Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1072593Documentation of the last? Because while I hold no brief for Paizo, I have trouble believing that even they lack the ability to see the fundamental moral differences between involuntary and voluntary poverty.

This is the closest I could find in short order:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3&page=4?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#195

Quote from: Jason Buhlman3. In the case of Vow of Poverty (VoP), we were left with a real quandary. Refusing to take magic items does not mean that your group (and you by default) would not still gain a benefit from that portion of the reward for an encounter. This means that either the GM has to reduce the treasure for everyone to balance out with whatever cool ability we give you (which screws with NPC loot values, published adventures, and a number of other variables, like bad guy challenge ratings), or we could not give you a very good ability in return.

Since VoP is something that has a real world analog, we wanted to include it, but did not (in the case of previous incarnations of this particular concept) want to really make something unbalanced. We went with the weaker option, full well understanding this would make it unattractive to many players.

Jason must have missed the fact that VoP characters still take their loot portion and are expected to donate it.

I'm sure a lot of homeless people liking you isn't that much of an advantage.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072597I'm sure a lot of homeless people liking you isn't that much of an advantage.

With PC loot rewards being what they are, why are those people still homeless?

Quote from: kythri;1072598With PC loot rewards being what they are, why are those people still homeless?

Because they also took the Vow of Poverty as their human bonus feat? Its pretty swanky if you're a hapless peasant who'll rarely have more than two coppers to rub together anyway.

Alright, so, we've got an entire city who's homeless population has now declared a Vow of Poverty.

Where'd the money go?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072597Jason must have missed the fact that VoP characters still take their loot portion and are expected to donate it.

I'm sure a lot of homeless people liking you isn't that much of an advantage.

The 3.5 VOP is broken for them. Yet Sacred Geometry is perfectly balanced. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry/   Not sure if they even know what is broken or not at this point. Then again in their Strategy guide they bent over backwards to tell us the virtue of Combat Reflexes which is OK as a feat more a feat tax.

Or worse instead of not allowing an option say like a non-LG Paladin. They offer this https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/gray-paladin-paladin-archetype/ So they can say they offered  it as option. Even if it is worse than the LG version. Either do it right or don't offer a sub-par option in its place.

Quote from: sureshot;1072604The 3.5 VOP is broken for them. Yet Sacred Geometry is perfectly balanced. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry/   Not sure if they even know what is broken or not at this point. Then again in their Strategy guide they bent over backwards to tell us the virtue of Combat Reflexes which is OK as a feat more a feat tax.

Or worse instead of not allowing an option say like a non-LG Paladin. They offer this https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/gray-paladin-paladin-archetype/ So they can say they offered  it as option. Even if it is worse than the LG version. Either do it right or don't offer a sub-par option in its place.

IMO Warpriest are better (thematically and mechanics, not by power) Paladins.

Pathfinder 4e D&D would be everyone playing 3/4th BAB 6th level casters which are the only classes Paizo has ever made well (Magus being a prime example).

For 3.5ed VoP it's good IF (big if) you'd otherwise end up with well below suggested WBL and/or you're good enough at CharOp (or use a build made by someone who is) to make good use of the additional resources that it gives you. In the hands of normal players in average campaigns it's a bit below par in strength.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072375Most spells that do damage, do half damage when the effect is resisted.  Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Disintegrate being the big examples.  Half-damage is still damage.

Ah I see. I prefer Palladium's system where you can either dodge certain spells or make a saving throw to fully resist their effects. Its an all or nothing proposition. A system where either fighters or spellcasters are always guaranteed some amount of damage (aside from Godbound with it's fray dice) each round strikes me as a bit bland.

I think Pathfinder 2e will do fine.

The way I see it is that Paizo can produce PF2 while at the same time continuing to support the people that want to play PF1 by keeping the original material available.  Chances are that the Adventure Paths will be easy enough to translate back to PF1 so that even PF1 players will continue to buy them.

Seems like a win-win.

Honestly it could go either way. Either the community embraces PF 2E or they turn their backs on it. Gamers especially rpg gamers are notoriously well known for hating change imo. They borrowed many elements from Starfinder which they incorporated into 2E Pf. The fanbase complained that lo and behold their god level doing everything with spells casters were "nerfed" because they removed level 7 to 9 spells. I know my heart shrunk three sizes that day after hearing that, how dare Paizo try to correct a well known flaw in the 3.5 engine. Like many people in and outside gaming people like to complain about the flaws of something they like you better not actually fix them though. We will see.

I was not impressed with what I saw in the playtest book and once they still kept the alignment requirement for Paladins in core they lost me. Sure they might release sourcebook with a Grey Paladin like they did for the current version. As that Archetype imo sucked balls and it really should be something that should be allowed in the core. Worst comes to worst make Paladins Lawful Good and add a optional section on how to create and run non-Lawful Paladins. Mind you I have not kept up to date on the playtest so that may have been revised or updated. I think if they showed more of willingness to make more major changes and if Wotc had never released 5E I might be more interested. If I want to run Pathfinder flaws and all I have it. If I want to get away from Pathfinder I have 5E. I think it's one of those too little too late type of situations.

Quote from: sureshot;1077840Honestly it could go either way. Either the community embraces PF 2E or they turn their backs on it. Gamers especially rpg gamers are notoriously well known for hating change imo. They borrowed many elements from Starfinder which they incorporated into 2E Pf. The fanbase complained that lo and behold their god level doing everything with spells casters were "nerfed" because they removed level 7 to 9 spells. I know my heart shrunk three sizes that day after hearing that, how dare Paizo try to correct a well known flaw in the 3.5 engine. Like many people in and outside gaming people like to complain about the flaws of something they like you better not actually fix them though. We will see.

I was not impressed with what I saw in the playtest book and once they still kept the alignment requirement for Paladins in core they lost me. Sure they might release sourcebook with a Grey Paladin like they did for the current version. As that Archetype imo sucked balls and it really should be something that should be allowed in the core. Worst comes to worst make Paladins Lawful Good and add a optional section on how to create and run non-Lawful Paladins. Mind you I have not kept up to date on the playtest so that may have been revised or updated. I think if they showed more of willingness to make more major changes and if Wotc had never released 5E I might be more interested. If I want to run Pathfinder flaws and all I have it. If I want to get away from Pathfinder I have 5E. I think it's one of those too little too late type of situations.

They needed a backwards compatible Pathfinder that was easier to run but still worked with existing content. I feel like Paizo could have competed with 5e, but when they needed to put in the most effort on PF, they put all their resources in PF2e and let their main game basically die.

A radical change was never going to work unless they made a mid-crunch system that worked drastically different than PF/5e. You just can't ask people to keep re-buying rules heavy systems with minor but significant mechanical changes. 4e is a good system now, but the 4e PH was a poor substitute for the entire 3.5 production line.

PF was already a rehash of 3.5. I just cannot see the same player base buying rehash of a rehash with minor rules changes a second time. It worked for PF because fans were unhappy with 4E and Wotc stopped releasing 3.5. This time around with 5E being more popular and with what I call 3.5 player fatigue. Coupled with the Paizo devs really not listening and not showing a willingness to fix the flaws of PF. Well you have to offer more than the same old house with a new coat of paint and some minor repairs done to it imo.

Brand loyalty at least to rpgs is a myth imo. Players say they will be loyal yet once an edition comes out that fixes the flaws and makes it faster to run they drop the flawed rpg in favor of the one that makes it easier to run and play in heartbeat. Which they did with 5E as Paizo devs sat on their collective asses expecting no one to come out with an rpg that fixed the flaws of Pathfinder. They took their fans for granted. The company also suddenly becoming majorly woke is not helping matters. Wotc is woke as well unlike Paizo they did not include two page SJW manifesto in their core book. You read that section in the PF 2E core and you just want to give the book and the company two middle fingers. Whomever wrote that section needs to learn making your player base feel guilty and like crap is not going to translate in sales. That section and the lack of enthusiasm in the new rules makes me want to for the time being give PF 2E a hard pass.

Anecdotally no one I know goes out of their way to release use their 3.5. material. Backwards compatibility works when a significant and large percentage of your players is willing to convert older material over. More often than not the 3.5 books remain on the bookshelves gathering dust or sold to buy new Pathfinder or other rpgs. Why go through the trouble of converting when your paying for new material and someone else is doing it for you.

Quote from: sureshot;1077847PF was already a rehash of 3.5. I just cannot see the same player base buying rehash of a rehash with minor rules changes a second time. It worked for PF because fans were unhappy with 4E and Wotc stopped releasing 3.5. This time around with 5E being more popular and with what I call 3.5 player fatigue. Coupled with the Paizo devs really not listening and not showing a willingness to fix the flaws of PF. Well you have to offer more than the same old house with a new coat of paint and some minor repairs done to it imo.

Brand loyalty at least to rpgs is a myth imo. Players say they will be loyal yet once an edition comes out that fixes the flaws and makes it faster to run they drop the flawed rpg in favor of the one that makes it easier to run and play in heartbeat. Which they did with 5E as Paizo devs sat on their collective asses expecting no one to come out with an rpg that fixed the flaws of Pathfinder. They took their fans for granted. The company also suddenly becoming majorly woke is not helping matters. Wotc is woke as well unlike Paizo they did not include two page SJW manifesto in their core book. You read that section in the PF 2E core and you just want to give the book and the company two middle fingers. Whomever wrote that section needs to learn making your player base feel guilty and like crap is not going to translate in sales. That section and the lack of enthusiasm in the new rules makes me want to for the time being give PF 2E a hard pass.

Anecdotally no one I know goes out of their way to release use their 3.5. material. Backwards compatibility works when a significant and large percentage of your players is willing to convert older material over. More often than not the 3.5 books remain on the bookshelves gathering dust or sold to buy new Pathfinder or other rpgs. Why go through the trouble of converting when your paying for new material and someone else is doing it for you.

"Pathfinder Unchained Core Rulebook" could have been great. There was plenty within PF that could have been streamlined without actually effecting the majority of used content (I know some feats existed to address miscellaneous BS, but pff).

Backward compatibility means you do not have old edition vs new. For example, Savage Worlds' new edition is pretty different (massively so in the details), but it's backwards compatible. There is no "edition wars" in that community and PEG didn't wipe away 15 some years of good content to do it.

Paizo could have done something similar, but they didn't sit on their hands when 5e came out. They did something much worst, they went full steam on PF2e and let the B-team make PF content like the Shifter, when their main game needed great new material to compete and retain fans, they slowed production.

Quote from: sureshot;1077847...
Anecdotally no one I know goes out of their way to release use their 3.5. material. Backwards compatibility works when a significant and large percentage of your players is willing to convert older material over. More often than not the 3.5 books remain on the bookshelves gathering dust or sold to buy new Pathfinder or other rpgs. Why go through the trouble of converting when your paying for new material and someone else is doing it for you.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1077870"Pathfinder Unchained Core Rulebook" could have been great. There was plenty within PF that could have been streamlined without actually effecting the majority of used content (I know some feats existed to address miscellaneous BS, but pff)....

If the "new" edition is more of less what the fans want, all the talk of backwards compatibility is nothing more than a psychological placebo.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1077843They needed a backwards compatible Pathfinder that was easier to run but still worked with existing content. I feel like Paizo could have competed with 5e, but when they needed to put in the most effort on PF, they put all their resources in PF2e and let their main game basically die.

A radical change was never going to work unless they made a mid-crunch system that worked drastically different than PF/5e. You just can't ask people to keep re-buying rules heavy systems with minor but significant mechanical changes. 4e is a good system now, but the 4e PH was a poor substitute for the entire 3.5 production line.

And that is what they failed to do the first go around. by their own admission with PF1:

 "We certainly didn't fix everything we could have in 3.5--some issues are endemic to the math underlying the core system"
https://paizo.com/community/blog/tags/paizo/auntieLisasStoryHour

On reflection, they should have taken a chance and fixed all the underlying issues of 3.x  streamlined the system and gone for a crunch level closer to 5e's. (Just a bit more "Advanced"...)

But, hindsight is 20-20, and it's real easy to tell other people what to do with their resources...

About 3 years from PF2 release well see the effects and know for sure which way Pazio is headed.