

Now, if PF2 is sexy AND it's simplified AND it's easier to GM AND it requires less system-mastery (wankery) to play AND they can make organized play actually fun to participate in for both masters and newbs (like have you ever walked in at a con to play some PFS and 1-hour in just wanted to kill yourself. Yeah, that should be fixed.)... I could see it going differently.

EDITED to add: Also, the bestiaries are so damn gorgeous and creative you can use those monsters anywhere. Also, Pathfinder Pawns are ingenious and Paizo should win an Academy Award for them. So, again, they could broaden the sales pitch to be more "every-game", and do well IMHO.

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

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

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

I voted "doomed" in my own poll. Pathfinder is, despite Paizo's protests to the contrary, nothing more than off-brand D&D. It's built its product identity as a copycat of a legacy product that, for a time, was more popular than the flagship product of the market's dominant participant. In the world of consumer products, this rarely ends well. Sometimes it does, usually when the market leader screws up so badly for so long that people forget the time when it was #1. That's basically what happened with the Toyota Camry becoming America's #1 midsize sedan.

The route Paizo is taking, which is to vaguely copy many of the market leader's ideas while trying to retain key elements of its aging, decrepit copycat product, is a strategy that frequently fails. It fails even if what they're selling is "objectively" better. Brand identity is a huge driver of getting new customers in the door, and if the name brand product is "good enough," it doesn't matter if the off brand is somewhat better.

There are I think 3 main kinds of Pathfinder players:
1. People who play because it's 3.x. These will be turned off by the new edition.
2. People who play because they love Golarion and Paizo APs. These will stick around.
3. People who just play what their friends are playing. They'll drift wherever their friends go.

What they're not going to do is attract a bunch of people away from 5e, which is clearly what they're fantasizing about doing. Because if what your game offers is a chance for players to gather up a gang consisting of a dwarven cleric, a half-orc fighter, a halfling rogue, and an elven wizard, and you go out to hurl d20s at hill giants, troglodtyes, and acid-spitting black dragons, then your game is Dungeons & Dragons, and the name brand version is doing a fine job of being itself right now. There's just not much space for "D&D, but better in some ways" in the market.

I could be completely wrong, of course.

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

I don't know how many people are like this out there but they'll probably all go to 5efinder when it comes out. Unless everyone just sticks with 5e anyway.

Pathfinder players will buy 2.0. Especially the ones that also bought Starfinder years later.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028531I voted "doomed" in my own poll. Pathfinder is, despite Paizo's protests to the contrary, nothing more than off-brand D&D. It's built its product identity as a copycat of a legacy product that, for a time, was more popular than the flagship product of the market's dominant participant. In the world of consumer products, this rarely ends well. Sometimes it does, usually when the market leader screws up so badly for so long that people forget the time when it was #1. That's basically what happened with the Toyota Camry becoming America's #1 midsize sedan.

The route Paizo is taking, which is to vaguely copy many of the market leader's ideas while trying to retain key elements of its aging, decrepit copycat product, is a strategy that frequently fails. It fails even if what they're selling is "objectively" better. Brand identity is a huge driver of getting new customers in the door, and if the name brand product is "good enough," it doesn't matter if the off brand is somewhat better.

There are I think 3 main kinds of Pathfinder players:
1. People who play because it's 3.x. These will be turned off by the new edition.
2. People who play because they love Golarion and Paizo APs. These will stick around.
3. People who just play what their friends are playing. They'll drift wherever their friends go.

What they're not going to do is attract a bunch of people away from 5e, which is clearly what they're fantasizing about doing. Because if what your game offers is a chance for players to gather up a gang consisting of a dwarven cleric, a half-orc fighter, a halfling rogue, and an elven wizard, and you go out to hurl d20s at hill giants, troglodtyes, and acid-spitting black dragons, then your game is Dungeons & Dragons, and the name brand version is doing a fine job of being itself right now. There's just not much space for "D&D, but better in some ways" in the market.

I could be completely wrong, of course.

This fits my view, so I voted doomed.
In the short term they will get sales, as many people who played PF1 will convert over to PF2. But I can't see them taking the 5e D&D market. Their chance there was 5 years ago, maybe build a new better game off the PF Beginner Box. 5e has now had plenty of time to re-establish D&D as dominant.
In the long term they will mostly just have fragmented their legacy consumer base while not, I expect, making much of a dent in WoTC's market.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028531Sometimes it does, usually when the market leader screws up so badly for so long that people forget the time when it was #1. That's basically what happened with the Toyota Camry becoming America's #1 midsize sedan.

The first thing that came to my mind were Oreo cookies. People forget that those nasty Hydrox things came first. Still, I voted that Paizo will be fine. Regardless of the buzz words they're using, I doubt it'll be much different from 1e.

I predict hordes of butt-hurt nerd-raging geeks screaming They changed Pathfinder and now it sucks!

I also predict that PF2 will be far more playable, but WTF do I know?

Now excuse me, I gotta go make some popcorn. I smell another pointless yet entertaining edition war brewing....

I see a massive drop in 1.0 sales for Pathfinder.

Seeing this topic, I started not to reply since it is outside my knowledge, but then the sheer enormity of the ignorance itself caught my eye.  I'm struck by the way in which you might as well be asking me to predict tea futures in China.  As someone who dropped out of the 3E model when 3.5 came around, who hates adventure paths (though I admit Paizo seemed to have the form down), and doesn't want a frustrated novelist writing my games--I was already off that train before Pathfinder arrived.  Paizo letting their inner SJW run wild certainly didn't encourage me to peek in, but I doubt I would have anyway.  

I think I have a better handle on the future of several different branches of story games, than I do PF.  Oh well, I guess we are about to find out.

I reckon they'll reduce the hit die of the fighter to d8, to make it more balanced.

At my store, PF has almost totally died since 5E came out. Peoples' reaction to 5E has been overwhelmingly positive from the get-go. Sales are still very strong and shows no sign of slowing down. I have exactly 2 PF customers. For my area at least, PF is in serious decline.

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

And increase the druid, cleric, sorcerer and wizard hit die up a step at the same time.

Quote from: DNDWoodElf;1028630At my store, PF has almost totally died since 5E came out. Peoples' reaction to 5E has been overwhelmingly positive from the get-go. Sales are still very strong and shows no sign of slowing down. I have exactly 2 PF customers. For my area at least, PF is in serious decline.

A game store near me just quit carrying Pathfinder entirely. Paizo says they just had their best year ever, though.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028684A game store near me just quit carrying Pathfinder entirely. Paizo says they just had their best year ever, though.

Yeah - from what I've heard (though - nothing 'official') Paizo's sales have remained solid even as 5e retook market leader position for D&D. So - Paizo's been getting a smaller piece of a bigger pie as the TTRPG market expands.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1028678And increase the druid, cleric, sorcerer and wizard hit die up a step at the same time.

Well, they need to. It's not fair that potentially a fighter could take the same damage as a wizard, and survive. They really need to fix that. Also, that sacred cow about wizards not wearing armor should be killed, it's just a holdover from Gygax anyway, and, again, wizards should get a class bonus of being able to move full speed in heavy armor, so that they're not penalized just because we're killing a sacred cow.

Why are people thinking Paizo is 'doomed', they are a storefront first and foremost.  They'll be fine.  Hell, they were selling 4e stuff on their site ALONGSIDE Pathfinder.  If Pathfinder crashes and burns, they'll still be here sellin' other people books.

The real question is whether this will take the wind out of D&D 5E's sails the way that Paizo did with 4E.  Hard to say, but I think 5E has more general appeal than 4E, which could help Hasbro weather the storm.

Quote from: Votan;1028746The real question is whether this will take the wind out of D&D 5E's sails the way that Paizo did with 4E.  Hard to say, but I think 5E has more general appeal than 4E, which could help Hasbro weather the storm.

No, they won't.  Not even close.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1028751No, they won't.  Not even close.

D&D 5E won't weather the storm or pathfinder won't come close to be as successful at taking market share as last time?

Quote from: Votan;1028759D&D 5E won't weather the storm or pathfinder won't come close to be as successful at taking market share as last time?

Pathfinder is done.  5e's popularity among the gamers is too great to be budged from it's spot.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1028760Pathfinder is done.  5e's popularity among the gamers is too great to be budged from it's spot.

Yes. IMO there isn't going to be a storm - this basically won't impact 5e sales at all. OTOH PF 2e will sell pretty well, to many current PF players and to people who think 5e lacks crunch. I know a 4e fan who dislikes 5e's lack of crunch & is interested in picking up PF 2e in the hope it's less broken than PF 1e - but she's the rare case of someone who loves crunch, likes PF, and prefers martial PCs - she made an insanely charopped archer in my PF game that ran to 14th level, putting out 140+ single target damage per round, every round. She hopes PF 2e will be less biased pro-spellcaster so that she can make uber martial PCs without weeks of charop labour! :D

The single biggest balancer of 5e was Concentration, which it sounds like PF2 is using (takes one action to concentrate on a spell), so I'm guessing that alone will ensure LFQW is largely brought under control. In addition, there are feats which grant fighters free attacks, and the crit system will ensure that boosting your BAB as high as you can does more for you than just ensuring you hit more often. It sounds like it's going to be a much more robust system than 3.x.

However, I don't think it really matters. The intrinsic quality of a rules system is not a big selling point. 13th Age is a better system than 3.x, and it's a rounding error on the market. If someone were to release a fantasy heartbreaker based on the 5e SRD that fixed people's complaints with the Ranger and a few other weak options, it would barely sell compared to 5e. Because, like it or not, "the RPG industry" is really "the Dungeons & Dragons industry." The only brand in this hobby with any recognition outside active hobbyists is Star Wars. Those are the only two brands with any real ability to draw in new customers. Pathfinder's branding is "a better version of D&D." Its entire product strategy is designed around to appealing to disgruntled D&D players, i.e. people who are already engaged in the hobby. So if Pathfinder is growing, the hobby is probably declining overall, because D&D is the growth-driver.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028481Hardly any information is out, but that doesn't mean it isn't too early to make bullshit predictions that are about as accurate as a council of economists predicting what the GDP is going to be next quarter. How do you think PF2 will do, saleswise? Will Paizo maintain steady sales, will this rocket them up to a new plateau or will this be the end for them?

Exactly like how WoD2 did when WW tried the same tactic in the face of having to compete against a really strong D&D edition.
They'll get an initial boost of sales but will ultimately lose a significant chunk of their player base; maybe even worse than what happened to White Wolf, because at least WoD was significantly different from D&D in terms of genre.

On the other hand, with Pathfinder, I think a shitload of gamers will, when faced with the choice of getting a whole new edition of Pathfinder, will either stick to the one they already have or switch to 5e D&D which has a much bigger player base now.

Quote from: James Gillen;1028483Pathfinder is still doing pretty well, this will boost sales of the brand, and the only way this will hurt Paizo is if the new edition really sucks.  Like some I could mention.

JG

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

Even if Pathfinder 2e was demonstrably and definitely a better game than Pathfinder 1e, they will ultimately end up worse then when they started. And if they don't know that, they're idiots.

If they do know that, it means that in essence 2e is a tactic to get a temporary boost of sales from the much smaller amount of people who will buy into 2e, which I guess will be part of a long-term plan to settle into being a much lower-tier company.
Mind you, there's no reason to think that's the case. It wasn't for White Wolf, where nWoD was their gamble to fight back and I'm pretty convinced they thought was what would keep them relevant and profitable in the long term, rather than ultimately destroy them. It's totally possible that Paizo has drunk that very same kool-aid.

I predict:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jg

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

I remain cautiously optimistic.

The rpg engine needed a major upgrade imo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've even seen some products touting prestige classes.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1029030I predict:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

JG

Paizo will fix nothing that actually fucks over Pathfinder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Psikerlord;1030367Does anyone know how "deadly" PF2 is supposed to be, what the dying, injuries and healing rules are. If it is quite deadly, and a simplified somewhat, I'd definitely check it out. If it is just as complex, or forgiving as 5e, then no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Psikerlord;1030367Does anyone know how "deadly" PF2 is supposed to be, what the dying, injuries and healing rules are. If it is quite deadly, and a simplified somewhat, I'd definitely check it out. If it is just as complex, or forgiving as 5e, then no.

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

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

See my last post.

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

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

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

Paizo announced they were ending PF1 and bringing out PF2.

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

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

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

(https://charts.camelcamelcamel.com/us/0786965606/sales-rank.png)

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

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

JG

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

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

JG

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

Sorry, didn't see this part. :o

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

JG

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

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1030487fire 1/2 of their employees and go back to making modules. :P

Probably their most sustainable business plan TBH.

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

Ah, thanks. Not looking favourable as yet.

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

hmm sounds like a variation of 3 deaths from 5e. And an auto avoid death cantrip. I dont like it, much too forgiving. Alas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE I am assuming bounded accuracy with the above statement.

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

NOTE I am assuming bounded accuracy with the above statement.

13th Age does that. And more.

There are too many monsters to make them all unique. Just cut down the monsters to recurring archetypes and present all the unique stuff as variants for DMs pick and choose. That's what 13th Age does in its bestiaries.

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

If not, that's it.

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

If not, that's it.

D&D 5E has introduced a ton of new people to tabletop RPGs.  Some of them want more crunch and some of those will inevitably make the switch to Pathfinder 2E as a result.  The question, as you said, is if it will be enough new tabletop gamers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If not, that's it.

I might try it out just for novelty but 5e will be my main game.

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

That is a problem and thank you for making a clear point of it.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When anyone with competent management skills would've already culled the dead weight from the office. That, right there, says enough about Paizo's management.

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

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

Well, the problem is they're set up as a large-scale business. So if Pathfinder is no longer a large-scale game for them, they pretty much NEED either Starfinder or their card game to be AS POPULAR as Pathfinder at pretty close to its height.

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

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

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

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

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

It's extremely difficult to shrink a business like that. Stevens would be better off selling the company. Paizo reminds me a little of late TSR right now, flooding the market with products in the hopes that something will stick. I suspect they're keeping better books, though, and are able to gauge whether or not individual products are turning profits. At the moment, there is not a single Pathfinder book ahead of a single D&D 5e book on Amazon. Starfinder's rule book is ahead of Princes of the Apocalypse and Rise of Tiamat. IMO it's fairly obvious that Pathfinder's grown as big as it's ever going to. I'm sure PF2 will generate an initial revenue spike, much bigger than Starfinder, but it won't grow Paizo's customer base.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your analysis is brutal, but true.

They are making the same mistakes as WotC.

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

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

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

Publishers are kinda screwed.

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

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

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

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

Publishers are kinda screwed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then keep supporting Pathfinder.

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

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

Wizard 1: Counterspell!

Quote, or dispel magic

Wizard 2: Counterspell!

Quoteour tactic would have failed.

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

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

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1033320Wizard 1: Counterspell!



Wizard 2: Counterspell!



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteOK, exactly the problem with the edition.

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

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

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

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

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

Publishers are kinda screwed.

Thank you for reinforcing my point:  GAMERS HATE CHANGE!  They rail against it, whether or not the change is a good one.  They'd rather stay in the past, instead of looking for the future.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?!! What's wrong with Basic and Expert?!! It'll never sell and I'll never buy them!

2nd Edition AD+D?!!! What's wrong with 1st Ed. AD+D?!!! It'll never sell and I'll never buy them!

3rd Ed AD+D?!!! What's wrong with 2nd Ed AD+D?!!! It'll never sell and I'll never buy them!

3.5?!!! What's wrong with 3rd Ed?!!! It'll never sell and I'll never buy them!

4th Edition?!!! What's wrong with 3.5?!!! It'll never sell and I'll never buy them! (Ok, I really didn't buy 4th Ed.)

5th Edition?!!!......

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1033320Wizard 1: Counterspell!



Wizard 2: Counterspell!



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

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

True that.

"Let's see... First I'll send a hundred mooks at them to wear down their lesser spells and do some damage. Then, I'll send some lesser demons to eat up their larger spells. Then a couple stronger ones to eat up what magic and hit points they got left. Then, when they having nothing left to fight me with, I'll come in and kill them."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1033339Thank you for reinforcing my point:  GAMERS HATE CHANGE!  They rail against it, whether or not the change is a good one.  They'd rather stay in the past, instead of looking for the future.

The burden of proof rests with the affirmative.

Upon reflection, When PF2 comes out, I'm tempted to buy the PF1 Core rules book and a Bestiary.
PF1 was fun up to lvl 11ish and I DID have some fun times with it and it IS significantly different than 5e.
I should be able to get PF 1st Ed stuff really cheap then too. :)

Paizo knows their customers; the game will satisfy at least 80% of the existing player base, especially as they add more classes etc.
This includes former PF players who also play 5e, but are open to a crunchier DnD.
They will not surpass 5e in sales, but I think they will be well positioned as number two, and the AP subscription model will keep them comfortable.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1033333I still use my 10-year-old 32" 1080p LCD television in one of the bedrooms because it still works and as far as I care, 4K isn't so much better as to justify throwing it away (I threw away a 20" 480i CRT when I bought this).

I still use my 35 year old 10" Sony Trinitron! It's my only TV - analogue, can't receive broadcast signals, so I don't need a UK TV licence. I use it for music CDs and occasionally for DVDs.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1033334It's not like 7 9th-level heroes would be completely unable to handle a lone 14-HD monster in AD&D.

Running 1e in the late 80s & early 90s, I would use small armies of pit fiends against one or two PCs! Of course didn't use minis in those days. But the Bloodstone series takes a similar approach with demons.

The idea that a solo monster can/should challenge high level PCs seemed to come in with 3e D&D, and its minis focus - it is helpful when using minis since the GM probably doesn't have a dozen pit fiend minis. But 5e monsters rather go back towards pre-3e in terms of power; just as a 13 hd 1e pit fiend might challenge 4-6 level 8 1e AD&D PCs, it can challenge 4-6 level 8 5e PCs about the same. It certainly can't challenge level 19 PCs though! So I'm not finding 5e CRs very helpful, and the encounter builder rules are worthless.

Hard to push for a new edition when your company's success is built on people's unwillingness to change. It doesn't even matter how much 'better' this edition is, they'll still need to publish 1st edition material, or else someone will make a clone and steal their market just like they did with D&D.

So my prediction: There'll be an initial spike in sales from people who buy all things Pathfinder, followed by going back to what they're familiar with, or what's most popular.

They've built massive brand loyalty with their consumers based on superb customer service, and being not-WOTC. Their followers will buy the new edition, because it's Paizo selling it.

Why they switched to Pathfinder a decade ago is different than how they feel now about a company they've followed closely for that decade. They will switch purely because of that relationship.

Quote from: Mistwell;1033603They've built massive brand loyalty with their consumers based on superb customer service, and being not-WOTC. Their followers will buy the new edition, because it's Paizo selling it.

Why they switched to Pathfinder a decade ago is different than how they feel now about a company they've followed closely for that decade. They will switch purely because of that relationship.

It depends on how much brand loyalty is because people like crunchy D&D (when Paizo is moving a little bit away from that while being even more crunchy) and how many people like Paizo's PC attitude (which is hardly unique to their company).

JG