Quote from: Rhedyn;1060983Both WotC and Paizo said, "Nahh". Paizo decided to nerf casters and just make their games more boring. WotC pretended to nerf casters but instead just nerfed monsters a lot and heavily nerfed the Fighters ability to get the magic items to compete. WotC then made higher levels "simpler" with the concentration mechanic, which only makes the game tactically simpler but still allowed for Caster strategic prowess and vast arrays of Caster-unique tools. I will give WotC props that a high level Fighter is part of most meta-comps unless massive armies are an option. For most campaigns, your fighter with one of THE FEATS and magic weapons/advantage is going to evaporate a lot of HP fast.

If Paizo wasn't full of idiots and kept Pathfinder going strong, they might be in a much better position now and WotC would have had to actually compete with a successful game that had happy fans.

Or both Paizo and WotC recognized that it's impossible to provide both both low-level low-powered play and high-level mega powerful play using the same system. Honestly, I don't know why fans of high-level play can't recognize that D&D isn't the game they're looking for, and probably never has been.

Quote from: S'mon;1061037I think the 5e MM is definitely skimpy at the high end. But I have used a Lich and an ancient black Dragon to good effect. Some demons like the Nalfeshnee are quite nasty.  It certainly works way better than PF for me anyway.

There are definitely problems with 5e MM monsters. I just find these easy to fix. I don't find 3e/PF structural problems fixable.

There is definitely something to be said for incomplete but simple, over comprehensive but complex and busted:

-- GURPS or Hero -- There are some good ways to handle complex things once you understand what you doing.  These things generally work.  When they don't work, you usually understand how to fix them, because you had to get over the learning curve to use the system at all.

-- 5E, BECMI/RC -- A lot of stuff simply isn't there.  You are on your own.  However, this is clear, and you can extrapolate from what is there to how you want to do things.

-- 3E, 3.5, PF -- There is this huge pile of stuff, and before you can fix anything in it, you need to untangle and shed all the problem bits, and then rebuild from the ground up.  If that even works, because it might be so hopelessly mixed up in some other subsystem that it's a fool's errand.  

Granted, there is room for different personalities to put a somewhat different slant on the relative balance of those tendencies.  I'm really annoyed by complex, tangled things that only sort of work.  Missing or incomplete, I can tolerate a lot more.

AD&D is an interesting thing on that scale.  It's got a lot of complex pieces with a learning curve that make them a little hard to grasp (though maybe due to presentation more than the material).  However, you don't necessarily get the tangled aspect.  It's an imperfect system that will handle a lot of change without falling completely apart.

Quote from: Haffrung;1061040Honestly, I don't know why fans of high-level play can't recognize that D&D isn't the game they're looking for, and probably never has been.

So then the question becomes: What is the game they're looking for?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1061045There is definitely something to be said for incomplete but simple, over comprehensive but complex and busted:

-- GURPS or Hero -- There are some good ways to handle complex things once you understand what you doing.  These things generally work.  When they don't work, you usually understand how to fix them, because you had to get over the learning curve to use the system at all.

-- 5E, BECMI/RC -- A lot of stuff simply isn't there.  You are on your own.  However, this is clear, and you can extrapolate from what is there to how you want to do things.

-- 3E, 3.5, PF -- There is this huge pile of stuff, and before you can fix anything in it, you need to untangle and shed all the problem bits, and then rebuild from the ground up.  If that even works, because it might be so hopelessly mixed up in some other subsystem that it's a fool's errand.  

Granted, there is room for different personalities to put a somewhat different slant on the relative balance of those tendencies.  I'm really annoyed by complex, tangled things that only sort of work.  Missing or incomplete, I can tolerate a lot more.

AD&D is an interesting thing on that scale.  It's got a lot of complex pieces with a learning curve that make them a little hard to grasp (though maybe due to presentation more than the material).  However, you don't necessarily get the tangled aspect.  It's an imperfect system that will handle a lot of change without falling completely apart.

Yes, agreed, good post. AD&D is notorious for having un-connected complicated subsystems that can easily be ignored, and new ones plugged in. 3e/PF is highly interconnected. I put a LOT of effort into fixing it but I don't think I ever came close. Eg I made saves easier at high level, because of the save or suck issue, and found this made Rogues immune to dragon breath, completely unintended.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060983I think you are having an overly emotional response to me not liking the things you like.

No, I'm actually irritated that you seem unable to separate your personal preferences from market success. It's really common to run into enthusiasts who think that what they, personally, like is the key to success. This is almost never the case. Want to know how to make successful audio equipment? Don't talk to an audiophile. Want to sell cars? Don't talk to an autocross driver. Want to sell RPGs? Don't talk to a 3.5 enthusiast. I like a lot of things that aren't popular, but I'm conscious that the things I like about them are often why they're not popular...you, by contrast, seem to think the key to (more) success is reintroducing 3.5's monster-building tools and bringing feat chains back. And that's what annoying. You can't say, "I like monster feats & classes, but I recognize how that added a lot of complexity that turned off a lot of people." You've gone on and on about 3.5 monster-building with zero awareness of how taking hours to stat out monsters is something a lot of people actively don't want to do. e.g. this statement:

QuoteIf Paizo wasn't full of idiots and kept Pathfinder going strong, they might be in a much better position now and WotC would have had to actually compete with a successful game that had happy fans.

Only someone who confuses their personal love of 3.x with mass market demand could think this. Paizo was screwed the moment 5e hit the shelves. There wasn't anything they could do. PF2 is going to fail. PF2 could be the most brilliant RPG system ever devised, and it will fail. It could be everything that I, personally, or you, personally, want out of an RPG, and it will fail.

Your lengthy explanations of how you spelunked expansions to build a 3.5 fighter that wasn't totally useless by 12th level just illustrate my point. Robust products do not need expert knowledge in order to make them work to the customer's satisfaction. You can get 5 people who are literally learning D&D as they go, and by 15th level, it will mostly be fine. Write "Human Fighter," "halfing rogue," "dwarven cleric," and "half-elf wizard" on your sheets, and you'll be fine. It doesn't need to be perfect. A few wonky things will show up, but nowhere near on the scale that the wheels fly off 3.5 by that point. The measure of a product isn't how well the expert consumer can use it, but on how satisfied the average consumer is.

Quote from: Apparition;1061047So then the question becomes: What is the game they're looking for?

Godbound by Sine Nomine / Kevin Crawford. It's High Level D&D cooked in Exalted sauce with Kevin's secret blend of herbs and spices and the end result is freaking awesome. It's a shame he doesn't have a stronger offline marketing for the game because it kicks so much ass. Build a floating castle over your own kingdom? Yeah, no problem. Wanna build a heavenly domain in your image? Sure can!

Godbound takes high level play...to a very high level!

Here's the free PDF
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/185959/Godbound-A-Game-of-Divine-Heroes-Free-Edition

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061057Paizo was screwed the moment 5e hit the shelves. There wasn't anything they could do. PF2 is going to fail. PF2 could be the most brilliant RPG system ever devised, and it will fail.

If "fail" means "sell more than 5e", then I agree. I don't support 5e, but I acknowledge its sales success.

However, I don't believe PF2 will be a failure compared to Starfinder or other 2nd tier RPGs (RuneQuest, CoC, Shadowrun, etc).

Also, we are several years into 5e so PF2 might represent something new and interesting to new gamers who began with 5e who may never have played PF1e or any other RPG.

I am NO fan of Paizo, but their artwork is far superior to WotC and their stuff grabs eyeballs.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061057...The measure of a product isn't how well the expert consumer can use it, but on how satisfied the average consumer is.

This was a measured, thoughtful and spot-on response.

It's absolutely OK to recognize something we may want is not what most people want. It's also completely understandable to be disappointed about that. In that disappointment however, we should remember that there's hundreds of games to appeal to all our wants/opinions. The existence of a new game does not invalidate the old game. I don't like D&D (d20, class, level, HP) systems. I also recognize that is not a popular opinion. :-D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061065I am NO fan of Paizo, but their artwork is far superior to WotC and their stuff grabs eyeballs.

They've always had great art direction. I remember during the 4e D&D era, people would point out shitty 4e art and great PF art...
 ...by the same artist.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061065If "fail" means "sell more than 5e", then I agree. I don't support 5e, but I acknowledge its sales success.

However, I don't believe PF2 will be a failure compared to Starfinder or other 2nd tier RPGs (RuneQuest, CoC, Shadowrun, etc).

Also, we are several years into 5e so PF2 might represent something new and interesting to new gamers who began with 5e who may never have played PF1e or any other RPG.

I am NO fan of Paizo, but their artwork is far superior to WotC and their stuff grabs eyeballs.

PF2 will do fine compared to CoC and the rest but it'll never come close to PF1's sales. It'll be hard to do that without WotC sniffing glue.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061057No, I'm actually irritated that you seem unable to separate your personal preferences from market success. It's really common to run into enthusiasts who think that what they, personally, like is the key to success. This is almost never the case. Want to know how to make successful audio equipment? Don't talk to an audiophile. Want to sell cars? Don't talk to an autocross driver. Want to sell RPGs? Don't talk to a 3.5 enthusiast. I like a lot of things that aren't popular, but I'm conscious that the things I like about them are often why they're not popular...you, by contrast, seem to think the key to (more) success is reintroducing 3.5's monster-building tools and bringing feat chains back. And that's what annoying. You can't say, "I like monster feats & classes, but I recognize how that added a lot of complexity that turned off a lot of people." You've gone on and on about 3.5 monster-building with zero awareness of how taking hours to stat out monsters is something a lot of people actively don't want to do. e.g. this statement:



Only someone who confuses their personal love of 3.x with mass market demand could think this. Paizo was screwed the moment 5e hit the shelves. There wasn't anything they could do. PF2 is going to fail. PF2 could be the most brilliant RPG system ever devised, and it will fail. It could be everything that I, personally, or you, personally, want out of an RPG, and it will fail.

Your lengthy explanations of how you spelunked expansions to build a 3.5 fighter that wasn't totally useless by 12th level just illustrate my point. Robust products do not need expert knowledge in order to make them work to the customer's satisfaction. You can get 5 people who are literally learning D&D as they go, and by 15th level, it will mostly be fine. Write "Human Fighter," "halfing rogue," "dwarven cleric," and "half-elf wizard" on your sheets, and you'll be fine. It doesn't need to be perfect. A few wonky things will show up, but nowhere near on the scale that the wheels fly off 3.5 by that point. The measure of a product isn't how well the expert consumer can use it, but on how satisfied the average consumer is.

This response is either overly emotional or insane because you are arguing against things I never said.

You took, "I don't like 5e. It is a mess of a system at higher levels" and "I find Pathfinder more tolerable" and "PF2e looks like garbage", and then you extrapolated this strawman to argue against who was advocating monster feats or some other nonsense.

Quote from: Daztur;1061081PF2 will do fine compared to CoC and the rest but it'll never come close to PF1's sales. It'll be hard to do that without WotC sniffing glue.

I am unsure about "never" because 5e has brought in a new generation of gamers. Just as a certain set of AD&Ders enjoyed the system wonkery of 3e, there may be subset of 5e fans who would be drawn to PF2e. Also, I wonder about the PF1e crowd. Its conceivable they will migrate to PF2e.

Additionally, there's the PF2e Org Play via Pathfinder Society. It is conceivable their Org Play may do something to draw away 5e AL players even if WotC doesn't drop the ball.

But none of that happens without a notable marketing push. Right now, there are no major D&D or PF video games. If a PF game came out that kicked ass (not just a tired fantasy retread using the license), I could see PF2e riding high on that.

But without major marketing? Then Paizo will do well against the 2nd tier who also don't do any meaningful marketing, but not achieve PF1e sales. Though, if they strip down the company to a minimal staff as cost control, they can keep cranking for the next decade.

Pathfinder 2 will find a very small audience compared to PF1.

Quote from: Thornhammer;1060903Pricing on that thing is bizarre.  Fifty bucks retail.  Guys on eBay selling it for $65 - and getting that.  I bought a brand new copy for $22 shipped.  It's all over the map.

Thats allways the case. Ebay is never an indicator of anything other than how stupid some buyers or especially sellers can be. You have to sort out the dross to get to the real sales.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060918There's no need for a new edition, ever, because the system isn't a hot mess anymore. They'll do a big update the art at some point to keep up with trends and rewrite some of the text, but you're not going to see an overhaul as radical as the last several. What would the point be?

I am actually surprised that in the 11+ printings and updates that they have not actually tweaked any art far as can tell. The reason may be simple. Cost. Its easier to go with what you have rather than blowing it on new art and likely having to retool some plates which is more cost. and it might cause confusion as to if a book is legit or not if someone found new art in a print un-announced. Sone get a little confused when they discover the corrections in later prints. So new art is unlikely.