# Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?



## Mercurius

I'm not really sure if this belongs in the Pathfinder or D&D forums, so put it here in General as it touches upon a variety of topics and is more meta than system-specific.

I don't know a lot of details about Pathfinder 2 and haven't been following whatever discussions might have happened over the year, but upon doing a cursory browse, I'm reminded of what happened with 4E. Like 4E, P2 seems to be annoying traditionalists; like 4E, the big danger is that rather than having the intended effect of unifying and adding to the fan-base, it will only fraction it (e.g. of 10 P1 players, 4 stay with P1, 4 go with P2, and 2 go to 5E or elsewhere out of frustration).

I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for? Are they hoping that 2nd edition is a huge success, that the majority of 1st edition players migrate over and they begin a fresh edition cycle? 

I'm honestly trying to understand. I have no horse in the race - I don't play Pathfinder, although buy the occasional setting book (and am intrigued by the "Lost Omens" world guides line and will check that out). Nor am I a traditionalist or think that game companies should just re-hash the old. From what I've seen of P2 (mostly just scanning the playtest book at Barnes & Noble), I like the vibe of it more than P1. It just seems like a head-scratcher to me, that they would diverge substantially from 1st edition considering that the whole impetus behind Pathfinder in the first place was to keep 3.5 alive and well. From what I've read, P2 does more than clean up P1...it seems like a significantly different new edition.

I mean, it almost seems like Paizo saw their base diminishing with the surging popularity of 5E and realized that they had to take a risk. Maybe they're accepting a smaller base, but are going all in on something newish rather than just the diminishing returns of "P1.1" and more of the same type of books.

Anyone have any insight into the thoughts behind Pathfinder 2? Is it Paizo's 4E?


----------



## Jacob Lewis

Its all part of an elaborate scheme to make Pathfinder 3rd Edition the ultimate comeback edition that will fix everything. Its the only way to ensure loyalty from any fanbase. You take away what they love, try to pass it off as something completely new and different, then quickly turn around and go back to the original formula. People love that crap! See Coke/New Coke/Classic Coke for more details.


----------



## Aldarc

Mercurius said:


> I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for? Are they hoping that 2nd edition is a huge success, that the majority of 1st edition players migrate over and they begin a fresh edition cycle?



I don't think Paizo is under any delusions about catching lightning in a bottle twice, especially given the success of 5e. I suspect they are hoping that 2nd edition is a sustainable success while also being something fresh and new that they themselves enjoy playing with and designing for. They will probably hope that they get the majority of their playerbase from PF1, maybe some new players who are dissatisfied with 5e, and possibly some new players who are new to TTRPGs. Pathfinder 1 was a stopgap measure to prevent Paizo from going-under that turned into a huge success. Pathfinder 2 is more about Paizo going forward. 



> From what I've seen of P2 (mostly just scanning the playtest book at Barnes & Noble), I like the vibe of it more than P1. It just seems like a head-scratcher to me, that they would diverge substantially from 1st edition considering that the whole impetus behind Pathfinder in the first place was to keep 3.5 alive and well. From what I've read, P2 does more than clean up P1...it seems like a significantly different new edition.



Sure, but over a decade, Paizo kept adding to and patching up the 3.5e system. There was an increased bloat of options (e.g., classes, archetypes, feats, etc.). There was some unelegant design decisions that they were not happy about (e.g., CMB/CMD). Jason Bulmahn flat out calls CMB/CMD - which he himself designed, by the way - "bad design." 

But when you look PF2 and compare it to PF1, you can see how one is congruent with the other. PF2 represents a desire to build (mostly) from the ground-up their system into a more cohesive system. They wanted to make alchemy a valid branch. They wanted to streamline actions and the math. They wanted to better integrate three subsystems that were performing similar functions: e.g., multiclassing, archetypes, prestige classes. A lot of class and racial abilities (and subrace features) have been turned into feats. They wanted to reduce the complexity of the action economy. But at the same time, they still wanted to preserve the deep player customization options that Pathfinder was famous for. 

You will undoubtedly hear dissatisfaction with some PF1 diehards, but from what I can tell, a lot of news and playtest reports surrounding PF2 has been positive. The new three-action economy, for example, has received tremendous praise. A lot of people have reported that it plays quicker than PF1 at similar levels. A number of groups reported that it's easier to run than PF1 while still giving easy-to-make monsters cool things to do. 



> I mean, it almost seems like Paizo saw their base diminishing with the surging popularity of 5E and realized that they had to take a risk. Maybe they're accepting a smaller base, but are going all in on something newish rather than just the diminishing returns of "P1.1" and more of the same type of books.



It's likely a confluence of factors: players migrating to 5e,* growing dissatisfaction from both players AND Paizo with the rules/option/book bloat, and Paizo wanting to evolve the game. I think that this last point often gets understated. When you listen to comments from Paizo, many reflect (independently) that they are not the same company as they were in 2008-2009. They LOVE Pathfinder, but I think that many wanted to improve on its design. Many wanted to tinker and play with something new. Many employees wanted to expand it beyond a 3.5E with a new coat of paint and some replacement parts. So this is really one of the first times where we see Paizo getting to say "This is the system that we built!" 

* Some just wanted to play D&D but were dissatisfied with 4e, so Pathfinder was the best popular alternative. So 5e was "good enough" for people to return back to D&D. 



> Anyone have any insight into the thoughts behind Pathfinder 2? Is it Paizo's 4E?



It looks more like a jump from 3e to a more complex 5e with some awareness of 4e's strengths.


----------



## Morrus

Mercurius said:


> I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for? Are they hoping that 2nd edition is a huge success, that the majority of 1st edition players migrate over and they begin a fresh edition cycle?




What else would they be hoping for? That it fails?


----------



## Aldarc

Morrus said:


> What else would they be hoping for? That it fails?



The Producers.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden

lowkey13 said:


> This belongs in the pure, unadultered, AWESOME forums.
> 
> Ima get my asbestos suit and my popcorn ready, because I can't imagine a better firestarter.




"Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 'The Last Jedi'?"

There. Did you one better.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I’m not a rabid Pathfinder fan, but I did play it at cons. However, I can say I’m not moving onto 2e; I just don’t have enough of an attachment to the game to justify the room in my brain to learn a new system. And honestly, the design decisions seem even more fiddly, moving it far out of my tolerance for such.

I do think Paizo painted themselves into a corner with this – Pathfinder, being based on 3e, was essentially almost 20 years old in its design theory. Add the rampant bloat to that and it was definitely feeling long-in-the-tooth.

As for whether it’s Paizo’s 4e, I think that proof will be in how long it lasts, and yes, all joking aside, what Pathfinder 3e looks like.



Jacob Lewis said:


> Its all part of an elaborate scheme to make Pathfinder 3rd Edition the ultimate comeback edition that will fix everything.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Mallus

It's like you're juggling brightly-colored balls filled with nitroglycerin,   [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION].


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## billd91

Jacob Lewis said:


> Its all part of an elaborate scheme to make Pathfinder 3rd Edition the ultimate comeback edition that will fix everything. Its the only way to ensure loyalty from any fanbase. You take away what they love, try to pass it off as something completely new and different, then quickly turn around and go back to the original formula. People love that crap! See Coke/New Coke/Classic Coke for more details.




Yeah, no. It was also never Coke's intent either.


----------



## Mallus

lowkey13 said:


> Is Pathfinder 2 the 2016 Ghostbusters Reboot, or is the original Pathfinder more of a colonialist narrative, like the original Star Wars trilogy?



Glad I edited my original post. TNT is far too stable. And whatever happened to the strikethrough tag??


----------



## LordEntrails

Also as an outside observer I've wondered the same as the OP. One other aspect that is implied in this discussion but not stated, Is it known that PF1 is no longer sustainable? Was their an evolve or die mandate?

I mean it has seemed like for a long time PF just kept publishing more options, more adventures, more content; and that was their model. Did they simply run out of topics/content or did they find that they were no longer attracting new players or...?


----------



## billd91

Mercurius said:


> I mean, it almost seems like Paizo saw their base diminishing with the surging popularity of 5E and realized that they had to take a risk. Maybe they're accepting a smaller base, but are going all in on something newish rather than just the diminishing returns of "P1.1" and more of the same type of books.
> 
> Anyone have any insight into the thoughts behind Pathfinder 2? Is it Paizo's 4E?




In some ways, yes. PF2 does incorporate some 4e-isms like the increases in attacks/defenses moving in a constant rate as the PCs level AND those being matched by monster/NPC attacks/defenses. The treadmill. And that is one of the things that bothers me about PF2 considering I very much prefer 5e's bounded accuracy model.

And it is definitely going to rub some players with deep stacks of materials the wrong way. And it's definitely not being released at the heights of opportunity like 3e, 5e, and PF1 all were and all benefited from. So yeah, kind of like 4e.

On the other hand, they had a 10 year run based on a rule system that was already 9 years old when they released it. It's showing a lot of age, and not in a good way. There's stuff cobbled on it all over the place - some really fiddly stuff that could really stand a clean-up. Plus, their market for rule supplements was pretty thoroughly saturated. If they're going to try to sustain a game system and keep the lights on, they've got to do something to refresh it every once in a while. While every 5 years may be too rapid (going by the market's reactions to WotC's history), 10 years certainly doesn't feel like it was a rush or a hustle.

There seem to be some pretty good things going for it - I like most of the action economy changes. But there are also quite a few things I didn't like in the play test. So I'll check it out - in PDF form at least so I can get by spending $14.99 rather than $59.99. And if it works for me, we may shift over from PF1. It's too soon to tell. I have a hard time imagining it will be as successful as PF1, but we'll see if it finds a sustainable niche. I'd like it to do so because I like Paizo's stuff in general and I'd like to see them maintain a spot at the table.


----------



## Arilyn

It's not all that difficult to understand. PF1 is getting old, and is based off an even older system. Most RPGs go through more than one edition. Players almost always grumble and complain. And yes, it is often a risk, but Paizo has proven that they usually make sound decisions, and when things get rough, they weather the storm. We'll have to wait and see how PF2 does in the wild. I think it's a safe bet it will sell like hot cakes at Gen Con. If it falters after that, hopefully, Paizo will be able to pivot back to first edition and regroup. 

Off topic, but the new PF card game edition is awesome. More money flying out of my wallet.


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> Is Rey Disney's attempt to create the Warlord class within Star Wars?



She strikes me more as a sorta force-based Paladin.  ;P


----------



## Hussar

Tony Vargas said:


> She strikes me more as a sorta force-based Paladin.  ;P




With rapiers.  Must not forget the rapiers.


----------



## Nilbog

I'm looking forward to PF2.  My group primarily plays 5e, and while we love the system, there is a yearning for more crunch, so we've been looking at trying new systems.  I swore off both PF1 and 3e, as I found them incredibly time consuming and frustrating to DM for, and while we like 4e, none of our group currently has a subscription to the online char generator and with the amount of options, char gen is a nightmare without it.

I'm really hoping (and from what I read in the playtest) the PF2 could land in the sweet spot, or be the closest system to it, for our group.  

So maybe Paizo think that as well as lot of people who want to move from PF1, there are also a few people out there who want to try something different from 5e, and what with 5e drawing a lot of new players it may be time to dip their toes?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Hussar said:


> With rapiers.  Must not forget the rapiers.



No wonder I like her so much!

is it possible she’s a Gnome!?


----------



## trancejeremy

I think the key difference is that 4e was very well designed, it just was different than what people (including me) apparently wanted.


----------



## hawkeyefan

I’m no business expert, so I certainly could be wrong, but it seems to me that the need for a new edition is tied to their model. They sell lots of books. And many are full of crunch. The constant flow of rules and options has simply made the volume of material for first edition overwhelming. 

So they need to start from scratch. They’ve tweaked some things and attempted to address some concerns with first edition. So it’ll hopefully appeal to their existing base (although there seems to be a potential split there) while also being simple enough to appeal to new players. From the bit that I’ve seen, it’s still much more crunchy than D&D 5E, so I guess they’re hoping to appeal to folks who want a bit more rules and options. 

I don’t expect their model to significantly change, though....so I expect the parade of splatbooks to simply begin anew. And although I don’t think it’s for me, I hope the game finds an audience and thrives. More games being available is good for the hobby overall, I think.


----------



## Retreater

4e provided a core departure from the traditional D&D experience. While a player may have enjoyed 4e (which I do), most cannot deny that it was an outlier, a departure from everything that came before (and after). Pathfinder 2e seems to be less extreme of a transition from 1e (based on playing several games at cons and running a portion of the playtest). 

I think Paizo may find a problem that Pathfinder's core fanbase likely contains a number of players who were so devoted to 3.5 D&D that they refused to go along with 4e (and now won't go on to 5e). [This is the majority of the local Pathfinder players I personally know, YMMV.] I would be surprised if these players go along with the conversion to PF2. So I expect we'll see Paizo will be cannibalizing a sizable chunk of their own market.


----------



## aramis erak

Retreater said:


> I think Paizo may find a problem that Pathfinder's core fanbase likely contains a number of players who were so devoted to 3.5 D&D that they refused to go along with 4e (and now won't go on to 5e). [This is the majority of the local Pathfinder players I personally know, YMMV.] I would be surprised if these players go along with the conversion to PF2. So I expect we'll see Paizo will be cannibalizing a sizable chunk of their own market.




most of that crowd that I've met departed PF already due to increasing crunch-creep.

I don't think that they are the majority of current PF players.


----------



## CapnZapp

Mercurius said:


> I'm not really sure if this belongs in the Pathfinder or D&D forums, so put it here in General as it touches upon a variety of topics and is more meta than system-specific.
> 
> I don't know a lot of details about Pathfinder 2 and haven't been following whatever discussions might have happened over the year, but upon doing a cursory browse, I'm reminded of what happened with 4E. Like 4E, P2 seems to be annoying traditionalists; like 4E, the big danger is that rather than having the intended effect of unifying and adding to the fan-base, it will only fraction it (e.g. of 10 P1 players, 4 stay with P1, 4 go with P2, and 2 go to 5E or elsewhere out of frustration).
> 
> I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for? Are they hoping that 2nd edition is a huge success, that the majority of 1st edition players migrate over and they begin a fresh edition cycle?
> 
> I'm honestly trying to understand. I have no horse in the race - I don't play Pathfinder, although buy the occasional setting book (and am intrigued by the "Lost Omens" world guides line and will check that out). Nor am I a traditionalist or think that game companies should just re-hash the old. From what I've seen of P2 (mostly just scanning the playtest book at Barnes & Noble), I like the vibe of it more than P1. It just seems like a head-scratcher to me, that they would diverge substantially from 1st edition considering that the whole impetus behind Pathfinder in the first place was to keep 3.5 alive and well. From what I've read, P2 does more than clean up P1...it seems like a significantly different new edition.
> 
> I mean, it almost seems like Paizo saw their base diminishing with the surging popularity of 5E and realized that they had to take a risk. Maybe they're accepting a smaller base, but are going all in on something newish rather than just the diminishing returns of "P1.1" and more of the same type of books.
> 
> Anyone have any insight into the thoughts behind Pathfinder 2? Is it Paizo's 4E?



I believe they should have went for an Advanced 5th Edition for their game. 

That is, a game that uses 5E's advances in fixing d20 as a base, then opening up a select number of subsystems to add crunch.

Not literally using 5E, of course, but similar enough to entice the huge market of 5E gamers looking for a bit deeper mechanics.

The biggest risk of the actual PF2 is if comes across as a new d20 game: wild imbalances, ultra-heavy DM workload, Christmas trees all around. From what I've seen, I'm not even sure Paizo realize how great 5E is, even as the crunch-constrained game it is.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> I believe they should have went for an Advanced 5th Edition for their game.
> 
> That is, a game that uses 5E's advances in fixing d20 as a base, then opening up a select number of subsystems to add crunch.
> 
> Not literally using 5E, of course, but similar enough to entice the huge market of 5E gamers looking for a bit deeper mechanics.



Then most people would just keep playing 5e. Why play the same game with a bit more crunch? 



> The biggest risk of the actual PF2 is if comes across as a new d20 game: wild imbalances, ultra-heavy DM workload, Christmas trees all around. From what I've seen, I'm not even sure Paizo realize how great 5E is, even as the crunch-constrained game it is.



I don't think that you have demonstrated in past conversations on this subject matter that you have seen much. And I think that Paizo has a far greater grasp on the state of the TTRPG market than you do.


----------



## Celebrim

LordEntrails said:


> One other aspect that is implied in this discussion but not stated, Is it known that PF1 is no longer sustainable? Was their an evolve or die mandate?




Pathfinder 1 had a very aggressive publishing schedule.  They put a ton of products out for it in a relatively short amount of time.  

I think the problem they have is they've saturated the Pathfinder 1 system.  There isn't a ton of obvious things to do.   So I don't think they're in so much of an evolve or die situation as needing to reboot.


----------



## Hussar

Let's be fair here.  They've released, what, about a dozen books per year (or more) for the past 10 years.  That's a frigging mountain of material.  It's not unreasonable to want to update the system after that long, and that many hours of refinement.

It's doubtful they'll go full on change.  But, they do need to stanch the bleed of losing players to simply aging out.  People move on from hobbies.  It's only weird assed people like us that stay with a hobby for decades and never move on.    And every game has the same issue - how to make sure that the number of new players is equal to the number of players leaving the hobby.

Imagine trying to get into Pathfinder in 2019.  Where would you even start?

I hope they do pull this off.  Having a stronger competition for 5e only means that both games get better.


----------



## LordEntrails

Celebrim said:


> I think the problem they have is they've saturated the Pathfinder 1 system.  There isn't a ton of obvious things to do.   So I don't think they're in so much of an evolve or die situation as needing to reboot.




So something like; "We've created products for all the good ideas we have, so we are going to change the rules just enough that we can re-use all out ideas and just convert them to the new rules."

Yea, that will go over well.


----------



## Aldarc

LordEntrails said:


> So something like; "We've created products for all the good ideas we have, so we are going to change the rules just enough that we can re-use all out ideas and just convert them to the new rules."
> 
> Yea, that will go over well.



I don't think that represents well what Paizo is doing or their motives at all. I think that they wanted to integrate, codify, and unify a lot of the accumulated game rules and player options (essentially TWO DECADES WORTH) while streamlining and fixing some of the core weak spots of the 3.X engine while still supporting the sort of stories people could make with PF1.


----------



## Hussar

LordEntrails said:


> So something like; "We've created products for all the good ideas we have, so we are going to change the rules just enough that we can re-use all out ideas and just convert them to the new rules."
> 
> Yea, that will go over well.




So, basically, what EVERY RPG company has been doing for the past forty or so years;.


----------



## LordEntrails

My point, poorly presented, is that if the community feels like the reason PF2 is being created is because Paizo has run out of ideas and that in order to remain relevant and profitable they must change the rule system so that they can re-hash/present all the ideas they have already presented, it will not be well received.

I also do not think that if the purpose of PF2 is to "integrate, codify, and unify a lot of the accumulated game rules and player options" into something cohesive that does not add anything new, that also will not be well received. By now, I suspect most tables running PF have already worked out how to integrate and resolve all of the conflicts due to the 2 decades worth of prolific content.

IMO, if they don't bring something unique and new (mechanic, setting, etc) to the table, it will not be well received.


----------



## Aldarc

LordEntrails said:


> I also do not think that if the purpose of PF2 is to "integrate, codify, and unify a lot of the accumulated game rules and player options" into something cohesive that does not add anything new, that also will not be well received. By now, I suspect most tables running PF have already worked out how to integrate and resolve all of the conflicts due to the 2 decades worth of prolific content.
> 
> IMO, if they don't bring something unique and new (mechanic, setting, etc) to the table, it will not be well received.



IMHO, it's both here. As I pointed out earlier, the implementation of archetypes in PF2 is meant to "integrate, codify, and unify" three different subsystems that performed similar functions in PF1: multiclassing, archetypes, and prestige classes. I don't think that there was so much a desire to "make something new" here as it was about streamlining the core system chassis so that they could build off the system easier. It's new, but only as a coincidental byproduct of its design goal. But it does bring something new to PF in how it addresses related character customization issues from both 3e and PF1.


----------



## Mercurius

Hussar said:


> Imagine trying to get into Pathfinder in 2019.  Where would you even start?
> 
> I hope they do pull this off.  Having a stronger competition for 5e only means that both games get better.




Well, the Beginner's Box maybe?

But to address the second sentence, I don't think Pathfinder could possibly be anything resembling "strong" competition for D&D. It was to 4E, but that's a different story. My sense is that Pathfinder serves those wanting a crunchier game, and also loyalists - which is, of course, a Venn diagram. Part of the impetus behind starting this thread is that P2 seems to threaten both groups.



LordEntrails said:


> So something like; "We've created products for all the good ideas we have, so we are going to change the rules just enough that we can re-use all out ideas and just convert them to the new rules."
> 
> Yea, that will go over well.




I would be very surprised if they take the latter-day TSR/early WotC approach of edition cycling and product treadmill re-hashing. Maybe we'll see one or two of the same, but beyond the core (core rulebook, bestiaries, gamemastery, maybe advanced class), I'm guessing they'll diverge a bit. If Lost Omens tells us anything is that they're (possibly) taking a different approach: maybe more thematic? Lost Omens already gives a more stylized Golarion, and maybe the main P2 line will be centered on further World Guides, with crunch and adventure paths being built around the "new world."


----------



## aramis erak

CapnZapp said:


> The biggest risk of the actual PF2 is if comes across as a new d20 game: wild imbalances, ultra-heavy DM workload, Christmas trees all around. From what I've seen, I'm not even sure Paizo realize how great 5E is, even as the crunch-constrained game it is.




The Crunch constraint is part of what makes 5E better than prior D&D... to a point. After 10th level, the 12-16 abilities (and 10-15 spells memorized) hit a saturation point for many. I thought I was relatively rare, but the success of Pugmire (which keeps the same upper metric on Proficiency Bonus, but rescales to 10 levels) says I'm not alone.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> Then most people would just keep playing 5e. Why play the same game with a bit more crunch?



Because you are dissatisfied with the little crunch there is in 5E...?

I believe there is a market opening for a dndian game with more crunch.

I do not believe there is a market for the various and many kinds of silliness 3.x/d20/PF offers.

The difference? 5E.

It might be simple (too simple), but it comprehensively represents an upgrade of 3E without falling into the 4E pitfalls.

WotC could not have made that unless the failure of 4E sharpened their focus and allowed them to ignore the naysayers.

It makes me nervous Paizo is listening to PF fans, some of which haven't even played 5E and thus can't see that you CAN design a fun game where martials and casters feel familiar yet different. (That is, what 4E couldn't offer)

And, here's my point, that it is possible to achieve that while still significantly rein in LFQW and NPC admin.

I would have felt a lot less nervous if Paizo had exhibited clear tendencies to look at 5E and learn from it. Yet, most PF2 chatter I hear are about PF1 and 4E - two of the *least* appropriate games to build your future on in my opinion.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> Let's be fair here.  They've released, what, about a dozen books per year (or more) for the past 10 years.  That's a frigging mountain of material.  It's not unreasonable to want to update the system after that long, and that many hours of refinement.
> 
> It's doubtful they'll go full on change.  But, they do need to stanch the bleed of losing players to simply aging out.  People move on from hobbies.  It's only weird assed people like us that stay with a hobby for decades and never move on.    And every game has the same issue - how to make sure that the number of new players is equal to the number of players leaving the hobby.
> 
> Imagine trying to get into Pathfinder in 2019.  Where would you even start?
> 
> I hope they do pull this off.  Having a stronger competition for 5e only means that both games get better.



The obvious place to start recruiting is among existing 5E gamers.

Without knowing for sure, I feel the vast majority of prospective gamers of this generation has already been recruited.

That is, thinking that Paizo has the clout to generate a meaningful number of NEW gamers is a pipe dream.

They should have taken efforts to make their game palatable to 5E gamers, because that IS the market (except the tiny sliver of old PF holdouts that still are willing to try PF2, a completely new and incompatible game).

And like it or not, this market of 5E gamers looking to widen their horizons *will* be horrified by LFQW, NPC prep, unbalanced looting and buffing, etc ..

If you haven't played 5E you might be forgiven a game like 3E or PF could succeed in today's market, if sufficiently spruced up. I strongly believe that is no longer true - not after 5E finally showed us all how you could keep the feeling of d20 but without it's fundamental problems (and without the radical failure of 4E).

I believe Paizo needed to do what they did with Pathfinder: Build upon the D&D edition of the day.

As a game not compatible with anything, what differentiates Pathfinder 2 from the countless heartbreaker clones out there? 13th Age, Dungeon World, Fantasy Age, Tunnels &Trolls... there has been literally *hundreds* over the decades, every single one of them fallen by the wayside. I'm struggling to see what Paizo offers what all these companies did not...

(Compared to those I am sure PF2 will be a big success. But that's not the question. Will PF2 be able to repeat the success of PF1, as pretty much the only non-D&D D&D game to even come close to parity with the 500 pound gorilla...)

I believe the market will tell. And 90-99% of that market has been raised on a diet consisting of 5E..

...and 5E alone...!


----------



## CapnZapp

LordEntrails said:


> So something like; "We've created products for all the good ideas we have, so we are going to change the rules just enough that we can re-use all out ideas and just convert them to the new rules."
> 
> Yea, that will go over well.



That is literally the reason for every new edition of an existing game ever.

The skill is always how to sell the new edition while drawing the attention well away from this fact.


----------



## CapnZapp

LordEntrails said:


> My point, poorly presented, is that if the community feels like the reason PF2 is being created is because Paizo has run out of ideas and that in order to remain relevant and profitable they must change the rule system so that they can re-hash/present all the ideas they have already presented, it will not be well received.



On paper, a relevant point.

In practice, seldom relevant.


----------



## CapnZapp

aramis erak said:


> The Crunch constraint is part of what makes 5E better than prior D&D... to a point. After 10th level, the 12-16 abilities (and 10-15 spells memorized) hit a saturation point for many. I thought I was relatively rare, but the success of Pugmire (which keeps the same upper metric on Proficiency Bonus, but rescales to 10 levels) says I'm not alone.



Without having any idea of what a pugmire is, you have a point: yes of course there will be gamers content with 5E.

But these "casuals" will never play a Pathfinder game. (That's not a slight. I am convinced I am staying objective fact when I say Paizo will never appeal to someone who truly believes the light level of crunch in 5E is "just right"; unless they make a completely new game, of course; one that does not resemble the PF2 playtest with its nightmarish assault of feats at all)

So let's focus our discussion on those gamers who like 5E, acknowledge its fundamental fixes, but are ready to sink their teeth into something... crunchier. Especially since in the short-term, Paizo is our only hope


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Because you are dissatisfied with the little crunch there is in 5E...?
> 
> I believe there is a market opening for a dndian game with more crunch.
> 
> I do not believe there is a market for the various and many kinds of silliness 3.x/d20/PF offers.
> 
> The difference? 5E.
> 
> It might be simple (too simple), but it comprehensively represents an upgrade of 3E without falling into the 4E pitfalls.
> 
> WotC could not have made that unless the failure of 4E sharpened their focus and allowed them to ignore the naysayers.



Your entire basis for this argument rests on your subjective and unsupported supposition. 



> It makes me nervous Paizo is listening to PF fans, some of which haven't even played 5E and thus can't see that you CAN design a fun game where martials and casters feel familiar yet different. (That is, what 4E couldn't offer)



How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous! You don't listen to your fans who play the game. You are supposed to listen to a singular doomsayer who doesn't play PF1 and who demands that Paizo makes his custom dream product based off a competitor's system and who also never participated in the playtest or shows any actual engagement or familiarity with the contents of PF2!  



> I would have felt a lot less nervous if Paizo had exhibited clear tendencies to look at 5E and learn from it. Yet, most PF2 chatter I hear are about PF1 and 4E - two of the *least* appropriate games to build your future on in my opinion.



Except when you combine them together, you essentially get 5e, and that is precisely what WotC did, Oh He of Short-Term Memory. As either   [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.


----------



## LordEntrails

Aldarc said:


> How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous! You don't listen to your fans who play the game. You are supposed to listen to a singular doomsayer who doesn't play PF1 and who demands that Paizo makes his custom dream product based off a competitor's system and who also never participated in the playtest or shows any actual engagement or familiarity with the contents of PF2!



Except go ask someone in marketing or advertizing, customers are notorious for not knowing what they will actually spend their own money on.

Sure yea, you have to engage your customer base and make them feel loved, but you have to give them what they want (and will spend money on), not want they ask for.


----------



## aramis erak

CapnZapp said:


> Without having any idea of what a pugmire is, you have a point: yes of course there will be gamers content with 5E.
> 
> But these "casuals" will never play a Pathfinder game. (That's not a slight. I am convinced I am staying objective fact when I say Paizo will never appeal to someone who truly believes the light level of crunch in 5E is "just right"; unless they make a completely new game, of course; one that does not resemble the PF2 playtest with its nightmarish assault of feats at all)
> 
> So let's focus our discussion on those gamers who like 5E, acknowledge its fundamental fixes, but are ready to sink their teeth into something... crunchier. Especially since in the short-term, Paizo is our only hope




Let's attempt to cure some of your ignorance...

Pugmire is a 5E OGL variant using a simplified versionof 5E, which has had 4 successful kickstarters, It rescales proficiency bonus to fit 10 levels, rather than 20, makes all class features feats (and thus avoids multi-classing by making it totally unneeded), and uses Dogs (and in Monarchies of Mau, Cats) as the species. It's got a very vancian post-tech post-recover-after-holocaust setting concept.

The rest of your post is utter bollocks... 

I know a number of folks who grudgingly play PF despite hating its crunch level... Specifically because the published adventure paths are setting wise awesome, and leave the mechanics to the GM. My wife happens to be one such. She's played more PF than me, because the group she plays with runs PF; She feels 5E is too heavy at times, so she's clearly no fan of crunch.

In my experience, about a third of the people I know playing PF would rather play a simpler engine in Paizo's settings, but have GM's who like PF.


----------



## thegoodsoldier0

Basically.  I didnt enjoy the over simplification


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:


> /snip
> 
> Without knowing for sure, I feel the vast majority of prospective gamers of this generation has already been recruited.
> /snip




Not sure why you say that when the number of gamers and the market have been growing year on year for five or so years now and show no signs of decline.

For example, the 5e PHB is STILL in the top 100 on Amazon.  If new gamers had peaked, you'd think they'd slow down sales of core books.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> Your entire basis for this argument rests on your subjective and unsupported supposition.



You *really* need to consider what a discussion forum is for.

Hint: it's not to only discuss scientifically proven facts.

If you're frustrated why I keep ignoring these replies, now you know why.



> How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous!



You really need to stop taking it personal.

I didn't come over to your house and strangled your kitten. I am merely questioning the business strategy of a business corporation.

Relax.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> Except when you combine them together, you essentially get 5e, and that is precisely what WotC did, Oh He of Short-Term Memory. As either   [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.



It was probably Tony Vargas.

On the other hand, he sees 4th edition in everything everywhere, so I've learned to simply ignore that.

Let me reassure you I'm playing 5E because it resembles d20 without the annoying crud, and also because none of fundamental flaws of 4E aren't there.

All I wish is for deeper crunch on the player side.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> Not sure why you say that when the number of gamers and the market have been growing year on year for five or so years now and show no signs of decline.
> 
> For example, the 5e PHB is STILL in the top 100 on Amazon.  If new gamers had peaked, you'd think they'd slow down sales of core books.



The peak can still have been reached.

Unless you want to argue that as long as a single new gamer joins up, it hasn't. OTOH that's absurd.

Now then; let me flag that's all I have to say on that particular tidbit. Please do tell your thoughts on the rest of my post. 

I mean, you focused in on such a small detail it's almost weird. I'm not going to reply further on that - it's simply not very relevant to my larger points.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> You *really* need to consider what a discussion forum is for.
> 
> If you're frustrated why I keep ignoring these replies, now you know why.



It's not like I am the only person who calls you out on your BS in this thread and others. It amazes me that you haven't slowed down even when others have noted your penchant for BSing about the game market, PF2, and such. Any time people direct you to actually examine PF2 for yourself, you don't. Any time people people do your work for you about what the game does, you ignore it so you can continue doom-speaking dung-posting. So you keep making unsubstantiated claims in the game and your worries. If you are so concerned about Paizo's strategy and what they are doing as you claim, then why do you not even put in a modicum of effort to actually look up what Paizo is doing in PF2? 



> I am merely questioning the business strategy of a business corporation.



If only that was what you were doing and you were actually doing it well, but alas...


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Let me reassure you I'm playing 5E because it resembles d20 without the annoying crud, and also because none of fundamental flaws of 4E aren't there.
> 
> All I wish is for deeper crunch on the player side.



Paizo does not exist as a company to give you that 5e dream product you want nor will they have necessarily failed, should they fail, because of the reasons you say. (Seriously, if Paizo fails, it will not be because the market cares about LFQW. That's laughably absurd as a hypothesis.) 

So why not work on your 5e crunch product yourself? You are the only person who seems to know what you are looking for. So who could know better than you? Who could design this better than you? For a number of people, I have seen them look at PF2 as a product that exists in a similar design space, though you have seemingly already written it off because you don't like how they did it. It doesn't seem to matter if it fits the niche you have called for or not, because you you don't like its "feat soup" approach. (That's more player-side crunch by the way.) So why not make a thread where you outline what you want in your dream RPG product and how you would go about doing it? Then you could also see get a tentative sense, albeit from a small population size, about how popular those choices would be.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Aldarc said:


> As either   [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.



 Doesn't sound too much like the winged one, but it certainly wasn't me. Yes, 5e kept a lot of little mechanical details of 4e that were straight-line evolutions or simplifications of 3e, and bowdlerized a few 4e innovations, but, it's mostly true to the classic game in how it actually plays:  it's the DMs game, through & through.

No, if you've heard me go on about 5es great accomplishment, it's this:  it threaded the needle between being acceptable to the most nerdrage-prone segments of its fan base, and accessible to a sufficient fraction of the mainstream to sustain real volume.

Even in an era of nerd chic, with a dramatic TT gaming renaissance underway, that's a huge, and rare, accomplishment.


----------



## Hussar

Nope, that would be me.  The greatest trick WotC pulled off was reskinning 4e and selling it as 5e.  Because, frankly, there's so much of 4e in 5e mechanically.  4e was just as much the DM's game as 5e was since so much of 4e was about reskinning, refluffing and page 42.  I mean, good grief, I never even opened the 4e monster manual because writing up my own monsters was faster and easier.  Something I wish they had kept in 5e.  

But, yeah, I'm watching it right now - a long time 4e player stepping into a 5e table for the first time and being able to pick it up almost instantly.  So much of it is immediately familiar.  They just worded things differently.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar

lowkey13 said:


> Citation needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's good that you're back to the fold!
> 
> But, honestly, as someone who skipped 2e, 3e, AND 4e as being "not D&D enough" and came back to 5e ... I have to say that this is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> If it's close enough for you to 4e, AWESOME! It's close enough to 1e for me.
> 
> ....I think that might have been the point.




Now, when I say it's close to 4e, I'm talking about the mechanics.  2 step resource recovery, a multitude of preroll mechanics, virtually all classes being built around a suite of special abilities (typically spells for most of the classes).  Very little niche protection.  Overnight HP recovery and virtually unkillable PC's.  And that's just off the top of my head.

When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at?  Mechanically, it's a completely different game.  So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at?  Mechanically, it's a completely different game.  So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e?





I don't know what does it for lowkey13, but there's quite a bit to give it a play feel much closer to 1e/2e than either 3e or 4e.

Magic items mathematics not being baked into the system of character power-ups.
Least tied to grid since 2e (which, while not technically 1e, was pretty much 99% compatible with 1e)
Very flexible combat movement rules that match how many people played 1e (even if the formal rules weren't as flexible then)
Fewer distracting and nitpicky advancement options
Bonuses don't go stratospheric thanks to bounded accuracy, which keeps it feeling more like 1e/2e than 3e or 4e
Encounter design isn't so based on the CR du jour of the monster when it comes to making level-appropriate(ish) encounters

Like lowkey13, we too are playing with pre-3e materials in our current 5e campaign. And with the exception of the DM substituting monsters with newer stats, it feels seamless.


----------



## Aldarc

Maybe that's the success of D&D? Everyone thinks that their edition receives enough love that they can play their old games. (Though 4e's presence in 5e must be masked with hushed tones.)


----------



## Jer

Hussar said:


> Now, when I say it's close to 4e, I'm talking about the mechanics.  2 step resource recovery, a multitude of preroll mechanics, virtually all classes being built around a suite of special abilities (typically spells for most of the classes).  Very little niche protection.  Overnight HP recovery and virtually unkillable PC's.  And that's just off the top of my head.
> 
> When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at?  Mechanically, it's a completely different game.  So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e?




I would add to that the fact that everyone has a single proficiency bonus that scales with level at the same rate, rather than different Base Attack Bonuses/THAC0/To-hit charts by class.  5e took the "add 1/2 your level" mechanic from 4e, changed it to (roughly) "add 1/4 your level +1" and nobody blinks at it.  

The "if you're not proficient in it, you don't get to add the bonus" instead of either the traditional "flat penalty for lack of proficiency" or 4e's "you don't get to add the weapon proficiency bonus" rules is probably why, because it puts a fairly high restriction on classes stepping out of their lane while keeping the fiddly math to a minimum.  But it still surprises me that a mechanic that was so contentious in 4e has come over to 5e with few complaints at all.  The skill bonuses work the same way - you're still adding a scaling bonus based on level, but people seem much more fine with it than they were for 4e - maybe because the math is just less obvious? I remember laughing when I realized that in some ways, 5e just stretches out the math for what would have been levels 1-5 in 4e across 20 levels for 5e.  There's a whole lot of 4e DNA in 5e, it's just very well hidden.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Heh heh... and then there's me... who has never felt the that ANY edition of D&D was some massive outlier from any other edition.  5E feels like a lot of 4E, just like a lot of 4E felt like 3E, just like 3E felt a lot like 2E, just like 5E feels like 2E, and 4E felt like 1E etc. etc. etc.

And why is that?  Because I'm one within the branch of the D&D populace for whom the game mechanics are and always have seen _secondary_ to the play experience.  The story, the fluff, the roleplaying of Dungeons & Dragons and the worlds they inhabit have been exceedingly similar in EVERY edition that has been released.  Which is exactly why I keep playing it.  I love what D&D is _away from the math_.

And this is also why I have moved without issue from my start with the Red & Blue Boxes to AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3,5, 4E and now 5E and have never once felt like I had to stick with one over the other or like I was being betrayed by the people making it.  Because quite frankly... specific game mechanics don't really matter and when I play them enough can grow quite stale.  Which is why I'm perfectly happy with game mechanics evolving and changing with every new edition because it means I can work with new and different ways to roll dice and do math while the baseline foundation and essence of the Dungeons & Dragons game remains virtually unchanged even after 40 years.


----------



## CapnZapp

I am honestly baffled someone can think 4E is anywhere near the experience of playing AD&D/d20/5E... but since that seems to be the case, I guess there's nothing else for me to do but take my hat off as well...


----------



## GrahamWills

Returning to the central theme, I'll give my answer not from the "success in the market" point of view as much from the core feel of the game. D&D 3/3.5/PF stressed the simulation side of the game. Things were supposed to Work A Certain Way That Made Sense, and the rules would support that. People would argue about whether things were realistic (hit points anyone?) and we had some overly complex rules in an attempt to make things work "right" (I'm looking at you, grappling).

4E had a different goal; it put the game element up front. It said things like "To be a fun game, all team members should be able to contribute substantially in all scenes", contrasting with previous versions where magic wins because in the world of fantasy, that is what is "realistic". Whereas previous editions were simulations first (from the wargaming roots), with rules supporting it, 4E went all-in on being a game first. 

Some people liked that. They said "OK, a fireball burst is a square. That makes it easy". Others went "that is totally stupid. How can a spell with a radius be a freaking square?". And because most roleplaying game enthusiasts are not actually rules-first people, 4E irritated more people than those who loved it.

5E's success is partly attributable to the general rise in nerd appreciation; it's cool to be into D&D, way more so than it was around 4E's time, so that, for me, is a big factor. But so is the fact that they did a bang-up job of mashing together AD&D's "rules? it's about the story, about cool ways of doing things, about player inventiveness"; 3.5's "this is a simulation of a fantasy world -- if you think it should work a certain way it probably will"; 4e's "this is a game where the rules are fair and well designed". Its telling that no matter which version of D&D you prefer, you see your favorite version in 5E. That's a stellar accomplishment.

So, back to PF2. If PF2 was Paizo's 4E, they would have gone for a strongly one-dimensional way of playing; they would have gone all-in for rules (as 4E did), or simulation, or story. But they haven't. They have looked at what 5E did -- making a deliberately unopinionated game; one that takes classical GNS theory and says "screw this; I can so make a system that does it all". Fantasy is the most successful RPG genre because it is a malleable mix of anything goes in a way that sci-fi or other genres cannot hope to be. 5E doubled down on being that loose, even-handed system that all types of players see good in.

As far as I can tell, PF2 is trying for the exact same kind of thing, but since that would directly compete with Wizards, they have edged to the simulation side a bit more. 13th Age sits just off to the more narrative side of the same spot, so that seems a good decision on their part.

If you want a fantasy game exactly at the middle of al gamers' preferences: 5E. If you want one edging towards narrative elements: 13th Age. If you want one edging towards simulation: PF2. If you want one zooming out to the horizon of gamism -- there's 4E!


----------



## Tony Vargas

GrahamWills said:


> Returning to the central theme, I'll give my answer not from the "success in the market" point of view as much from the core feel of the game. D&D 3/3.5/PF stressed the simulation side of the game. Things were supposed to Work A Certain Way That Made Sense, and the rules would support that. People would argue about whether things were realistic (hit points anyone?)



 The "simulation" angle got reversed at some point, I think.  It stopped being about simulating something that was out there that you could check against for accuracy (like checking your combat rules against SCA re-enactment, or checking your magic rules against RL beliefs in the supernatural or how magic worked in myth/legend/fiction), but, rather, became a matter of treating the game /as/ a simulation of something, /defined wholly & only by how the game simulated it/.

So, hps weren't unrealistic, high level fighters could just take an axe to the face and it'd barely break their skin, /because they had a lotta hps/.  You could perform experiments (I mean, a Dr. Mengele type could) in the fantasy world and derive the existence of hit points, the damage dice of weapons, and so forth, scientifically, from the results.



> 4E had a different goal; it put the game element up front



That was a method more than a goal. The goals were probably varied. But, one thing 4e did was model fiction, fantasy, yes, but even the broader, cinematic 'action' genres.  It was really rather pervasive. Thus, surges, 'powers' that recharged with each scene (short rest/encounter), genre bits - like all the mooks surrounding the Big Damn Hero charging him one at a time to be cut down in an entertainingly-choreographed manner - were given the force of rules, and 'off camera' stuff being hand waved and glossed over instead of meticulously accounted for.



> "To be a fun game, all team members should be able to contribute substantially in all scenes", contrasting with previous versions where magic wins because in the world of fantasy, that is what is "realistic". Whereas previous editions were simulations first (from the wargaming roots), with rules supporting it, 4E went all-in on being a game first.



 Early wargames really were simulations, they were training tools for or hypothetical alternatives to actual war. But the wargaming hobby were people playing games, so they were already a compromise between the concerns of a game - fairness, fun, playability, etc - and the concerns of a simulation - accuracy, completeness, fidelity.  D&D, 'simulating' the un-real, naturally slid more towards game...



> 5E's success is partly attributable to the general rise in nerd appreciation; it's cool to be into D&D, way more so than it was around 4E's time, so that, for me, is a big factor. But so is the fact that they did a bang-up job of mashing together <past editions>



And, TT gaming, in general has been in a renaissance of sorts since oh, 2012 or 14 or so.
 I see it a little differently, though I still see 5e as a great accomplishment:  5e balanced acceptability to it's most vocal old guard, with accessibility to new players.  Thus, new players, drawn to it by nerd-chic, history of the 80s fad, and the TT renaissance weren't put off by violent nerdraging & book burning all over the internet (unlike 4e); and, having tried it, found it something they could actually play and comprehend without too steep learning curve (unlike 3e) or deciphering & fixing up the rules (unlike 1e), so long as the DM was up to the challenge (very much like 1e).

The other major thing 5e did was return to the classic game's faith in the DM:  the DM /is/ the game, he has total control, final responsibility, ultimate authority.  DM Empowerment, in 5e is intentional, in the classic game, it was a necessity.



> So, back to PF2. If PF2 was Paizo's 4E



It would have to be launched into the teeth of the worst recession since the Great Depression, with sales goals double the total of the entire industry, intimately linked to vaporware, and attacked with rabid, unceasing nerdrage by it's most ardent fans, even to the point of burning books on youtube and accosting customers at game stores.

There is just no way PF2 could live down to the 4e legacy of horror.  

But, if it fails commercially?  
Could be a fair metaphor.


----------



## S'mon

OT, I think recessions are usually good for RPGs because they are a cheap hobby. D&D did very well in the early 1980s recession.


----------



## pemerton

GrahamWills said:


> If you want a fantasy game exactly at the middle of al gamers' preferences: 5E. If you want one edging towards narrative elements: 13th Age. If you want one edging towards simulation: PF2. If you want one zooming out to the horizon of gamism -- there's 4E!



Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age. And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF _and_ typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism".

That's not to say that there may not be interesting differences in these systems. Just that they don't really speak to GNS distinctions as those terms were used by The Forge.

EDITed to add:

I think







GrahamWills said:


> If you want a fantasy game exactly at the middle of al gamers' preferences: 5E. If you want one edging towards narrative elements: 13th Age. If you want one edging towards simulation: PF2. If you want one zooming out to the horizon of gamism -- there's 4E!



Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age. And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF _and_ typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism".

That's not to say that there may not be interesting differences in these systems. Just that they don't really speak to GNS distinctions as those terms were used by The Forge.

EDITed to add:

I think there are some systems which produce player characters which have a "concept", an easily-discernible fictional nature or schtick, independently of how the character is played. AD&D aspires to this, even with at least some of its class names - we have paladins, rangers, thieves, assassins, druids, martial arts monks, etc - although in play they can sometimes fail to deliver what they promise (qv thieves, monks).

My sense is that 5e not only aspires to this but generally achieves it.

Whereas in 4e, at least as I've experienced, it's often the case that you don't really know what a character can do - what his/her "concept" is - until you see the character in play. That's not to deny that someone with enough experience (of 4e, and of RPGs in general) to have a good mechanical imagination won't be able to imaginatively project from reading a stat block - but I don't think a newbie can easily do that.

I think this difference between 4e and 5e is not a trivial one. Eg it makes 4e pretty hopeless for "high concept simulationism" RPGing, which - by my estimate - is the single most popular approach to RPGing, and maybe by quite a big margin.

(There's oversimplification here - 4e non-combat works very differently from 4e combat and is closer to "archetype-driven" - but the rules aren't good at explaining how and I think there are many RPGers fro whom the ways in which they're different, and the reasons why, are not terribly intuitive. And because of skill challenges it's still pretty terrible for high concept simulationism)


----------



## GrahamWills

pemerton said:


> Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age



 No. I like the terms because they help describe play styles, but the theory is way off. If you re-read my point, you'll see that I explicitly reject classic GNS theory since I state that 5E does what classic GNS theory says is impossible.



pemerton said:


> And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF _and_ typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism"



 I'm not big into arguing semantics or naming conventions, which is why I alternate terms like "story", "narrative" etc. to make that clear. I've played enough PF and 5E to know that they feel very different, so I'm not compelled by an argument that says they are the same. The forge style "A game must fall into one of these three buckets" is something I reject. I just use GNS as a continuum to say things like "5E is more narrative than PF; PF is more about simulation than 5E" which few people would disagree with (except those who want to argue exact meanings of words). 



pemerton said:


> I think there are some systems which produce player characters which have a "concept", an easily-discernible fictional nature or schtick, independently of how the character is played. AD&D aspires to this, even with at least some of its class names - we have paladins, rangers, thieves, assassins, druids, martial arts monks, etc - although in play they can sometimes fail to deliver what they promise (qv thieves, monks).
> 
> My sense is that 5e not only aspires to this but generally achieves it. Whereas in 4e, at least as I've experienced, it's often the case that you don't really know what a character can do - what his/her "concept" is - until you see the character in play.




This is kind of a weird statement paired with your position of not seeing much of a difference between 4E and 13th Age, since a core strength of 13A is that it uses a slew of narrative features that jump-start the character concept immediately; One Unique Things, Icon Relationships and Aspect-style backgrounds instead of skills. My 13th Age Monk started off

_Suiauthon ("Soo-ee") Half-Elf Monk; Unique Thing: Avoids Water, and Water avoids Him. Positive relationships with the Crusader, Priestess and The Three. Backgrounds: +2 Serene Student of Priestly Lore; +3 Viper Assassin of the Black; +1 Legendary Carousing.
_
Even given you just mis-spoke about 13A and 4E being similar GNS-wise, I'm not sure that your (following) statement is a universal way of getting the concept of a character:



pemerton said:


> That's not to deny that someone with enough experience (of 4e, and of RPGs in general) to have a good mechanical imagination won't be able to imaginatively project from reading a stat block - but I don't think a newbie can easily do that.



Maybe it's that I started playing D&D with AD&D, where if you read a stat block for one fighter, you read them for all of them -- but I have never tried to make a concept from a character based on stats, powers and the like. That feels much more like a simulationist approach -- the rules should define what my character is, based purely on what he can do -- and that's not me. 13A encourages that approach, and games such as Fate make it explicit, but for any form of classic D&D/PF, I need more that a stat block to make that happen.

If you believe that you need stat blocks, powers and other quantified items to define a "high concept" for a character, then clearly early D&D, and the whole OSR community are a failure, which I find hard to believe.  It also argues you need a very rich system, with tons of feats, talents, classes and optional powers, so you can choose the best concept. Again this is hard to square with your dislike of 4E (maybe you think the overabundance make sit too hard for a novice? But even then surely it is better to have too many than too few?)

I might be helpful for you to define what you understand by "high concept" and "high concept simulationism". Is an example of the former "A street-born fighter and liar for justice?" and would the simulationism by embodied by taking powers and skills to support that concept? If so then I guess I'd be curious how you reconcile the complete inability of early D&D and most OSR games to model that concept with their popularity?


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age. And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF _and_ typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism".



 Which, if nothing else, illustrates the value (far worse than useless) and intuitiveness (downright deceptive) of Forge labels.

(And don't say "tell us how you really feel," none of us have that kinda time.)



> That's not to say that there may not be interesting differences in these systems.



Interesting?  Fundamental.  3.5 vs 5e, for instance, is like night and day in certain, extremely critical ways.  Like the role of the DM.  In 3.x, the DM is the custodian of the sacred RaW, picking & choosing from amongst it, & adding to or modifying it if he dares, and the crafter of challenges, using all the system mastery at his command.  In 5e, the DM /is/ the game, the rules are mere guidelines, providing structure for the players, but no impediments to the DM (if, indeed, he ever feels the need to consult them).  Both ask a lot of the DM, but in very different ways.



> I think there are some systems which produce player characters which have a "concept", an easily-discernible fictional nature or schtick, independently of how the character is played. AD&D aspires to this, even with at least some of its class names - we have paladins, rangers, thieves, assassins, druids, martial arts monks, etc



 I'm not sure I'd call it aspirational. It's a restriction on player options.  Later versions of D&D slowly softened those restrictions, both by adding customization options - Kits, NWPs, Feats, Skills, Backgrounds, Themes/PPs/EDs - and by broadening the ability of the player to define his character descriptively - initially some flexibility describing PC appearance, then more complete descriptive freedom extended to gear as well, finally virtually everything being 'skinnable.'

5e's only backed off from a bit from those highs, it retains skills & backgrounds, feats are optional, and, AFAIK, players are still free to describe the physical appearance of characters & their gear how they like. So, while choice of class might be more a straightjacket than in 3e or 4e, it still leaves more room for customization than in the classic game, even 2e.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> 3.5 vs 5e, for instance, is like night and day in certain, extremely critical ways.  Like the role of the DM.  In 3.x, the DM is the custodian of the sacred RaW, picking & choosing from amongst it, & adding to or modifying it if he dares, and the crafter of challenges, using all the system mastery at his command.  In 5e, the DM /is/ the game, the rules are mere guidelines, providing structure for the players, but no impediments to the DM (if, indeed, he ever feels the need to consult them).  Both ask a lot of the DM, but in very different ways.



I suspect there are many tables where this contrast doesn't hold. I mean, even on these boards I see lots of thread asking what the rules for XYZ are in 5e. And back in the day I saw plenty of 3E-playing posters decrying obsessive adherence to "RAW" and advocating for "rules of cool" and the like.



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not sure I'd call it aspirational. It's a restriction on player options.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 5e's only backed off from a bit from those highs, it retains skills & backgrounds, feats are optional, and, AFAIK, players are still free to describe the physical appearance of characters & their gear how they like. So, while choice of class might be more a straightjacket than in 3e or 4e, it still leaves more room for customization than in the classic game, even 2e.



I'm not talking about customisation. I'm talking about the degree to which the PC build process yields high level, easily accessible "descriptors" that can be taken to tell us what the PC is/does.

AD&D aims to have this in many of the classes. 5e aims to have this across all game elements (it's what Mearls meant when he talked about merging "mechanics" and "story" in PC build elements). 4e doesn't have this - the "story"/descriptor of a 4e PC is an output of action declaration and resolution and isn't intutively accesible independently of that (unless you have a strongly internallised understanding of the mechanics and how they play, so you can read the "story" off a stat block).

Notions of "customisation" of flexibiity of PC build are only tangentially related to the phenomenon I'm describing.


----------



## pemerton

GrahamWills said:


> I might be helpful for you to define what you understand by "high concept" and "high concept simulationism".



By "high concept simulationism" I mean what The Forge means - as eg per this essay by Ron Edwards. Game systems that are generally oriented towards such play include DL-ish AD&D, CoC, Vampire: the Masquerade, and a fair bit of PF-ish/5e-ish Adventure Path play.

When I talk about PC with a concept I'm meaning PCs that are easily graspable as falling under some genre-salient description. Han Solo as the "rogue with a heart of gold" would be a pretty well-known example.



GrahamWills said:


> If you believe that you need stat blocks, powers and other quantified items to define a "high concept" for a character, then clearly early D&D, and the whole OSR community are a failure
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I guess I'd be curious how you reconcile the complete inability of early D&D and most OSR games to model that concept with their popularity?



I don't really follow this. It's imputing things to me that I didn't say.

Moldvay Basic makes it incredibly easy to (at least aspire to) play a rogue with a heart of gold - you write Thief on your PC sheet and tell everyone, or maybe show them through play, that your thief is well-meaning and ultimately loyal even if a bit of a rascal. In AD&D you can reinforce this by writing CG in your alignment box.

I use the language of aspiration because in Moldvay Basic and AD&D if the GM is following the rules then your thief might find it hard to succeed in roguish things due to the well-known mechanical suckitude of low-level thieves. In 5e this issue, as best I can tell, largely goes away for reason to do with (i) better success numbers on the PC sheet, and (ii) a slightly different approach to framing and adjudication of checks which [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has posted about just upthread.



GrahamWills said:


> This is kind of a weird statement paired with your position of not seeing much of a difference between 4E and 13th Age



I didn't say that. I said that - and you quoted me as saying that - "Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age." You suggested that 13th Age is "narrativist" and 4e is "gamist", but in The Forge sense the two systems exhibit no such contrast. And in fact, if anything, I would say that the existence of skill challenges in 4e and their absence from 13th Age makes 4e more suited for mainstream scene-framing narrativist play, while the presence of Icon rolls in 13th Age makes it easier to push that game in the direction of high-concept simulationism (whereas, as I posted, I think that's almost hopeless for 4e because too many of the system elements, including the skill challenge mechanic, will push against it).



GrahamWills said:


> I've played enough PF and 5E to know that they feel very different, so I'm not compelled by an argument that says they are the same.



Again, I didn't say they're the same. Just that I don't think there is any significant GNS difference in respect of them.

To give a parallel exampel: In Forge terms Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant and The Dying Earth are all narrativist systems. But they all feel different in play - I suspect more different than 5e and PF. That doesn't stop them all being narrrativist. GNS isn't the only classification used by The Forge to describe games, and it's not intended at all to describe the "feel" of play, as opposed to something like the "goal" of play at a certain abstract level of description.

But if you're using GNS is some other fashion then The Forge's use, well I'm not famiilar with what that is but presumalby you're using those terms as you mean to.



GrahamWills said:


> this is hard to square with your dislike of 4E



This is another point where I have no idea what you're talking about. 4e is the only version of D&D I've payed regularly in the past 20 years and the only one I would play again (except perhaps for one or two sessions of AD&D a year for nostalgia's sake).

I didn't express any dislike of it and didn't make any criticisms of it. I observed a feature of it that I think - based on pretty extensive play experience and discusion - is pretty significant in understanding how it can be played. And my claim that it is not suitable for high concept play is - in my view - reinforced by the fact that nearly every poster on these boards who (as best I can interpret their preferences) likes high concept D&D play either dislikes or hates 4e.

(There are a few exceptions but that's nearly always the case in human affairs.)


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> Game systems that are generally oriented towards such play include AD&D, CoC, Vampire: the Masquerade...



Three radically dissimilar games.



> I didn't say that. I said that - and you quoted me as saying that - "Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does,



So, if you use it to "confuse, inveigle and obfuscate..."*



pemerton said:


> I'm not talking about customisation. I'm talking about the degree to which the PC build process yields high level, easily accessible "descriptors" that can be taken to tell us what the PC is/does.



So if you take all those various customization options, and pick one possible set of them, they yield exactly one possible concept?  Still sounds restrictive vs being able to stand in for multiple concepts that accomplish the same things, but in different ways.

So is that the point, that is/does is tightly coupled?  

You /are/ this, so you can only /do/ that.  
You do /this/, so you can only /be/ that.


----------



## Manbearcat

> Originally Posted by *pemerton*
> 
> _Game systems that are generally oriented towards such play include AD&D, CoC, Vampire: the Masquerade..._



_

_


Tony Vargas said:


> Three radically dissimilar games.




Only very, very tacitly following this thread, but this caught my eye in a "what in the world...?" sort of way.

I think this may in fact be a source of dissonance that you and I have in some of these conversations, particularly where it pertains to The Forge and, more specifically, "system matters."

The most fundamental core mechanic of VtM and White Wolf games is "The Golden Rule" or "there are no rules" or, apropos, "system doesn't matter." 

 @_*pemerton*_ is referring to AD&D 2e above (surely), not 1e.  AD&D 2e went all-in on this ethos (unlike OD&D, 1e, and B/X).  CoC does as well.  The lifeblood of those three gaming systems are overwhelmingly GM Force and opacity, inadequacy, incoherency, or impotency of action resolutions mechanics (which, not coincidentally force multiplies the "heavy GM mediation/Force is required to make this game work" angle), where GM latitude is at its utter apex (in all the history of TTRPGs) and subordination or outright ignoring action resolution mechanics/outcomes so the GM can curate the play experience at their discretion is the most fundamental aspect and energy of play.  

Quite literally, those 3 systems probably have more to do with why The Forge was created than anything else.

If you look at a modern indie game like Blades in the Dark, you see, the utter antithesis of the GMing and design ethos of games like AD&D 2e, CoC, and VtM.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Manbearcat said:


> I think this may in fact be a source of dissonance that you and I have in some of these conversations, particularly where it pertains to The Forge and, more specifically, "system matters."



I get plenty of dissonance from The Forge.  I mean, if the Forge were trying to tell you "roll a d20, you want high," it would take 12000 words, and /none/ of those words would in any way refer to dice, the number of faces on them, nor the target for success - but, they'd sum it up in a completely nonsensical label at the end, so Forgites could say, IDK, "Confirm Brisance" when they mean "roll d20 you want high," and then link you to the 12k word Ron Edwards opus that fails to explain that's what it means.

(And, no, I'm not going to tell you how I really feel, I'm going to enjoy my 4-day weekend.)



> The most fundamental core mechanic of VtM and White Wolf games is "The Golden Rule" or "there are no rules" or, apropos, "system doesn't matter."



 The Wolfie no-rule is hardly a /mechanic/, but sure, more or less.  They also famously said "Bad rules make good games!" so it's not that system doesn't matter, it's that systems should suck, to /force/ the GMs to override them and the players to angle for that as much as possible.




> pemerton is referring to AD&D 2e above (surely), not 1e.



While 1e wasn't /trying/ to be a system so bad that playing it would train everyone to accept and rely on the DM's judgement & ultimate authority, it still prettymuch got there.







> AD&D 2e went all-in on this ethos.  CoC does as well.



It's the height of irony that anyone would conclude that AD&D 2e and Storyteller have anything in common.  They fought their own bitter precursor to the edition war, the ROLL v ROLE debate, through much of the 90s, on the basis that they were absolute polar opposites, with D&D the deformed poster child for all-rules-all-the-time ROLLplaying and Storyteller the glorious paragon of ROLEplaying, GHoD* Complex notwithstanding.

Not that D&D and Storyteller don't both throw everything at the feet of the DM and demand he fix it, but just that's it's the freak'n Height of Irony.

CoC (and BRP in general), though, not see'n it s'much.  % skills, not so weird nor requiring of constant intervention as all that.  And, as questionable as much of 2e was, it was less incoherent (in the English meaning of the word, not the Forgelish) than 1e.



> The lifeblood of those three gaming systems are overwhelmingly GM Force and opacity, inadequacy, incoherency, or impotency of action resolutions mechanics (which, not coincidentally force multiplies the "heavy GM mediation/Force is required to make this game work" angle), where GM latitude is at its utter apex (in all the history of TTRPGs) and subordination or outright ignoring action resolution mechanics/outcomes so the GM can curate the play experience at their discretion is the most fundamental aspect and energy of play.



With the exception of articles and conjunctions, I'm guessing not one word of that actually means what it sounds like it means.  Because Forge.  



> Quite literally, those 3 systems probably have more to do with why The Forge was created than anything else.



I'll /try/ not to hold it against them.
















* Great Handfuls of Dice.  In some storyteller games you could get really large dice pools together, and if you could twink** out a low difficulty somehow, an egregious number of successes. But, apparently, the GM was supposed to ignore the 17 HL you just did to the 8-HL target who only soaked 5, and just narrate it the same as if you'd hit him with a feather duster.

** Yeah, I wondered about that, too, first time I heard it but, no, different meaning:  for some unknowable reason the Storyteller community in the 90s used 'twinky' or 'twink' as either verb or now when talking about muchnkins, powergaming and what would come to be known more politely as system mastery.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - just adding to what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] posted, which I fully agree with (except to add that 1st ed AD&D also started heading in the same direction in the post-DL era).

The Forge isn't trying to explain your experience with CoC vs V:tM, and why you found them similar or different. It's offering an analytic vocabulary for talking about RPG design, and some features of RPG play. It's no more "confusing, inveigling or obfuscating" than is a chemist who tells you that coal and diamond are the same stuff, or Newton who tells you that an object falling to earth and a planet orbiting the sun is the same physical phenomenon, or an anthropologist who tells you that reigious practices among neolithic people and grief counselling in its contemporary Californian manifestation play the same social function.

If you're not interested in that sort of analysis then that's fine, but as far as I can see it doesn't give any reason to complain about it. It's not like Ron Edwards dropped by your house and told you that yuo had to read his essays or else he'd steal your dice!

For my money, it's sufficient evidence that The Forge's analysis is largely sound that Ron Edwards, in an essay published c 2003 predicted, almost down to the last full stop and comma, the features of 4e that generate visceral hostillity from simulationist-inclined players (again I'm using "simulationism" in The Forge sense), which is the majority of RPGers, more-or-less from the moment it was published.

In any event, the sorts of differences in the feel of play that I tend to see discussed on these boards - like degree of "search-and-handling" required (compare, say, grappling in 3E to searching for a secret door in AD&D); or whether players have authorial power over aspects of the fiction that doesn't correlate to their PC's exercise of causal power in the fiction (what The Forge calls "director stance"); or whether metagame mechanics are prominent or minimal more generally; or whether PC build is a column A, column B approach (eg race and class) or something else, or is stat+skill based or something else, or is level-based or something else - have no bearing on whether a game facilitiates narrativist, simulationist or gamist play in The Forge sense. Againm that's typically because the discussion on these boards nearly always assumes a broadly simulationist goal of play. (Sometimes you see openly gamist goals advocated, but those posters often get dogpiled for being "power gamers" and even the gamist posters on these boards tend to have a healthy simulationist aesthetic often inspired by the similar combination of S with G found in Gygaxian AD&D.)

Now the previous paragraph isn't saying that such matters are unimportant. Nor that The Forge has nothing to say about them. But if you want to learn about a chemist's account of the difference between coal and diamond you wouldn't look in the index under "Elements" or "Periodic Table". You'd look for their account of allotropes, of the relationship between molecular and bonding structure one the one hand, and reflectivity and hardness on the other, etc.

So if you want to talk about the difference in feel between (say) CoC and V:tM, look to The Forge's account of IIEE, or of colour and setting and situation, or various forms of participationism. Not to its account of GNS.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> The Forge is no more "confusing, inveigling or obfuscating" than is a chemist who tells you that coal and diamond are the same stuff



 Seems more like an alchemist trying to explain it  by alluding to Greek mythology. 

"Just a beautious Aphrodite from her shell, to twisted Hephaestus by his Forge is we'd, so flammable coal to the infammable diamond."
"But, flammable and infammable are synonyms."
"Not in the Forge sense. "



> (again I'm using "simulationism" in The Forge sense),



 That you need that parenthetical is indicative of the problem.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> That you need that parenthetical is indicative of the problem.



The reason for the parenthetical is that most posters on ENworld who use the terms GNS don't use them as The Forge does. (Similarly they don't use the term "fail forward" in the way those who coined it did. In both cases its because discussion on ENworld doesn't typically incorporate an appreciation of the approaches to RPGing that underpinned the coinage of these various terms.)

In typical ENworld usage, "S" means something like what The Forge calls "Purist for system simulationism", "N" means something like what The Forge calls "High concept simulationism" but can also be used to describe a game with player-side metagame mechanics, and "G" means something like "has resolution processes with high search-and-handling time" or "has lots of metagame resolution" or "doesn't straightforwardly allow the GM to decide outcomes by narrative fiat".

Maybe you find the usage in the previous paragraph helpful. Personally I don't, but that's because I want an analytic vocabulary that can do more then tell me that 5e is mechanically crunchier and has more player-side metagame than does CoC (notice how I can make _that_ point without needing to use any GNS terminology at all). For my part I have learned a lot from The Forge. It explained more to me about Rolemaster, a game that I played for nearly 20 years, then anything on the official ICE forums. And as I already posted, it anticipated of all the criticisms that 4e faced from its critics - anyone who'd read the relevant material on The Forge, and saw what was being announced in the lead up to 4e and the response on these boards, could see what was going exactly what was going on and write the script for the next 4 years.

Why does 5e not receive the same criticisms as 4e? In my view, primarily because it is packaged as a high concept simulationist game, which remains the most popular approach among RPGers.

I get that you are very opposed to analysis of RPGing. That doesn't make analysis wicked or wrong.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> The reason for the parenthetical is that most posters on ENworld who use the terms GNS don't use them as The Forge does. .



 I don't blame ENWorlders for that.  The Forge should've  picked labels that made an iota of sense.  Then the meaning might not have drifted so far.


> In typical ENworld usage, "S" means something like what The Forge calls "Purist for system



 Doesn't help.
How I've seen it used aground here seems something like "compromises desirable qualities of a game the way a simulation would."


> "N" means a game with player-side metagame mechanics, and "G" means  "doesn't straightforwardly allow the GM to decide outcomes by  fiat".



Better.
Try explaining the Forge senses so concisely.



> I get that you are very opposed to analysis of RPGing. That doesn't make analysis wicked or wrong.



 I'm just opposed to bad analysis, applied prejudicially.


----------



## Aldarc

Tony Vargas said:


> I don't blame ENWorlders for that.  The Forge should've  picked labels that made an iota of sense.  Then the meaning might not have drifted so far.



They likely did make more sense then in their community, but (1) a lot of this was getting hammered out because it weren't terms, and (2) a lot of the waters were muddied by people - typically critics - who took those terms and ran with them in different directions, often as if they were monolithic preferences: "That game is gamist - and gamism is bad - but I prefer simulationist games, which is good." 

So what alternative labels do you offer that would be more suitable?  



> I'm just opposed to bad analysis, applied prejudicially.



It's a miracle then that you haven't deleted your own account.  

But let's approach this from another angle. You don't like GNS or find it inadequate for the analysis of TTRPGs. That's fair. What's your better alternative? This is largely the problem we are collectively facing. There are a lot of people who badmouth GNS, the Forge, or Ron Edwards' ideas, but I haven't really encountered too many offering alternative terms, concepts, or approaches for the discourse. Even a lot of the OSR community that sometimes speaks about Forge with disdain, also will find themselves engaging in discourse about games using the Forge's own framing. 

More importantly, WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT does any of this actually have to do about whether "Pathfinder 2 is Paizo's 4e"?!


----------



## Jer

Aldarc said:


> More importantly, WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT does any of this actually have to do about whether "Pathfinder 2 is Paizo's 4e"?!




That question was answered when the OP titled the thread.  Because on the Internet "if the headline of an article is a question, then the answer to that question is 'No'".


----------



## Tony Vargas

Aldarc said:


> as if they were monolithic preferences: "That game is gamist - and gamism is bad - but I prefer simulationist games, which is good."



 That's certainly one of the things that soured me on the Forge.
But, it seems built into the Forge paradigm, that division of the hobby into monolithic preferences, since they label a game that's not sufficiently committed to perching on one monolith "incoherent."


> So what alternative labels do you offer that would be more suitable?



 "WARNING: The Forge contains elitist psuedo-intellectual circumlocutions known by the state of CA to cause cancer or reproductive harm."  Or, whatever the UK or EU equivalent would be...



> What's your better alternative?



 TTRPGs are a relatively new sub-set of gaming, as are videogames, but, the latter industry is orders of magnitude larger, and has attracted far more of the available intellectual as well as financial capital.  
At least some of the answers we're groping about for like late-medieval alchemists, may have already been found by the well-funded metaphorical chemists, over there. 

Heresy, I know.




> does any of this actually have to do about whether "Pathfinder 2 is Paizo's 4e"?!



Well, apparently Ron was the Cassandra who predicted word-for-word the spurious edition war complaints that would be leveled at 4e - not just someone who compiled a lot of erudite-sounding-complaints that edition warriors later dug up and hurled randomly - so maybe examination of his texts could divine the fate of PF2, as well.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> Try explaining the Forge senses so concisely.



_Gamism_ = RPGing with win conditions. Gygaxian dungeoneering is an example. Supers-type RPGing where the Hulk has to beat up on the Thing to save the day is probably another. And I susspect a fair bit of Rifts play is like this also. Stuff that matters in design includes GM fairness and, in crunch-heavy systems, broken builds.

_Simulationism_ = RPGing in which the players' goals is to "be there" - either in the world as it plays out through the mechanics (eg a lot of RM, Runequest and Classic Traveller), or in the world as it plays out through the GMs story/scenario (eg CoC, much post-DL D&D play, V:tM, and basically anything that follows The Alexandrian's advice around "node-based design" or "the three clue rule").

_Narrativism_ (once called _Dramatism_ in some discussion, but Jonathan Tweet had already coined that term for a different purpose in his game Everway and so Ron Edwards out of deference to Tween coined a new term) = RPGing where the goal, in play, is to _create_ story experiences that are recognisably stories in the sense in which novels and films are stories, and an account of what I had for lunch yesterday probably isnt. So sequences of events that exhibit pacing, theme, rising action and climax, etc - _where this is not pre-established by a GM or module writer_ but is done collectively at the table using the classic RPGing devices of players playing characters through the GM's world/situation. An early example is Prince Valiant. The best-known contemporary examples are probably Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World and many of its offshoots. My favourite version of such a system is Burning Wheel.

A group of us on these boards - me, [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and some others - think that of all versions of D&D, 4e is the best suited for narrativist play; and that independently of comparisons to other versions of D&D, it's well-suited to narrativist play. The features of the system that underpin that are the same features that make it poorly-suited for simulationist play, and that therefore make it unpopular with many RPGers.

Whatever the commercial fate of Paizo's PF2, I've seen no evidence that PF2 is intended to be, or will be, a good game for narrativist purposes. But I haven't been following that closely; maybe [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has a different view or can shed more light.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> _Gamism_ = RPGing with win conditions.



  Well, your win conditions for this post are to be concise,  so thats one out of three, right out the gate.  

RPGs grew out if wargaming, which often had victory conditions as part of a given scenario.  RPGs tend to be more cooperative,  but cooperative games can certainly have such conditions, too.



> Stuff that matters in design includes GM fairness and, in crunch-heavy systems, broken builds.



 Matters in the sense of desirable?



> _Simulationism_ = RPGing in which the players' goals is to "be there" - either in the world as it plays out through the mechanics (eg a lot of RM, Runequest and Classic Traveller), or in the world as it plays out through the GMs story/scenario (eg CoC, much post-DL D&D play, V:tM,).



Technically one sentence, but not a concise one, and I'm not sure I decoded it correctly.  
To be clear: an actual simulation (especially one that wasn't first-person) could easily fail to be "simulationist."  Similarly,  a game could be very successfully "simulationist," even if all it's mechanics were extremely poor simulations of the things they purported to model.

So it's an outright confusing, obfuscating label. 
(IDK if it inveigles, I just tossed that in for the X-Files reference.)

I mean, if were being concise, it's the immerssions, isn't it?  



> _Narrativism_ = RPGing where the goal, in play, is to _create_ story experiences that are recognisably stories in the sense in which novels and films are stories. So sequences of events that exhibit pacing, theme, rising action and climax, etc - _where this is not pre-established by a GM or module writer_ but is done collectively at the table using the classic RPGing devices of players playing characters through the GM's world/situation.




Can't really give that points for concise.  But it's clear. It also explicitly excludes the most obvious way to create a story in an RPG. Ironically, also looks like it tries to exclude Storyteller, a system that tries so hard to model stories it calls it's resolution mechanics drama systems, and it's encounters scenes.

See, I'd think a narrativist RPG would be going for modeling stories, without any particular restrictions on how.  But, really, that's trying to be a good simulation of a genre or story....


> A group of us on these boards  think that of all versions of D&D, 4e is the best suited for narrativist play;
> Whatever the commercial fate of Paizo's PF2, I've seen no evidence that PF2 is intended to be, or will be, a good game for narrativist purposes.



 I doubt very much there was any intent to make any version of D&D or PF conform to any sort of Forge label.

The only plausible metaphor strikes me as the commercial success one:  Though I doubt PF2 will have a 100 mil stretch goal, even in this much more lively RPG market.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> a game could be very successfully "simulationist," even if all it's mechanics were extremely poor simulations of the things they purported to model.
> 
> So it's an outright confusing, obfuscating label.



Physicists call the heat given of by a burning match "work". Even though no one is doing any work. Most jargon has an origin that explains where it came from even though the present use of the jargon wouldn't reveal that.



Tony Vargas said:


> I mean, if were being concise, it's the immerssions, isn't it?



Immersion is often used to describe a mental state. A person can play a Paizo AP and be engaged in the world of the story without entering that mental state, I think.



Tony Vargas said:


> It also explicitly excludes the most obvious way to create a story in an RPG. Ironically, also looks like it tries to exclude Storyteller



It's not _ironic_. As [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] already posted, a significant, perhaps primary, driver of The Forge was to try and understand why Storyteller - especially V:tM - sucks if your goal in RPGing is to create story via play in the way I described. And then to design games that didn't suck in the same way.



Tony Vargas said:


> See, I'd think a narrativist RPG would be going for modeling stories, without any particular restrictions on how.  But, really, that's trying to be a good simulation of a genre or story....



Someone might classify both basketball and croquet as ball sports, but I'm not sure that's going to take us very far. Whereas I can see how comparing basket ball and rugby makes sense (and if you combined them you might even come up with something that resembles Australian football).

Because RPGing invovles multiple participants, most of whom are in the "player"/"protagonist" role, it turns out that the difference between _playing through a pre-established story_ and _generating a story via play_ is pretty fundamental. If you're into the latter, the former is something you need to learn identify and avoid even if has the label "storyteller" on it. If you're into the former, then most players who prefer the latter are going to register on your "problem player" meter, as they won't just sit back and go along for the ride . . .



Tony Vargas said:


> I doubt very much there was any intent to make any version of D&D or PH conform to any sort of Forge label.



Much as most cooks don't set out to anything in particular from the point of view of chemistry - they just try and make nice food. Chemistry might still help us understand what it is they're doing.

It's possible to talk about the sort of play that (say) 5e supports well or poorly whether or not its designers were thinking about that at the time they designed it.


----------



## Hussar

No horse in this race, but, it's kinda interesting anyway.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Matters in the sense of desirable?




No.  Matters in the sense that there will be mechanics in place to deal with this element.  Thus, broken builds matter in a gamist game because they violate the win conditions - the same way that using a cheat code or an exploit in a video game violates the nature of the game.

In non-gamist games, broken builds don't matter because the "win" conditions don't exist.  Thus, a Doctor Who rpg can have the Doctor adventuring with all the companions and it's okay, despite the fact that the Doctor player has vastly more resources to call upon.


----------



## LostSoul

Tony Vargas said:


> Try explaining the Forge senses so concisely.




G = Try to win.
S = Fit in with the game world.
N = Show what you'd do in a moral dilemma.


----------



## JeffB

As a fan of 4e, and not 3.5, I absolutely  do hope that PF2e is Paizo's 4e to its 3.5 (PF1) 

I disliked the playtest. But the gameplay in Oblivion Oath has got me pretty excited to see it. It seems to be, like 4e, a game that plays better than it reads.

We shall see.


----------



## billd91

Tony Vargas said:


> Technically one sentence, but not a concise one, and I'm not sure I decoded it correctly.
> To be clear: an actual simulation (especially one that wasn't first-person) could easily fail to be "simulationist."  Similarly,  a game could be very successfully "simulationist," even if all it's mechanics were extremely poor simulations of the things they purported to model.
> 
> So it's an outright confusing, obfuscating label.




It certainly has always been one of my annoyances with Forge-speak. It confuses when the labels chosen by Edwards and his disciples are easily and intuitably used to describe game mechanics and their trade-offs in designing a good game yet their meanings substantially contrast.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> No horse in this race, but, it's kinda interesting anyway.



 I think the horse I have in it is still hitched to a plow.


> Matters in the sense that there will be mechanics in place to deal with this element.  Thus, broken builds matter in a gamist game because they violate the win conditions - the same way that using a cheat code or an exploit in a video game violates the nature of the game.



 Yet, rewards for system mastery seem like they'd be aligned with that agenda. .


> In non-gamist games, broken builds don't matter because the "win" conditions don't exist.



 Win conditions might be set in any scenario,  and could be cooperative.  But I'm not so sure broken characters aren't still an issue without them - dominating play is dominating play, regardless.



pemerton said:


> Physicists call the heat given of by a burning match "work". Even though no one is doing any work.



 Even in physics sense, work involves moving objects.  If the system under consideration is just a burning match, no work is being done.
There are plenty of examples of physics jargon that are just a matter of being named after someone or just completely arbitrary. Few, though are intentionally deceptive...


> Immersion is often used to describe a mental state. A person can play a Paizo AP and be engaged in the world of the story without entering that mental state, I think.



 It seems as or more suggestive of the concept than simulation.


> It's not _ironic_. As [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] already posted, a significant, perhaps primary, driver of The Forge was to try and understand why Storyteller - especially V:tM - sucks if your goal in RPGing is to create story via play in the way I described.



I have an impression that the Forge banged out GNS as a refinement of three-fold theory, which itself,  came from the false dichotomy of the Roll v Role debate.
Also, the Forge always struck me as a coterie of unsuccessful,* aspiring, & armchair game designers, trying to understand, in terms of game design, why the RPG hobby got so niche in the 90s, how Storyteller led the hobby, only to return to D&D dominance with d20, in spite of spits of D&D and ST both being execrably-designed systems.
A problem with that being that they were marketing & sociology questions, not game-design questions.



> Someone might classify both basketball and croquet as ball sports, but I'm not sure that's going to take us very far



 It's at least using both terms intuitively.  Both can be played competatively, both use balls.  They're distinct from, say, Track & field or Olympic swimming or fencing.
A comparably broad term might be TTRPG.



> Because RPGing invovles multiple participants, most of whom are in the "player"/"protagonist" role, it turns out that the difference between _playing through a pre-established story_ and _generating a story via play_ is pretty fundamental.



 I can't agree.  A skillful GM could deliver a player experience while  running the players through a pre-established story that would be industinguishable from one generated organically from play.


> If you're into the latter, the former is something you need to learn identify and avoid even if has the label "storyteller" on it.



 Not that storyteller is a great, or even functional system, nor that it would be some great injustice to shun it...
...But that sure sounds like sorting games into monolithic categories and judging them.



> Much as most cooks don't set out to anything in particular from the point of view of chemistry - they just try and make nice food. Chemistry might still help us understand what it is they're doing.



 Chemistry has a couple centuries of scientific rigour behind it. The Forge was a few years of opinionated word-wrangling in a veritable echo-chamber.


> It's possible to talk about the sort of play that (say) 5e supports well or poorly whether or not its designers were thinking about that at the time they designed it.



It should be, but the Forge and GNS have not facilitated that sort of analysis.

For instance, 5e is not great for PvP, but with a sufficiently fair & impartial DM, its doable.  5e is not great for telling a collaborative story, but with a wise & open enough DM, it's doable.   5e is not great for creating an immersive 1st-person experience, but an expressive DM with high social intelligence could pull it off.
It's not the GNS segregation of preferences that helpfully characterizes or describes it, it's qualities of the system that empower the DM that're defining.



hawkeyefan said:


> Why would a DM ever say “you lose 50 HP for no reason muhuhahahah!”?
> .



 I think the villain laugh is your answer.

Seriously though, hp loss can be used, arbitrarily, by the DM as a stick to shove a misbehaving player back in line, or punish inappropriate RP.  It's crude code for "I'll throw you out of the game," but I've seen it done - back in the day - and even seen it work.  By the same token there are RP carrots DMs can arbitrarily give out as rewards.  There are even formal systems for them, like 5e inspiration.

Besides, hps can include factors like luck,  fate, divine favor or the like that the DM could claim control over.






* relative to the success of D&D in the fad years - or today - or Storyteller in the 90s.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> Win conditions might be set in any scenario



In narrativist play the notion of setting win conditions is complicated at best. The notion of "scenario", as opposed to "situation", can also be problematic.



Tony Vargas said:


> There are plenty of examples of physics jargon that are just a matter of being named after someone or just completely arbitrary. Few, though are intentionally deceptive



I don't think Ron Edwards et al intended to be "deceptive". Who are they trying to deceive? Every one of the major essays has a glossary appended; the major essays set out in detail what is meant to be conveyed by various terms; the forum posts are long and anaytical - there's not even _deception_, let alone any _intention_ to deceive.



Tony Vargas said:


> the Forge always struck me as a coterie of unsuccessful,* aspiring, & armchair game designers



You mean like Ron Edwards, Paul Czege, Vincent Baker and Luke Crane? I wish I could have that kind of un-success in my chosen profession!



Tony Vargas said:


> trying to understand, in terms of game design, why the RPG hobby got so niche in the 90s, how Storyteller led the hobby, only to return to D&D dominance with d20, in spite of spits of D&D and ST both being execrably-designed systems.
> A problem with that being that they were marketing & sociology questions, not game-design questions.



(1) Nothing I've ever read there has given me this impression. I read discussions of game design and game play.

(2) The conclusion of Ron Edwards's essay "A Hard Look at Dungeons and Dragons" (mid-2003):

I don't know whether I'll ever get to further discussion of the history of D&D; in many ways, it's out of my sphere of interest except in strictly marketing and industry terms, and I don't have much personal history either as player or professional to draw upon.​
To be honest, I think you might be projecting. _You_ are the one who is fascinated by the market
dominance of games that you regard as poorly designed.



Tony Vargas said:


> For instance, 5e is not great for PvP, but with a sufficiently fair & impartial DM, its doable.  5e is not great for telling a collaborative story, but with a wise & open enough DM, it's doable.   5e is not great for creating an immersive 1st-person experience, but an expressive DM with high social intelligence could pull it off.
> It's not the GNS segregation of preferences that helpfully characterizes or describes it, it's qualities of the system that empower the DM that're defining.



I don't know if you intend this as analysis. To me, all it's saying is that you think a GM-driven game can kinda-sorta do the stuff the GM wants. I could substitute GURPS, AD&D, Rolemaster, even T&T into your statement and the claims would still be true.

That's not analysis of system at all, just an assertion about how high-concept simulationism or some relativey narrow forms of gamism are possible if we ignore the actual mechanics of the game system.



Tony Vargas said:


> A skillful GM could deliver a player experience while  running the players through a pre-established story that would be industinguishable from one generated organically from play.



This claim is false, and as far as I know has not a shred of evidence to support it.

I see it made quite often, but only by people who have no experience with narrativist-style play.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> In narrativist play the notion of setting win conditions is complicated at best. The notion of "scenario", as opposed to "situation", can also be problematic.



 Is it that complicated to have a win/lose scenario w/in a larger story arc?  Either a win or loss could advance the plot and reveal or develop things about the characters.



> I don't think Ron Edwards et al intended to be "deceptive". Who are they trying to deceive?



We could be charitable, and grant that it was just /used/ deceptively out in the wild.  



> This claim is false, and as far as I know has not a shred of evidence to support it.



 I can't ask you to prove a negative,  so what would you consider "support?"


> I see it made quite often, but only by people who have no experience with narrativist-style play.



  You seem to think 4e at least /can/ fall into that category, and you can't doubt I have experience of that. 

But, really, aren't the GNS labels /not/ supposed to be exclusionary us-v-them categories?


----------



## Hussar

I'm no big fan of GNS theory, mostly because bringing it up tends to be like invoking Tolkien in RPG discussions - it's the geek version of Godwinning a thread and more time gets spent debating the theory than actually using it.  

But, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I do think you are way off base here.  GNS theory is not exclusionary at all.  It's, as [MENTION=81242]Lost Soul[/MENTION] above pointed out very concisely, simply a descriptive system for talking about the differences between RPG's.  

It's what you point to when someone calls 4e boardgamey or videogamey.  You can actually point to how 4e leverages so many of the mechanics - page 42 being a prime example, plus the transparency of the mechanics themselves - in service to creating games where moral dilemmas are far more important than, say, the kill and loot cycle of heavily gamist 3e where the point of killing monsters is to gain loot and xp to let you kill bigger monsters.  

Note, D&D, at least in Forge terms, is not really a good example of pure forms.  You can certainly play 4e as a pure gamist game where you kill your way to the top.  Absolutely can.  And, frankly, you can nudge it pretty close to simulationist play with a few twists of a couple of dials.  D&D is such a huge game that it's more about how a given table uses the mechanics than what the game itself is pushing.

Which differentiates D&D from most other RPG's.  Most other RPG's are interested in providing pretty singular experiences.  Everyone playing Call of Cthulhu  has a pretty good idea of what's coming when they sit down to play.  It's not like you're suddenly going to venture off into starting a business and the mechanics of running a company in CoC.  Which you certainly could do in any version of D&D.  

But, claiming that Forge criticisms are deceptive or even obfuscatory is not really valid.  The criticisms are pretty straight forward for anyone with even a passing familiarity.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Hussar said:


> It's not like you're suddenly going to venture off into starting a business and the mechanics of running a company in CoC.  Which you certainly could do in any version of D&D.




If there aren't skill feats for legendary level shop keeps, I'll be sorely disappointed...


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> Is it that complicated to have a win/lose scenario w/in a larger story arc?



The issue is _framing it_, in advance, as a scenario with win conditions. That can very easily butt up against the notion of establishing a story _through play_ as opposed to _playing through a pre-established story_.



Tony Vargas said:


> Tony Vargas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A skillful GM could deliver a player experience while running the players through a pre-established story that would be industinguishable from one generated organically from play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> his claim is false, and as far as I know has not a shred of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


I can't ask you to prove a negative,  so what would you consider "support?"[/quote]A serious account of someone who turned up to play Burning Wheel, played through something like DL or similar, and didn't notice.

That is, an actual account of someone playing a game which expects and is built around narrative practices, and who used that system to (i) deliver their pre-packaged plot and (ii) didn't have the players notice that their engagement with the game's expected systems and approach made no difference to (i).

I've never seen it done in real life. The GM's exercise of control over story elements and story developments is almost always (and almost always painfully) obvious.



Tony Vargas said:


> aren't the GNS labels /not/ supposed to be exclusionary us-v-them categories?



No.


----------



## zztong

Jer said:


> I would add to that the fact that everyone has a single proficiency bonus that scales with level at the same rate, rather than different Base Attack Bonuses/THAC0/To-hit charts by class.  5e took the "add 1/2 your level" mechanic from 4e, changed it to (roughly) "add 1/4 your level +1" and nobody blinks at it.




If you look at the THAC0 chart, it's essentially +1 per level, though. If 5e took it from 4e then 4e took it from 3e, 2e, 1e, etc.

Maybe 4e changed the rate at which bonuses grew, but it also expanded the level count. I'd say 5e's contribution was the notion that if it constrained the numbers then content remained viable longer. In contrast, PF2 seems more like 4e in that the numbers are allowed to range higher, though 4e and PF2 realized it was desirable to keep PCs numbers closer together.


----------



## Jer

zztong said:


> If you look at the THAC0 chart, it's essentially +1 per level, though. If 5e took it from 4e then 4e took it from 3e, 2e, 1e, etc.
> 
> Maybe 4e changed the rate at which bonuses grew, but it also expanded the level count. I'd say 5e's contribution was the notion that if it constrained the numbers then content remained viable longer. In contrast, PF2 seems more like 4e in that the numbers are allowed to range higher, though 4e and PF2 realized it was desirable to keep PCs numbers closer together.




No - that's not what I'm saying.  The THAC0 chart for fighters and other "fighting man" types was +1 per level.  Not for everyone else though.

Every edition prior to 4e had combat bonus progressions that varied by class.  Prior to 2e "To Hit AC" tables varied by class - different classes used different tables.  In 2e these tables were codified such that the "Warrior" types improved their THAC0 by 1 every level, rogue types every 2 levels, priest types every 3 levels and wizard types every 4 levels.  3e changed these to Base Attack Bonus progressions and were warrior types at +1 per level, spellcaster types at +1/2 levels, and cleric and rogue progressions as +3/4 levels.  But embedded in all of these editions was the idea that mathematically the different classes should have their hit progression with weapons change at different rates as they leveled up.

4e threw that out the window and said "everyone levels up their hit bonuses as +1/2 levels period the end" and then relied on other things to make fighter types better at using weapons than spellcasters.  Because the innovation in 4e was to realize that these bonuses actually didn't matter - what mattered was finding a way to make it so that the wizard didn't want to pick up a sword and to give the fighter something else that made them better with a weapon and armor than everyone else.

5e kept 4e's version of attack progression, it didn't revert back to prior editions' vision of how progression scales.  It changed it to roughly "everyone levels up their hit bonus at +1/4 levels" instead of "+1/2 levels" so the spread of levels 1-20 in 5e has similar attack bonuses to the spread of levels 1-10 in 4e, but other than scaling progression is the same.  The bonus isn't what makes a fighter type better at fighting with weapons than a caster type in 5e.  If my wizard picks up a weapon she's proficient with and stabs someone with it, she's using the same "proficiency bonus" that a fighter of the same level uses.  And yet nobody has a problem with that anymore because that bonus is almost unimportant when it comes to why the fighter is better with weapons than a non-fighter.  The proficiency bonus has gone from the single thing that leveling up a fighter was important for to almost an afterthought - a thing that's in the game because people expect it to be there, but the progression on it is so slow that it's almost meaningless over the course of a campaign.  Just like it was for 4e for the most part, except via a different mechanism - in 4e the "+1/2 level" bonus increase was unimportant because the game was supposed to be scaled to the capabilities of the PCs through direct DM intervention - the monsters were increasing in a very precise mathematical measure of difficulty as the proficiency bonus increased, so it all washed out.  In 5e, the bonus increases over such a narrow band and AC scales across the same narrow band that it achieves pretty much the same effect - the bonus is nearly meaningless so long as the DM is dishing out "appropriate" threats to the party.  Where "appropriate" is scaled much more according to how many hit points a monster has and how much damage it dishes out than the attack or defense bonuses.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> The issue is _framing it_, in advance, as a scenario with win conditions. That can very easily butt up against the notion of establishing a story _through play_ as opposed to _playing through a pre-established story_.



Win conditions have to be in advance?  



> A serious account of someone who turned up to play Burning Wheel, played through something like DL or similar, and didn't notice.



So, only substituting a /system/ would count?  That seems extreme.



> That is, an actual account of someone playing a game which expects and is built around narrative practices, and who used that system to (i) deliver their pre-packaged plot and (ii) didn't have the players notice that their engagement with the game's expected systems and approach made no difference to (i).



That seems doable via clever "illusionism" (though maybe not quite the Forge sense thereof).



> No.



Crap, double-negatives.  No, it's not supposed to be about that, or no, it's not not supposed to be about that so it actually is about that, or yes, it's not supposed to be about that... ?  



Jer said:


> Every edition prior to 4e had combat bonus progressions that varied by class.  Prior to 2e "To Hit AC" tables varied by class - different classes used different tables. 5e kept 4e's version of attack progression, changed it to roughly "everyone levels up their hit bonus at +1/4 levels" instead of "+1/2 levels" .. If my wizard picks up a weapon she's proficient with and stabs someone with it, she's using the same "proficiency bonus" that a fighter of the same level uses.  And yet nobody has a problem with that anymore... Where "appropriate" is scaled much more according to how many hit points a monster has and how much damage it dishes out than the attack or defense bonuses.



All very true.

Is PF going the same way as 5e, or is it keeping anything like BAB, Ranks, &c?


----------



## zztong

Jer said:


> No - that's not what I'm saying...




Ah, I get you now. Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't play 4e beyond the first year and remember very little about it. I've only played 5e now for 3 sessions, about 10 hours, so I wasn't able to see the pattern you were identifying.

I would say that the appeal of the 5e +1/4 approach, to me, isn't so much that the characters differentiate themselves in different ways. The value to me is that the compressed math keeps the monsters I like viable. A fast-moving mathematical "level treadmill" is actually unappealing to me as both a player and a DM, so I'd probably like a 4e +1/2 over PF2's +1/1.

I don't mind characters progressing at slightly different rates -- that actually still works when the overall mathematical range remains compressed. This is partly why 1e/2e worked -- the exponential XP scale meant characters rarely got above 11th -- and why DMs who capped D&D 3x and PF1 games at levels like 9.


----------



## Manbearcat

Tony Vargas said:


> Win conditions have to be in advance?




This is where these conversations get so unwieldy.

I mean...how is this question even conceived?

OF COURSE THEY DO.

If the point of play is (a) competitive integrity and (b) autonomy and expression of agency in decision points (and it is in this case; Gamism)...well, in any_activity where these things are the apex play priority, the legitimacy of (a) and (b) utterly depends upon win/loss condition being overt/player-facing/telegraphed.

Otherwise, you either outright have Calvinball...or the looming specter of Calvinball (which, in action, is basically the same in terms of participant skepticism about a and b above).

Calvinball is the antithesis of (a) and (b)...they cannot coexist.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Manbearcat said:


> This is where these conversations get so unwieldy.
> I mean...how is this question even conceived?



 I can see how that could've been clearer.  Scenarios of the kind I'm talking about, in the kind of game pemerton's talking about, might have their 'framing' done in play, rather than in advance (by the DM, between sessions), so the win condition might be defined in play.  

I can see how it could read as the win condition going undefined /until met/, which'd make it hard (but not impossible, assuming there's any way to influence what said win condition becomes) to "play to win."



> Otherwise, you either outright have Calvinball...



Oh, we totally get Calvinball from some systems, at some tables. ;P


----------



## Jer

Tony Vargas said:


> Is PF going the same way as 5e, or is it keeping anything like BAB, Ranks, &c?




When I looked at the playtest last summer an attack was attribute modifier + level + proficiency bonus.  Looking at the example of character creation that they posted on their blog last week it looks like this is still the case (except that I thought proficiency bonus was -1/+0/+1/+2/+3 for untrained/trained/expert/master/legendary and now it looks like its +0/+2/+4/+6/+8).  So kind of both?

Honestly I'm surprised they kept the big numbers that scale with raw level when they are also keeping in proficiency bonuses.  It would seem like you could get by with one or the other.


----------



## zztong

Jer said:


> Honestly I'm surprised they kept the big numbers that scale with raw level when they are also keeping in proficiency bonuses.  It would seem like you could get by with one or the other.




A number of people have proposed an option where DM's get to pick the bonus per level rate. I've only seen non-Paizo people discuss it on the Paizo boards. In response to their blog about the +0/+2/+4/+6/+8 rate +0/level was suggested, though it wasn't popular.


----------



## Campbell

Scene framing isn't really part of play though. The play exists once a scene has been framed. Framing -> Play -> Framing -> Play. What's important is that player decisions are based on solid ground during the moment of play.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> Win conditions have to be in advance?





Tony Vargas said:


> Scenarios of the kind I'm talking about, in the kind of game pemerton's talking about, might have their 'framing' done in play, rather than in advance (by the DM, between sessions), so the win condition might be defined in play.
> 
> I can see how it could read as the win condition going undefined /until met/, which'd make it hard (but not impossible, assuming there's any way to influence what said win condition becomes) to "play to win."



It seems to me that "win condition" here is turning into something like _happy with the outcome_. Whereas in a scenario like ToH or Ghost Tower of Inverness or The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan or White Plume Mountain or Castle Amber (to fasten on some classics of the genre) when we talk about _win conditions_ we're certainy not talking about (say) _being happy with how we reconciled two feuding members of the Amber family_.

When I used the scenario The Crimson Bull the players enjoyed it. The one who converted the wise woman by his display of the power of St Sigobert was happy with that outcome; and the knight who was ready to kill all the pagans was happy enough to have convered them instead! But had things unfolded differently, including (say) a different end for the wise woman, they probably would have been happy with that also. (As Ron Edwards rightly notes in his descriptions of it, Prince Valiant isn't a particularly demanding or traumatic game to play: it's not going to push the player far out of his/her romantic fantasy comfort zone.)

Look at the account here of the Demon of the Red Grove (a loose adapation to epic tier 4e of a Robin Laws Hero Wars scenario) for something similar. In that scenario the PCs tried to bind the demon rather than outright defeating it. But the players were happy with how it turned out, even though they didn't get everything they wanted.

Neither scenario had any win condition beyond its evolution in the course of play as the players declared actions for their PCs and those were resolved and the situation re-framed in response. The only way to "lose" in scenarios of this sort is for the whole thing to collapse into poor pacing and no resolution (which my most recent Prince Valiant session flirted with - I had doubt about the scneario, Jeff Grub's The Mare's Lamp, going in, and those doubts were amply justified). The contrast with ToH and its friend is incredibly marked: those have no pacing at all, let alone as a primary consideration, and have no danger of not yielding a resolution (in the sense that either the dungeon's beaten or it's not, with the extreme version of the latter being TPK).

It's close to a chalk-and-cheese comparison.



Tony Vargas said:


> So, only substituting a /system/ would count?  That seems extreme.



I didn't mean a different system, I meant a different ethose of play. The post-DL ethos is applicable to a variety of systems - not only D&D but (say) Rolemaster, RQ, I would suggest HERO and GURPS - anything where the PC gen provides fairly vivid pictures of the character's capabilities and role in the story, where the resolution system leaves slippage between literal outcome of the resolution process and significant development in the shared fiction (what is sometimes called task as opposed to conflict resolution) and where the GM might be allowed or even encouraged to ignore a die roll from time to time in the interests of "the story".

I'm not going to accept the proposition that a skilled GM can make a prepared story feel like narrativist play until I hear an account of how someone used those post-DL techniques in the context of a system like BW or a PbtA system and pulled it off. To me it just seems obvious that it can't be done. In a system like Cortex+ Heroic, for instance, the notion of ignoring or fudging a die roll or an outcome in the interests of the story doesn't have any purchase unless the GM just outright cheats or ignores the rules - which the players will notice, thus refuting (in that particular case) the conjecture that the illusionism you're positing is being successfully achieved.

I'm not going to try and explain why it would similarly break down in the BW or PbtA case, as that would require a bit more detail. (But am happy to elaborate upon request.) Needless to say I think it would. And hence that the illusionism you conjecture as a possibiity is really not possible.



Tony Vargas said:


> Crap, double-negatives.  No, it's not supposed to be about that, or no, it's not not supposed to be about that so it actually is about that, or yes, it's not supposed to be about that... ?



I may have missed, or misread, the double negative in "the GNS labels /not/ supposed to be exclusionary us-v-them categoriesWin conditions have to be in advance?" - now that you've signalled your intended reading I can't remember which I did.

What I mean is that GNS laebs are not supposed to be _us vs them_ categories - a person can sit down and enjoy a sim game, and then a gamist game; and even in play there can be shifts in GNS orientation from episode to episode (but not moment to moment).'

But that doesn't mean that everyone has done every one of them, or enjoys them. I can tell you now that I tend to suck at gamist play both as player and GM, and (as a result? am I sore loser? others would have to judge!) don't care for it that much, even though I can enjoy the _ide of_ it.

My experience on these boards is that the number of ENworld posters who have seriously engaged in narrativist play is fairly modest. I don't know if you're in that category or not. At the risk of being too honest, you come across as being an experienced RPGer whose seen quite a bit of variety over the years; but the way you (at least seem to) relate to "roll vs role" and edition wars, and the claims you make about the place of a GM and what a skilled GM can pull off; makes it seem to me as if you've seen a lot of simulationist play (ranging a wide spectrum from CoC-ish full immersion to HEROs-esque system-oriented simulationism to the classic post-DL adventure path) and probably a fair bit of gamist play (eg classic tournament-style "beat the dungeon" play) and probably a fair bit of gamist players trying to "wreck"/break the simulationist experience, and therefore needing the GM to rein them in.

But I don't recall you ever posting about play from the narrativist point of view, nor talking about some typical systems that might support it like (say) DitV or PbtA or even narrativist-oriented Fate play.

Moving from an honest attempt at conveying a summary impression, to honest conjecture: given the sorts of play experiences and play context you describe, I wouldn't be surprised if you've played in groups/at tables where GM duties are rotated fairly regularly, and everyone takes turns playing through everyone else's dungeons and scenarios. And that _that_ is how you've tended to do shared creativity, rather than via playing a game where collective story creation is done by everyone simultaneously (but not all by being GMs simultaneously - a system like DitV or PbtA has very clear GM/player role demarcations, and it's a recurrent irritation for me on these boards that many posters seem to equate narrativist play with shared authorship of the "spend a point to make such-and-such true in the fiction" variety, where as - as The Forge essays noted 15+ years ago - there's no particuar connection between those sorts of mechanics and narrativist play in the sense The Forge is intersted in).

If the attempt at a summary bio and conjecture are way off I apologise. I hope they don't cause offence - they're intended in honest good faith.


----------



## TwoSix

Jer said:


> Honestly I'm surprised they kept the big numbers that scale with raw level when they are also keeping in proficiency bonuses.  It would seem like you could get by with one or the other.



The Paizo developers stated specifically early in the playtest that they want moderate to high level heroes to be able to take down hundreds of low-level enemies without being threatened; it was the particular flavor of high fantasy they wanted.  

You can certainly fault them for the design goal (it's not an aesthetic I particularly favor), but the decision to add +level to all proficient checks is a fully intentional one.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> It seems to me that "win condition" here is turning into something like _happy with the outcome_.



 Success, in any case, you play the game for a while, achieve an objective or fail to.  

Is that way off base?  Does "win" /also/ have an unintuitive narrow jargon meaning?  



> I didn't mean a different system, I meant a different ethose of play.  ....I'm not going to accept the proposition that a skilled GM can make a prepared story feel like narrativist play until I hear an account of how someone used those post-DL techniques in the context of a system like BW or a PbtA system and pulled it off.



 So you /are/ insisting on system.  



> To me it just seems obvious that it can't be done. In a system like Cortex+ Heroic, for instance, the notion of ignoring or fudging a die roll or an outcome in the interests of the story doesn't have any purchase unless the GM just outright cheats or ignores the rules



 "In the interest of the story" has no purchase, yet this is a "narrativist" game that's all about the story?




> But that doesn't mean that everyone has done every one of them, or enjoys them.



  I think it does mean the former, in that I doubt there could be a 'pure' experience of only one agenda without elements of the others.  As far as enjoyment, it's often unexamined - and can even be ruined by examination - and people can identify what aspects of something they believe the enjoy with a lot less accuracy than you might think.

(For an obvious example "I enjoy smoking for the taste.")



> My experience on these boards is that the number of ENworld posters who have seriously engaged in narrativist play is fairly modest. I don't know if you're in that category or not. At the risk of being too honest, you come across as being an experienced RPGer whose seen quite a bit of variety over the years; but the way you (at least seem to) relate to "roll vs role" and edition wars, and the claims you make about the place of a GM and what a skilled GM can pull off



 I am very down on Role v Roll, CaW v CaS, GNS and warring in general.  I don't buy into the drawing of lines in the sand, false dichotomies, and divisiveness in general.

As to the role of the GM and what a skilled one can pull off, well, our hobby is not like chess, it hasn't been codified and polished over generations, a lot of us are among the first generation of hobbyists, and made a lot up as we went along.



> makes it seem to me as if you've seen a lot of simulationist play (ranging a wide spectrum from CoC-ish full immersion to HEROs-esque system-oriented simulationism to the classic post-DL adventure path) and probably a fair bit of gamist play (eg classic tournament-style "beat the dungeon" play) and probably a fair bit of gamist players trying to "wreck"/break the simulationist experience, and therefore needing the GM to rein them in.



(Back in the day, I did play in exactly one tournament - it was awful.)
But, yeah, not how /I/ see what I've seen.   

What I've seen is a lot of gaming that doesn't fall neatly, or even haphazardly, into the artificial GNS divisions, and that, indeed, trying to pick one of those and pair the aspects of the other two off a gaming experience strikes me as profoundly limiting and likely to wreck said experience.  For instance, the idea of 'gamist players' wrecking 'simulationist play' in the implied absence of narrativist play is nonsense.  Because every TTRPG session /is a game/, there will be a "win condition" in there, somewhere - achieving victory in combat, or a goal in an encounter, or an overall objective - there /will/ be a setting the PCs inhabit, that the players at least occasionally glimpse from their PoV, there will be a narrative emerging from that which everyone at the table has contributed to in some sense.  Nor will the experiences of those playing the game be limited to those three categories.

Though, again, we've lost sight of the claim that GNS is not supposed to be about creating divisions and positing exclusive monolithic modes of play.  Yet we seem to be right back there, with you conjecturing that I haven't climbed onto the Narrativist monolith.



> But I don't recall you ever posting about play from the narrativist point of view, nor talking about some typical systems that might support it like (say) DitV or PbtA or even narrativist-oriented Fate play.



I have played some FATE and posted about it, but I'm not surprised you missed it. 

I don't /get/ to play a lot of indie games, of course, because, as I've often said, the big issue with playing or running a better game isn't finding the ideal system, it's finding a few other people who have found the /same/ better game.



> I wouldn't be surprised if you've played in groups/at tables where GM duties are rotated fairly regularly, and everyone takes turns playing through everyone else's dungeons and scenarios.



 Doesn't seem relevant.  But more of that in Storyteller and 4e than in harder-to run eds, Hero, and the like... also I've very often seen a phenomenon where one system gets consistently run by one GM who is very enthused about it for a while, no rotating there. 







> rather than via playing a game where collective story creation is done by everyone simultaneously (but not all by being GMs simultaneously



 Sounds like "Troup style play."  Which is funny, because the definition of Narrativist seems intentionally narrowed to exclude Storyteller.  

I half expect to see a capitalized "True" appended to it, at this rate.



> it's a recurrent irritation for me on these boards that many posters seem to equate narrativist play with shared authorship of the "spend a point to make such-and-such true in the fiction" variety, where as - as The Forge essays noted 15+ years ago - there's no particuar connection between those sorts of mechanics and narrativist play in the sense The Forge is intersted in).



So, FATE, as well as Storyteller is off the list of narrativist-enough games?  Or just that particular mechanic, itself, isn't necessary nor sufficient?



> If the attempt at a summary bio and conjecture are way off I apologise. I hope they don't cause offence - they're intended in honest good faith.



You presented it in as un-offensive a way as possible.

But...



> What I mean is that GNS laebs are not supposed to be _us vs them_ categories - a person can sit down and enjoy a sim game, and then a gamist game; and even *in play there can be shifts in GNS orientation from episode to episode (but not moment to moment)*.'



That's what I thought.  So I don't see how that squares with the assertion that a system can completely block a style of play. 

Most of the rest of your post seems to be devoted to insinuating that I can't have ever experienced Narrativist play, even though, we've just established, the very label is not supposed to be a monolithic exclusionary classification, and that, in all likelihood, play I've experienced has "shifted to narrativist" many times.

In fact, I don't even quite by the 'shifting' routine.  A single play experience might shade more towards one than another at a given moment or over a session, but I can't see how any one can be entirely absent for an extended period, let alone how a game can be exclusively devoted to one.


----------



## Jer

TwoSix said:


> The Paizo developers stated specifically early in the playtest that they want moderate to high level heroes to be able to take down hundreds of low-level enemies without being threatened; it was the particular flavor of high fantasy they wanted.




I get that.  In fact I'm a fan of adding +level (or +fraction of level) to things in general for level-based systems - it's not only an easy mechanic to explain, it also makes character level matter and it makes it easy to keep threats scaled appropriately if everyone is adding the same number to things.

What I don't get is combining that with a scale of 5 levels of proficiency - it feels like two mechanics that solve the same kind of problem in two different ways have been combined together.  It also seems like it would lose some of the elegance that adding +level to things gets you.  Though maybe it plays differently than it reads.


----------



## TwoSix

Jer said:


> I get that.  In fact I'm a fan of adding +level (or +fraction of level) to things in general for level-based systems - it's not only an easy mechanic to explain, it also makes character level matter and it makes it easy to keep threats scaled appropriately if everyone is adding the same number to things.
> 
> What I don't get is combining that with a scale of 5 levels of proficiency - it feels like two mechanics that solve the same kind of problem in two different ways have been combined together.  It also seems like it would lose some of the elegance that adding +level to things gets you.  Though maybe it plays differently than it reads.



Yea, the initial goal of the proficiency levels was to open up new abilities.  A lot of feats and abilities were tied into having expert or master or legendary level of proficiency in a skill.  But playtesters in general didn't respond well to increasing proficiency without noticeable increases in the die roll modifier.


----------



## zztong

TwoSix said:


> Yea, the initial goal of the proficiency levels was to open up new abilities.  A lot of feats and abilities were tied into having expert or master or legendary level of proficiency in a skill.  But playtesters in general didn't respond well to increasing proficiency without noticeable increases in the die roll modifier.




Observations at my table during the playtest were that "expert" characters were frequently overshadowed by "amateur" characters. The Ranger was frequently overshadowed by the Cleric in the wilderness, for instance, because of ability scores. Adjusting the proficiency bonus made it more likely the Ranger would equal the Cleric... yeh, didn't fix the problem. Gatekeeping certain "must have in the party" abilities doesn't work either, as those abilities might not be present in any particular party.

I think there are too many levels in the proficiency system to act as a gatekeeper for abilities, leaving pretty much only a mathematical gain to be realized for the various proficiency levels they have created.

I speculate they could get away with Untrained, Trained, and Master. I realize their levels of magic item creation tie as one of the gatekeepers, but during the playtest folks at my table weren't really all that enthusiastic about the playtest magic item creation system, so its easy for me to put it (magic item creation) on the "go back and try again" list along with the skill system.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> GNS is not supposed to be about creating divisions and positing exclusive monolithic modes of play.  Yet we seem to be right back there, with you conjecturing that I haven't climbed onto the Narrativist monolith.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I can't see how any one can be entirely absent for an extended period, let alone how a game can be exclusively devoted to one.



GNS is an analytic framework. It's not a claim about what anyone has or hasn't done, or should or shouldn't have done.

It's a claim about a certain sort of goal of play, not about system; but there is a recognition that some systems suit some goals better than other systems do, and better than they suit other goals.

There's not reason to think that any given goal must be present in play over time. I've played in sessions and campaigns that were free of narrativism. And I see posts about such sessions and campaigns all the time on these boards.

And convesely, if someone has played a DL-style AP game using DitV I'm happy to hear about it. But I haven't yet, despite making some version of this post many times over the years.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> GNS is an analytic framework. It's not a claim about what anyone has or hasn't done, or should or shouldn't have done.
> It's a claim about a certain sort of goal of play, not about system; but there is a recognition that some systems suit some goals better than other systems do, and better than they suit other goals.



So why are you convinced I haven't experienced Narrativist play, and will only accept pulling a little illusionism in /certain systems/ as evidence one could pull some narrtivist wool over the players eyes?

It seems (and, that's just my impression, I know this medium can make such impressions very iffy) like it quickly slides from analytic framework, to classifications, to monolithic divisions, to getting judgmental about not just systems, but people.  

Even when we're trying very hard not to go there.



> There's not reason to think that any given goal must be present in play over time. I've played in sessions and campaigns that were free of narrativism. And I see posts about such sessions and campaigns all the time on these boards.



… I'm not so sure I'm convinced - I'm not so sure exactly what it is I'm not convinced about, though.  

The definition of narrativism seems arbitrarily narrow, as if to exclude games that clearly intend collective storytelling as their thing.  For what seem to be presented as exhaustive classifications, that doesn't feel right.  

Either narrativism is way off, or the idea that only certain games constitute narrativist play is.

::shrug::

This might help me see the distinction:  what about the other-way round?  Could you believe an illusionist (npi) GM has run a game that looked/felt to the players like it was a planned adventure in a 'simulationist' (absurd though that label feels to type, given that it simulates /nothing/ that can be checked for accuracy) style, but was actually picking up and running with their ideas to create a narrative that, in the end, surprised him, even as he presented the climax like it had been what he was working towards all along?


----------



## FrogReaver

IMO.  Best case scenario is Pathfinder 2 is a smashing success and take most of 5e player base.

Suppose this happens.  That simply means 6e D&D comes sooner than expected and takes a lot of the things people are liking about pathfinder 2 and incorporates those things into 6e while still bearing the D&D name.

Will it be able to compete with a D&D branded game that is newer and presumably used most of it's best mechanics while tossing any that people kind of dislike.  I for one think that in the best case scenario that Pathfinder 2's success if it has any will be relatively short lived.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> getting judgmental about not just systems, but people.



Well let's turn it around. Why is it so important to you that you have played narrativsit? Are you making a judgement?

I don't play many boardgames other than backgammon (which I love). But modern boardgames, with their need for clever and calculated play, are things I'm not very good at. My personal discount curve is too steep (probably in all areas of my life, and certainly in these games). So I don't play them much. For similar reasons, as I already posted in this thread, gamist RPGing - at least in the classic dungeoneering mode - is not my thing. Wargaming, or older boardgames like Titan, are not my thing.

If narrativism isn't your thing, that's no big deal for anyone but your biographer. Conversely if narrativsim is your thing then (whether here or in some other thread) tell us about it! Whereas at the moment you seem to be arguing, completely in the abstract, that there's no such thing as narrativist play because the GM can always control everything that matter in any system provided s/he is skilled enouogh.



Tony Vargas said:


> So why are you convinced I haven't experienced Narrativist play, and will only accept pulling a little illusionism in /certain systems/ as evidence one could pull some narrtivist wool over the players eyes?



_Convinced_ is too strong. But where is the actual account? How did it work? How did a player make an action declaration, have that resolved using the open resolution system typical of narrativst-oriented systems, have their intention for their action realised in play, _and yet_ this all have been pre-authored by the GM?



Tony Vargas said:


> The definition of narrativism seems arbitrarily narrow, as if to exclude games that clearly intend collective storytelling as their thing.



What games are you talking about? V:tM _doesn't_ intend collective storytelling; nor do the DL modules. They present a pre-authored story and give the GM the job of curating it and conducting the players through it.

Narrativism is characterised so as to describe a play experience that The Forge people were especially interested in. It's a real thing - I can report from play experience - and the contrast with play experiences in V:tM, CoC, post-DL AP-style D&D, etc is real.

If you or anyone else finds the distinction uninteresting, well that's your prerogative - some people might find the difference between (say) dadaism, cubism and surrealism uninteresting and lump it all together as early 20th century modern art. That's fine, but obviously the fact that they don't find those differences inteesting isn't going to sway those who are senstivie to them.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> Well let's turn it around. Why is it so important to you that you have played narrativsit? Are you making a judgement?



Let's turn around using a theory that claims not to be exclusionary and judgmental, to exclude my perspective from discussion, and instead make it about why I don't want to be judged & excluded?

Seriously?


At that point you've confirmed that the purpose of GNS is to divide, excluded, and judge other divisions inferior to your preferred one.




pemerton said:


> If you or anyone else finds the distinction uninteresting, well that's your prerogative



I don't find it uninteresting, I find it false, pernicious, and elitist.

As what it claims to be on the surface, a description of an aspect of how people play RPGs, 'narrativism' would be fine.  RPGs produce stories, the players & DM likely all contribute to the development of that story, to varying degrees, depending, I'd think from decades of experience, primarily, on the attitudes & aptitudes of each individual, encouraged or roadblocked by system features (intentional or otherwise) depending on the system, but never to an absolute degree.

But, in the way it's actually used, as a monolithic division of RPGs and the people who play them into exclusive warring camps, it's corrosive.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Jer said:


> What I don't get is combining that with a scale of 5 levels of proficiency - it feels like two mechanics that solve the same kind of problem in two different ways have been combined together.  It also seems like it would lose some of the elegance that adding +level to things gets you.  Though maybe it plays differently than it reads.



It's two different problems. The level bonus addresses the issue of epic heroes being better than novice ones. The proficiency bonus addresses the issue of individual distinction within heroes of the same caliber.

What I don't get is why they need both proficiency bonus and ability modifiers, since those both address the issue of distinction within a tier. It would make more sense to use either one or the other.


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> What I don't get is why they need both proficiency bonus and ability modifiers, since those both address the issue of distinction within a tier. It would make more sense to use either one or the other.



Nature vs nurture. Trained vs natural


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> Nature vs nurture. Trained vs natural



I'm not saying that you couldn't make the distinction, if you really wanted to. I'm saying that, if you do make the distinction, and you include separate modifiers for each, then they are redundant for the task of distinguishing a character's competence within a given level. 

A simpler alternative would be to only use the proficiency bonus, say that it represents some combination of natural talent and learned skill, and only use that one bonus (in addition to the level bonus). It would prevent issues where (for example) the cleric is more perceptive than the ranger, when their Wisdom gap is greater than their proficiency gap. It would also solve the annoying old problem where the only way to _truly_ specialize was to have both the maximum ability modifier _and_ the maximum skill bonus.


----------



## CapnZapp

Sure. I won't deny Pathfinder is likely to overengineer things much like 5E underengineered them.

I was merely pointing out "competence" does not need to be a monolithic number. Having distinct and separate facets of competence is not inherently redundant or surplus, is all.


----------



## darjr

Wait, that’s an interesting idea. What ideas or rules unique to PF2 does anyone see a D&D implementing or appropriating?

Anyone?


----------



## zztong

darjr said:


> Wait, that’s an interesting idea. What ideas or rules unique to PF2 does anyone see a D&D implementing or appropriating?




I could see a future system drawing on the three-action approach for some inspiration.


----------



## Mistwell

lowkey13 said:


> Is Pathfinder 2 the 2016 Ghostbusters Reboot, or is the original Pathfinder more of a colonialist narrative, like the original Star Wars trilogy?
> 
> Discuss!




Pathfinder 2 is Highlander 2.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

darjr said:


> Wait, that’s an interesting idea. What ideas or rules unique to PF2 does anyone see a D&D implementing or appropriating?
> 
> Anyone?



I don't know that PF2 really has any unique rules. The action economy is very reminiscent of old Shadowrun (and I'm sure many other systems), and the everything-as-feats approach has been done to death in countless heartbreakers throughout the last two decades.


----------



## MoonSong

Saelorn said:


> I'm not saying that you couldn't make the distinction, if you really wanted to. I'm saying that, if you do make the distinction, and you include separate modifiers for each, then they are redundant for the task of distinguishing a character's competence within a given level.
> 
> A simpler alternative would be to only use the proficiency bonus, say that it represents some combination of natural talent and learned skill, and only use that one bonus (in addition to the level bonus). It would prevent issues where (for example) the cleric is more perceptive than the ranger, when their Wisdom gap is greater than their proficiency gap. It would also solve the annoying old problem where the only way to _truly_ specialize was to have both the maximum ability modifier _and_ the maximum skill bonus.




Ideally I would have ability modifiers not affecting skill bonus by themselves, I would rather high ability bonuses helped you have higher proficiency levels faster.

Edit: An on topic, this isn't necessarily a judgment of value, what I got from the playtest was that PF2 somehow managed to have the bad parts of 4e without the good stuff. I'm still on the fence on whether to give it some of my time of money. I'll have to wait to see what changes we get from the playtest and how it improves before getting invested.


----------



## Zardnaar

Mistwell said:


> Pathfinder 2 is Highlander 2.




That's rough. 

 I don't think we can call it one way or another. 

 That playtest just left such a bad taste though.


----------



## billd91

Mistwell said:


> Pathfinder 2 is Highlander 2.




That’s a pretty strong statement. It’s not many sequels that ruin the original like Highlander 2 does.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> Let's turn around using a theory that claims not to be exclusionary and judgmental, to exclude my perspective from discussion, and instead make it about why I don't want to be judged & excluded?



If your perspective is that playing DitV is the same as playing DL, then I have to ask - have you played DitV, or any system like it?



Tony Vargas said:


> the purpose of GNS is to divide, excluded, and judge other divisions inferior to your preferred one.
> 
> 
> I don't find it uninteresting, I find it false, pernicious, and elitist.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> a monolithic division of RPGs and the people who play them into exclusive warring camps, it's corrosive.



So now it's corrosive for people to talk about their play experiences, and what they found different in different systems?

This is why I described you upthread as hostile to analysis.

As for the idea that GNS is corrosive - the only anger and hostility I see is people who apparently can't handle the fact that Ron Edwards cares about something that seems not to matter to them. If you don't see any difference in fundamental play experience between playing (say) CoC and playing (say) Apocalypse World then that's how it is. Why is it wrong for others to see the world of RPGing differently from you?


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> If your perspective is that playing DitV is the same as playing DL, then I have to ask - have you played DitV, or any system like it?



 Dude, I've never played DL, if I'm even tracking the acronyms.  And, it shouldn't matter which specific games someone has played, if the point isn't to be exclusionary.


> So now it's corrosive for people to talk about their play experiences, and what they found different in different systems?



 No, GNS. I thought that was clear from context.


> This is why I described you upthread as hostile to analysis.



 I'm maybe a little tired of it, because it's work, to me, and this is my hobby. 

But, seriously, taking something as complex as RPGs, and dividing it into three categories - with the clearly-stated premise that they're descriptive and can all be present in a given game, group, individual or experience - treating them as exhaustive, then using them to define exclusive, incompatible, 'agendas?'

That's not analysis, it's politics.

What do people do when presented with It? They pick one.  "Oh, I'm simulationist!" "hey, these are games, how can you be anything but gamist" "gaming is my outlet for my creative storytelling talents (until my novels get published) so I'm clearly in the most sophisticated, narrativist, camp"



> As for the idea that GNS is corrosive - the only anger and hostility I see is people who apparently can't handle the fact that R*********s cares about something that seems not to matter to them.



 Damn, it's like the point is enhancing his name recognition or something.


> If you don't see any difference in fundamental play experience between playing (say) CoC and playing (say) Apocalypse World then that's how it is. Why is it wrong for others to see the world of RPGing differently from you?



 I'm definitely in the 'system matters' camp (just not when it comes to popularity or commercial success).

But, the "experience" is a couple degrees of freedom removed from the system, which,  itself, is removed from design intent. And GNS 'agendas' are yet further removed.

GNS is just a me/you/them refinement of the us/them of Roll v Role.  

And, like it, corrosive.


----------



## Mistwell

Zardnaar said:


> That's rough.
> 
> I don't think we can call it one way or another.
> 
> That playtest just left such a bad taste though.






billd91 said:


> That’s a pretty strong statement. It’s not many sequels that ruin the original like Highlander 2 does.




LOL it was a joke. I was trying to one-up the prior jokes. I think Pathfinder 2 will do fine.


----------



## Zardnaar

Mistwell said:


> LOL it was a joke. I was trying to one-up the prior jokes. I think Pathfinder 2 will do fine.




I knew you were joking but some lines shouldn't be crossed. Being compared to Highlander 2 is one of them. I would almost retain your services. You could sue yourself.


----------



## Remathilis

I see some of 4e in PF2, but that's because they were both attempts to fix the same inherent problems with 3.5. For nigh unto 20 years, the problems with the 3.x/d20 mechanics have shown themselves again and again. The inherent unevenness of the Bab/Save progression, the dependency the mainline 6 magic items, monsters using PC math for creation. The escalation of bonuses, the bloat of options, LFQW, static combats, etc. 

So of course, 4e and PF are attempted to fix the same problems; you fix the uneven math progression by streamlining everything into a single progress line. You reduce magic item dependency to a small (3) sets of static bonuses, and then use some cooldown method for other magic items. You curb the math so that it flows easier. You roll different customization abilities into selectable abilities gained every level from a variety of siloed abilities. You fix the action economy to allow for more fluid movement and lose full-round actions. You give monsters types/roles and use different math to create them. You make most magic and other abilities not scale by character level. 

The big difference is that Paizo had a great window to see why 4e failed and what 5e did right, so they avoided some of those pitfalls, like forcing all classes into the ADEU structure rather than some form of spell-slot casting and other resource mechanics. It will be interesting to see if Paizo managed to answer the problems of 3e better than WotC initially did.


----------



## FatR

PF2 cannot be Paizo's 4E, because 4E had actual design goals. Of course those design goals were dubious (make a game that CharOp boards' regulars would like) or unrealistic (we want World of Warcraft audience), and their execution was bungled, but at least 4E tried to do something with the system, besides making all the mechanics different for the sake of selling all the books again.

PF2 absolutely doesn't. The whole project reeks of a cynical attempt to restart the supplement threadmill. As far as I can tell, no one can explain what selling points of PF2 are supposed to be, in what ways it is better than PF1, what actual problems it fixes, or even what made-up problems it fixes better than existing versions of DnD. It is one of the most complicated, rules-hyperheavy RPGs I've ever read, and more of the complexity than before is upfront and unavoidable, rather than being optional (by all accounts the system wasn't reworked entirely since beta, therefore this observation will equally apply to the final product), so it cannot claim to be "streamlining" anyting. Between "are you kidding me?" levels of complexity that a new player must confront before play even starts, and the fact that it is even more self-referential than other versions of DnD, it has zero appeal to anyone who is not a hardcore DnD/PF fan. It tries to cram itself into the same weird niche of "kitchen sink high fantasy with magic galore, but options available to players are straightjacketed to the point that at any level GM will have no problems railroading through the same sort of dungeons they crawled at level 1, only with bigger numbers" that DnD tried to starting with 4E, consequently even if it had been less incestous, it still would have little hope to actually connect with the sort of stories people nowadays may imagine when they thing of high-powered high fantasy. 

Oh, and the art so far is not that good either. Given than good art was, IMO one of the two big factors behind PF success, that is a big problem.


----------



## Hussar

FatR said:


> PF2 cannot be Paizo's 4E, because 4E had actual design goals. Of course those design goals were dubious (make a game that CharOp boards' regulars would like) or unrealistic (we want World of Warcraft audience), and their execution was bungled, but at least 4E tried to do something with the system, besides making all the mechanics different for the sake of selling all the books again.
> 
> PF2 absolutely doesn't. The whole project reeks of a cynical attempt to restart the supplement threadmill. As far as I can tell, no one can explain what selling points of PF2 are supposed to be, in what ways it is better than PF1, what actual problems it fixes, or even what made-up problems it fixes better than existing versions of DnD. It is one of the most complicated, rules-hyperheavy RPGs I've ever read, and more of the complexity than before is upfront and unavoidable, rather than being optional (by all accounts the system wasn't reworked entirely since beta, therefore this observation will equally apply to the final product), so it cannot claim to be "streamlining" anyting. Between "are you kidding me?" levels of complexity that a new player must confront before play even starts, and the fact that it is even more self-referential than other versions of DnD, it has zero appeal to anyone who is not a hardcore DnD/PF fan. It tries to cram itself into the same weird niche of "kitchen sink high fantasy with magic galore, but options available to players are straightjacketed to the point that at any level GM will have no problems railroading through the same sort of dungeons they crawled at level 1, only with bigger numbers" that DnD tried to starting with 4E, consequently even if it had been less incestous, it still would have little hope to actually connect with the sort of stories people nowadays may imagine when they thing of high-powered high fantasy.
> 
> Oh, and the art so far is not that good either. Given than good art was, IMO one of the two big factors behind PF success, that is a big problem.




This is your very first post on the boards?  Well, welcome aboard bud.  I'm sure you'll make friends in no time.


----------



## wakedown

I suspect PF2e has some internal design goals that aren't intended to be made public.

Their business model really requires addiction level subscribers to commit to the year-plus subscription model and the predictable revenue of 5000-15,000 gamers parting with $50 a month or ~$600-1000 of annual spend to sustain the business.

So really Paizo's design goal would be to lock down their 5,000 most loyal customers who are heavily vested in the game world and community (particularly VLs/VCs of Organized Play) to commit to at least invest in the new system for 2-3 years out at $1000/year - there's a guarantee of $5M in revenue to cover the administrative expenses and core team expenses.  Then hopefully your core 5K can attract an outer ring of another 5K-10K gamers who are good for $300-$600 a piece.

Paizo's hardcore gamer, the ones who are still showing up to game store game days are the ones who like to play with rules "away from the game" for hours per week, building complex characters from an assortment of rules from esoteric sources.   They're almost puzzle-solvers to a certain extent, trying to maximize character builds.  The whole 3-action round gives another puzzle to solve where theorycrafting away from the game lets folks figure out the right combination of their open, press, flourish, etc.   The whole tiered crit systems presents another dimension of theorycrafting where you need to understand conditions and the right pivot point of whether you attack an extra time or attempt a Power Attack.   PF2e is meant to be enjoyed in Excel and spreadsheets for the next several years as mix/max theorycrafting can take place and continue to absorb supplement subscriptions.

It's not intended to be an accessible game for the casual gamer.   You won't be bringing a casual friend/spouse/date to the game as there's way too much of a learning curve here to get in the way of the story or non-combat aspects of the game.  This game is again about character building away from the social group, and then at the table it's about puzzle-solving your combat turns kind of like playing Tetris and trying to fit things into each turn.   Whereas modern RPGs became more permissive to get folks to pay more attention to the scene and events going on (i.e. 5e lets you move and interact with things freely outside of an action economy budget then make a quick decision among many equal cost single actions), PF2e is about looking at your character sheet and trying to puzzle out the best way to spend 3 action points every time it gets around to your turn where competence is determined by how well you've memorized all the variable point costs of available actions.

It's actually kind of like Advanced 4E - take 4e and expand it into a variable cost action system and add the -10/+10 math for another dimension of variability in action results and you have PF2e.


----------



## techno

I believe Paizo is trying to create something similar to 5e, in terms of ease of learning and running it, but which also...

1. doesn't have bounded accuracy (becomes more "fantasy supers" at higher levels)
2. is directly tied into their Lost Omens/Golarian setting (which helps sell APs, their bread and butter)
3. has far more character options and choices than 5e (which allows those who really like to customize their characters to do so)
4. assumes more use of magic items than 5e (some people like this, some don't)
5. has more dynamic and interesting monsters (5e monsters can get boring after awhile)
6. has lots of continual support for additional options, adventures, and accessories (5e releases additional rules/class options at a glacial pace)
7. has more engaging tactical combat (the 3 action system is brilliant, simple, and provides lots of meaningful choices in combat)
8. has a heavy focus on exploration and downtime rules, not just combat
9. has more codified rules than 5e (some people love that 5e often just says, "It's up the GM to decide on how to do this," some like more rules consistency/clarity)
10. moves away from a binary pass/fail paradigm and allows 4 levels of success on most rolls
11. weapon choices are more meaningful and they do different things
12. makes skills and skill proficiencies more meaningful (this is one area of 5e that I don't prefer)
13. is built to be easily customizable/configurable based on preferences (they are planning to release a GM guide that tells you how to easily "tweak the dials" on the rules engine to adjust the game how you want it to be if you don't like the default settings)
14. offers all of the rules (not just the basic rules) free online as well as very cheap PDFs

My impression is that they have come up with something pretty cool with PF2. It feels more like "Advanced 5e" to me. It will get tons of continual support, for those who see this as a plus. Our group is going to check out the final version when it releases on August 1. We may switch our group to PF2 if Paizo is able to deliver on the above promises. We also love Paizo's adventures and feel they are often better than 5e's offerings. Personally, I am glad that both options are available. Competition is good for Paizo, WotC, and the consumer.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> Wait, that’s an interesting idea. What ideas or rules unique to PF2 does anyone see a D&D implementing or appropriating?
> 
> Anyone?




Just about the only thing I found of value in the playtest, was the system for multuclassing, including the equivalent to Prestige Class/Kits. I could see a similar system being built into 5E easily enough, basically locking a character into a Feat chain that replaces all the ASIs with cross-Class abilities.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Remathilis said:


> [...] monsters using PC math for creation.[...]



The issue was never that they used the same math. The issue is that they were too complicated to create.


----------



## Tony Vargas

FatR said:


> The whole project reeks of a cynical attempt to restart the supplement threadmill. As far as I can tell, no one can explain what selling points of PF2 are supposed to be, in what ways it is better than PF1, what actual problems it fixes, or even what made-up problems it fixes better than existing versions of DnD. It is one of the most complicated, rules-hyperheavy RPGs I've ever read, and more of the complexity than before is upfront and unavoidable, rather than being optional (by all accounts the system wasn't reworked entirely since beta, therefore this observation will equally apply to the final product), so it cannot claim to be "streamlining" anyting. Between "are you kidding me?" levels of complexity that a new player must confront before play even starts, and the fact that it is even more self-referential than other versions of DnD, it has zero appeal to anyone who is not a hardcore DnD/PF fan. It tries to cram itself into the same weird niche of "kitchen sink high fantasy with magic galore



 I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here...  

… yeah, it's like it's 2003 and someone's going on about the 'cash grab' … 

...which went on to command such loyalty from fans that Paizo has been selling PF1 to that base for an extra decade past it's end of life.


...so, yer say'n PF2 could be Paizo's 3.5!


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> The issue was never that they used the same math. The issue is that they were too complicated to create.



People want incompatible things:
1) deep crunchy charbuild options on the player side
2) simple fast monster creation on the DM side
3) PCs and NPCs being governed by the same rules

Sorry, no can do. The only possible way to have 1+3 is what 3.x tried, and it completely killed high-level DMing for me.

Ultimately 2 is paramount, so the real choice is between 1 and 3. And my players clearly want 1. Since I the DM want (nay need) 2, the only sacrifice possible is to give up 3.

Ergo unified rules for PCs and NPCs is a pipe dream that can never happen. What's practical and simple for the DM is shallow and unsatisfying for players. What's deliciously crunchy for players is a nightmare for the DM (me).


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> Ultimately 2 is paramount, so the real choice is between 1 and 3. And my players clearly want 1. Since I the DM want (nay need) 2, the only sacrifice possible is to give up 3.



That covers your players at your table, sure, but those aren't the only players or table under discussion. Sacrificing 1 for the benefit of 3 is an equally valid solution.


----------



## Kurviak

Saelorn said:


> That covers your players at your table, sure, but those aren't the only players or table under discussion. Sacrificing 1 for the benefit of 3 is an equally valid solution.




But that’s not the route Paizo choose for PF2. They went with different methods for players vs non players characters


----------



## FatR

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here...
> 
> … yeah, it's like it's 2003 and someone's going on about the 'cash grab' …
> 
> ...which went on to command such loyalty from fans that Paizo has been selling PF1 to that base for an extra decade past it's end of life.





There is quite a bit of difference between selling your system as a way to keep playing the system people already knew (3.5) with only a smattering of fixes, and selling it as... what? The difference between PF1 and PF2 is in some aspects greater than the difference between 3.5 and 4E. Practically every single mechanic is upturned. And for what? To make stacking +1s on your attack roll and parsing through lists of useless feats to find those that actually do something more important than ever? To see how well making rules without setting any apparent design goals besides "we want a system in which writing adventures in our trademark style would be easier than in PF1" would go? Or to exploit their hardcore fanbase, as wakedown suggested above on this page?


----------



## Tony Vargas

FatR said:


> There is quite a bit of difference between selling your system as a way to keep playing the system people already knew with only a smattering of fixes, and Practically every single mechanic is upturned.



If every single mechanic is upturned, then it's hardly just a re-boot to re-start the supplement cycle, is it?  Sounds more like substantive change.


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> Sacrificing 1 for the benefit of 3 is an equally valid solution.



Theoretically, yes indeed. However, we've already got 5E where 1 was sacrificed (but not for the benefit of 3).

So it feels like more of a market to offer 1 & 2


----------



## CapnZapp

Kurviak said:


> But that’s not the route Paizo choose for PF2. They went with different methods for players vs non players characters



A very wise choice  after all, a player has one (1) character to worry about, while the DM has a dozen. 

Making PC chargen more crunchy than NPC chargen makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Remathilis

Saelorn said:


> The issue was never that they used the same math. The issue is that they were too complicated to create.




Same difference. For X amount of HD, they had Y feats, Z skill points, and if they had any class levels, Q amount of magical items to equip. All of those elements made monster and NPC creation a huge headache. 

On the other hand, monster math also involved the issue of monsters being too strong/weak for their CR, creating imbalance depending on the level of optimization your group entailed. Some creatures could grapple for such bonuses that no creature could escape, while others could not hit a level appropriate PC except on a 20 or posssibly pass a saving throw from a PC. 

So, really, it was both. Monster math being based on the same system PCs used makes them hard to create, hard to run, and wildly imbalanced. It was an issue 4e, 5e, and PF2 have all tried to fix in some way or another.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Remathilis said:


> Same difference. For X amount of HD, they had Y feats, Z skill points, and if they had any class levels, Q amount of magical items to equip. All of those elements made monster and NPC creation a huge headache.



It's only the same if the PC math is complicated, as was the case in 3.x/PF1. It was never a problem to use PC math for NPCs when playing AD&D, though.

As for CR balance, well... it certainly would have helped if PCs had been balanced against each other, rather than the optimization mess that ended up as. If PCs had been simple and balanced, then there would have been no issues with NPCs being the same.


----------



## Remathilis

Saelorn said:


> It's only the same if the PC math is complicated, as was the case in 3.x/PF1. It was never a problem to use PC math for NPCs when playing AD&D, though.




I believe I was referring explicitly to 3.x/PF1.

"I see some of 4e in PF2, but that's because they were both attempts to fix the same *inherent problems with 3.5.* For nigh unto 20 years, t*he problems with the 3.x/d20 mechanics* have shown themselves again and again."

So my problems with monster/NPC math came from the idea that they were built using all the same parts as a PC, right down to feats and skill points and magic items arrays, rather than a simpler or more organic method that didn't drown them in fiddly abilities and useless magical gear.


----------



## billd91

Tony Vargas said:


> ...which went on to command such loyalty from fans that Paizo has been selling PF1 to that base for an extra decade past it's end of life.




End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Remathilis said:


> I believe I was referring explicitly to 3.x/PF1.



Right, but the inherent problem with that edition was specifically the _combination_ of complex PCs with NPC symmetry. NPC symmetry, by itself, is not an inherent problem of any edition.


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> NPC symmetry, by itself, is not an inherent problem of any edition.



True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Parmandur

billd91 said:


> End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them.




Weeeeellll, a lot of that was, more or less, reinventing the wheel from 3.5, rehashing concepts covered in existing WotC books.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.



Not when the topic of discussion is Pathfinder 2E, and whether or not it will do to Paizo what 4E did to WotC.

Using wildly different rules for PCs and monsters is a _strong_ shift away from Simulationism and toward Gamism, and one of the major reasons why 4E died so horribly was that much of their target audience was not on-board with that shift. D&D players, at least in the 3E-era, wanted rules that told us how the world was supposed to work. While you could make an argument that this is no longer true of current D&D players, it _should_ still be true of Pathfinder 1E fans, which means they will remain highly resistant to that sort of change. Ergo, Pathfinder 2E is making _exactly_ the same mistake that D&D 4E made, by mis-judging their audience.


----------



## Kurviak

Saelorn said:


> Not when the topic of discussion is Pathfinder 2E, and whether or not it will do to Paizo what 4E did to WotC.
> 
> Using wildly different rules for PCs and monsters is a _strong_ shift away from Simulationism and toward Gamism, and one of the major reasons why 4E died so horribly was that much of their target audience was not on-board with that shift. D&D players, at least in the 3E-era, wanted rules that told us how the world was supposed to work. While you could make an argument that this is no longer true of current D&D players, it _should_ still be true of Pathfinder 1E fans, which means they will remain highly resistant to that sort of change. Ergo, Pathfinder 2E is making _exactly_ the same mistake that D&D 4E made, by mis-judging their audience.




That’s your opinion, I like PF1 a lot, I’ve been a GM for it for a wile and as much as I love the game I dislike a lot of it, and one of the things I dislike most is the futility of the time investment for fighting encounter building, mostly in regards of adversaries creation. At the end I’m mostly forced to use creatures and NPCs taken verbatim from the manuals to be able to prepare for the session and even then is more complex to understand the build stats than it should be to run effectively


----------



## Tony Vargas

billd91 said:


> End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them.



Precisely my point.  3.5 went out of print ("end of life," maybe I mistakenly mixed a tech term into a publishing discussion, there?), and Paizo kept selling PF1 to 3.5 fans for another 10 years.  Because 3.5 had just established that kind of loyalty.


In another sense than product cycles, 3.5 (in the form of open-source d20) is /immortal/.  As long as anyone wants to buy it, it can be published.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Precisely my point.  3.5 went out of print ("end of life," maybe I mistakenly mixed a tech term into a publishing discussion, there?), and Paizo kept selling PF1 to 3.5 fans for another 10 years.  Because 3.5 had just established that kind of loyalty.
> 
> 
> In another sense than product cycles, 3.5 (in the form of open-source d20) is /immortal/.  As long as anyone wants to buy it, it can be published.




WotC is, indeed, selling 3.5 via Print on Demand.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> WotC is, indeed, selling 3.5 via Print on Demand.



What?  Really?  All of it?  

::imagines who forests vanishing with the click of a mouse::


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> What?  Really?  All of it?
> 
> ::imagines who forests vanishing with the click of a mouse::




Actually, just checked, only 21 3.x books are PoD right now: Red Hand of Doom, Ruins of Undermountain, the Draconomican, the Spell Compendium, and a bunch of Realms, Eberron and Ravenloft (from White Wolf!) setting stuff, no core books (those are PDF only).


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> Not when the topic of discussion is Pathfinder 2E, and whether or not it will do to Paizo what 4E did to WotC.
> 
> Using wildly different rules for PCs and monsters is a _strong_ shift away from Simulationism and toward Gamism, and one of the major reasons why 4E died so horribly was that much of their target audience was not on-board with that shift. D&D players, at least in the 3E-era, wanted rules that told us how the world was supposed to work. While you could make an argument that this is no longer true of current D&D players, it _should_ still be true of Pathfinder 1E fans, which means they will remain highly resistant to that sort of change. Ergo, Pathfinder 2E is making _exactly_ the same mistake that D&D 4E made, by mis-judging their audience.



4E made a lot of unpalatable design choices, and yes, some of them involved characters and monsters, but no, 4E didn't fail because monsters used separate rules from characters. We now have 5E which is wildly successful despite having that.

Your conclusion seems unlikely. Sure there was *something* about stat gen people didn't like, but probably not the mere separation between PCs and NPCs. A far more likely explanation is how the gamism of 4E is in your face, love it or leave it.

As I said, the only two acceptable solutions are
1) make monster creation easy and since they "must" be the same for PCs, have easy (non-complex, non-cruncy, shallow) rules too

and what you just rejected
2) monsters easy; characters complex: they're not the same, or "gamist" or whatever

The solution that leaves most players without a DM (at higher levels) is:
3) chargen is delightfully crunchy; monsters use the same horribly complicated rules

The fact 3.x chose option 3 is what drove me away from the game. I suspect I am definitely not alone.

So take your pick. If you are the DM, Saelorn, and you still pick #3, I can respect that.

But any *player* who wants his or her DM to slave and toil under nightmarishly cruddy NPC rules just to uphold "simulationism", even when it takes them *seconds* to kill off foes that took *hours* to craft, can f* right off...


----------



## Zardnaar

4E the main problem IMHO was the class/role design or the 4E playstyle it enabled.
A lot if 4E stuff would work fine in other D&D games.


----------



## zztong

Kurviak said:


> That’s your opinion, I like PF1 a lot, I’ve been a GM for it for a wile and as much as I love the game I dislike a lot of it, and one of the things I dislike most is the futility of the time investment for fighting encounter building, mostly in regards of adversaries creation. At the end I’m mostly forced to use creatures and NPCs taken verbatim from the manuals to be able to prepare for the session and even then is more complex to understand the build stats than it should be to run effectively




We're all certainly discussing things in the realm of opinion. Which is cool.

I've run D&D3.x and PF1 for a long time now and never felt like I had to use the system to make opponents. I routinely redefine stock monsters in my own terms. If you look at my adventure prep you'll see things like...

Ghoul: BAB +5, 2xClaws 1d8+2, AC 18, HP 50, Saves +3/+1, Vuln to Holy Water, Move 30.

... which I just whipped up for this post as an example. The actual stats I use would depend on the characters and the number of creatures I think fit the story. Also, if the players made a bunch of heavy roleplay concepts I'd probably have to drop the AC.

The point is at no time did I whip out a book or Hero Lab and bother to make this thing.

That said, I do like that I *could* have used the rules, but as the DM I don't feel bound by them. The story matters more to me.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> 4E made a lot of unpalatable design choices, and yes, some of them involved characters and monsters, but no, 4E didn't fail because monsters used separate rules from characters. We now have 5E which is wildly successful despite having that.



Most of the things people complained loudly about in 4e, 5e retains in at least some measure.  Fighters casting spells, wizards being 'nerfed' (relative to 3e), martial healing, overnight 'natural healing,' dissociated mechanics, etc, etc...

...nor was it "presentation" - PF2 need have no worries on that score - Essentials desperately scrambled to give a mussed, fluff-heavy presentation, sand-box adventure, etc, to no avail.  

No, 5e returned to meeting longtime D&D expectations.  Random lethality at 1st level segueing into a 'sweet spot' followed by increasingly wildly powerful magic (LFQW), beating the game using 'smart play' (CaW) because it gives you the tool to recharge your resources at will (5MWD), magic items making you 'just better' if the DM gives you any, etc... all curated by the Empowered DM (be he Monty Haul or Killer or Good).




> Your conclusion seems unlikely. Sure there was *something* about stat gen people didn't like, but probably not the mere separation between PCs and NPCs.



Again, 5e uses virtually the same options:  4d6, point buy, standard array.



> The solution that leaves most players without a DM (at higher levels) is:
> 3) chargen is delightfully crunchy; monsters use the same horribly complicated rules



Heh.  It didn't stop 3.x/PF.  



> The fact 3.x chose option 3 is what drove me away from the game. I suspect I am definitely not alone.



You're not alone, but you're clearly not everyone, either, as 3.x was successful for 8 years with WotC, then another 10 as PF with Paizo.


...and, you'd think, if they wanted to keep rolling with those same PF fans, they wouldn't want to radically reverse direction, no?


----------



## Kurviak

zztong said:


> We're all certainly discussing things in the realm of opinion. Which is cool.
> 
> I've run D&D3.x and PF1 for a long time now and never felt like I had to use the system to make opponents. I routinely redefine stock monsters in my own terms. If you look at my adventure prep you'll see things like...
> 
> Ghoul: BAB +5, 2xClaws 1d8+2, AC 18, HP 50, Saves +3/+1, Vuln to Holy Water, Move 30.
> 
> ... which I just whipped up for this post as an example. The actual stats I use would depend on the characters and the number of creatures I think fit the story. Also, if the players made a bunch of heavy roleplay concepts I'd probably have to drop the AC.
> 
> The point is at no time did I whip out a book or Hero Lab and bother to make this thing.
> 
> That said, I do like that I *could* have used the rules, but as the DM I don't feel bound by them. The story matters more to me.




But then you are basically doing an ad hoc npc asymmetrical building ....


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> Most of the things people complained loudly about in 4e, 5e retains in at least some measure.  Fighters casting spells, wizards being 'nerfed' (relative to 3e), martial healing, overnight 'natural healing,' dissociated mechanics, etc, etc...



I'd say you keep focusing on the wrong thing, Tony. 

What makes you think 4E succeeded where 4E failed, even if all those things were true?

That's right - _because it wasn't those things that made 4E fail_, and it wasn't really those things that people disliked.

It was the way _they were used_ in 4E that made people balk. Since the edition wars are long over, and this isn't about 4E anyway, let me skip the details and just establish that 4E and 5E looks, feels and plays _very differently_. *That's* what's important. Whether any given detail or feature is similar or even identical does not help or matter when that is so.



> No, 5e returned to meeting longtime D&D expectations.  Random lethality at 1st level segueing into a 'sweet spot' followed by increasingly wildly powerful magic (LFQW), beating the game using 'smart play' (CaW) because it gives you the tool to recharge your resources at will (5MWD), magic items making you 'just better' if the DM gives you any, etc... all curated by the Empowered DM (be he Monty Haul or Killer or Good).



This just feels like you're bitter about the fate of 4E, tbh….

Why don't you abandon this unproductive viewpoint and instead listen to me when I tell you that 5E feels like a proper successor to 3E while truly fixing its most egregious faults in a way neither 4E nor PF did. 




> ...and, you'd think, if they wanted to keep rolling with those same PF fans, they wouldn't want to radically reverse direction, no?



We've already been over this. 

They can't be targeting the PF fans, not the hardcore ones at least. Why would they when the 5E fans are such a massively bigger group? Besides, why would they create a completely new (and incompatible) game if they really did go for the conservative, nostalgic approach?

If the game released in two weeks is neither d20 compatible, nor simple like 5E, with obnoxious walls of feats which players are forced to wade through to even create characters, then yes, PF2 might truly be the 4E of Paizo. 

In the worst possible way - being a commercial failure. Yet another entry in the very long line of would-be "better than D&D" games nobody even remembers. Heartbreakers.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> So take your pick. If you are the DM, Saelorn, and you still pick #3, I can respect that.



I chose #1, and as soon as it became apparent that PF2 wouldn't support that, I wrote up my own game to fill the obvious niche in the market. It's on drivethruRPG.com. It's great.

Of course, complexity and crunch are all relative. The real benefit of writing your own RPG is that you can make things exactly as complex as you want, so my PCs (and NPCs) are roughly as complex as 3.0 characters before the supplements hit. There's a lot you can do with multi-classing, but the character concept is much more important than how you manipulate the system into representing that concept.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> What makes you think <5E> succeeded where 4E failed, even if all those things were true?That's right - because it wasn't those things that made 4E fail, and it wasn't really those things that people disliked.



I believe I said that.  5e didn't get rid of the things that were complained about, it put /back/ the things that those stalking-horses were really about. 


> This just feels like you're bitter about the fate of 4E, tbh….



You have no idea. I'm a bitter, cynical, old man on my best day, discussing the most innocuous things.  
I turn it down to 11 when I'm here.


> 4E and 5E looks, feels and plays _very differently_.



Heh.  Depends how you run it.



> listen to me when I tell you that 5E feels like a proper successor to 3E while truly fixing its most egregious faults



 5e /brought back/ the faults of 3e - and, more importantly, those of the TSR era - some of them to a lesser degree, but bringing back an issue, is not fixing it.  And, as someone who appreciated 3e for things it did /well/, 5e is, sadly, no successor.  It's more wedged between TSR & 3e.  Mechanically, it uses lots of little details from d20, but the big picture, the 'play loop,' the role of the DM:  it evokes the classic game. 



> They can't be targeting the PF fans, not the hardcore ones at least. Why would they when the 5E fans are such a massively bigger group?



Because the existing PF fans are already in their camp, they're deeply invested, they've developed a lot of loyalty with that base.  5e 'fans' are a bigger group, /but they're already fans of 5e/, the newer ones are barely aware other RPGs exist, and, were they to try one, would likely have one of two reactions "This is jus like D&D, why wouldn't I just keep playing D&D" or "This is weird, why would I bother learning it when I already know D&D?"  

The more established fans of 5e, OTOH, find it more than adequately doing D&D things, while having the D&D label. They won't /leave/ it for yet another version of D&D with the serial #s filed off.  They will entertain other systems that do entirely different things, though, if they've ever been open to that before...
...and if they have, they probably already have alternatives they like.

PF1 succeeded because D&D wasn't D&D enough, and, thanks to the OGL, PF /could/ be D&D enough.
PF2 does not have that option.



> If the game released in two weeks is neither d20 compatible, nor simple like 5E



5e's still not simple.  It may be slow to release reams of crap, but it's still, in trying to feel like D&D, a needlessly complicated system, because, like LFQW and untennable time-pressure balance, needless complication is just part of the D&D feel.


----------



## CapnZapp

Yeah, no.

You keep saying 5E has all the faults of 3E. You also appear to argue people want bad things.

Time to recalibrate your beliefs to reality there bud.


----------



## Remathilis

Saelorn said:


> Right, but the inherent problem with that edition was specifically the _combination_ of complex PCs with NPC symmetry. NPC symmetry, by itself, is not an inherent problem of any edition.




Which was my point. 3.x PCs had a lot of moving parts to them (race, class(es), feats, skills, spells, magic items, etc) all of which NPCs and monsters emulated nearly 1:1. It lead to some real PITA moments.

For example; creatures would have "hidden" abilities lost in the feat section. One example I recall vividly came from Libris Mortis. There was a creature there called a Slaughter Wright. It was a CR 8 monster that had some normal special abilities (energy drain, create spawn, etc) but in its feats section, it listed the following: Daunting Presence†, Death Master†, Eviscerator†, Improved Critical, Improved Initiative, Improved Toughness†, Power Attack

Most of those feats were listed in Chapter 2 of the same book. I dare you to tell me what they did without flipping to the feat chapter in combat to look at them. As it turns out, Daunting Presence allowed you make a foe Shaken (Fear effect) as an action, Death Master makes your foe Shaken on a crit, and Eviscerator makes a target's allies Shaken when you crit them. Basically, It had three abilities that forced foes to save or be shaken that are not mentioned in monster's stat block anywhere are required the DM to look at the feat line and then read what the feat did in another section of the book. If you didn't, the monster lost a whole important method of its attack options. 

Feats were great when you are a PC and wanting extra abilities and powers, but on a monster, all three of those feats should have been a special ability in the monsters stat block where the DM could easily see them. Not hidden in the feat line with an asterisk. Monsters rarely needed feats but had to have them because everything got feats every 3rd (or 2nd for PF) HD. 

The other example is magic items. 3e required an NPC buy x amount of treasure to keep up with PC math. That gold didn't buy interesting items like boots of the north or folding boats, it bought +1 weapons, armor, shields, rings of protection, cloaks or resistance, and stat-boosting gloves, belts, amulets and cloaks. Most of which was inferior anyway, leading the infamous "bag of holding full of +1 swords to be sold for 1k a pop" problem. 

Both of these were problems came from forcing NPCs and monsters to be be built like PCs rather than allow them to be built using math that challenges the PC without resorting fiddly mechanics and long-winded stat blocks.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Remathilis said:


> Both of these were problems came from forcing NPCs and monsters to be be built like PCs rather than allow them to be built using math that challenges the PC without resorting fiddly mechanics and long-winded stat blocks.



I follow what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. From my perspective, those problems came directly from problems with PC complexity, and the perfectly-functional NPC rules were simply caught as collateral. 

It's not _more_ wrong for an NPC to need six stat-boosting items, than it is for a PC to need them. Those problems are equally bad. If you fix it for PCs, then it would also be fixed for NPCs, and then everyone wins.

Likewise with obscure feat chains. The problem wasn't that some monsters used obscure feat chains that interacted in complex ways that required an extra paragraph to explain. The problem was in how feats were designed, such that most of them were entirely worthless outside of obscure builds, such that using them required you to figure out complex interactions. That feat chain wouldn't be _better_ if it was on a PC; it's simply bad design.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> You keep saying 5E has all the faults of 3E.



5e is definitely not bloated like 3e, for just one example.

Also, it should be pretty obvious that 5e managed some faults of it's own that 3e didn't suffer from.




> You also appear to argue people want bad things.



Do I really need to argue something so obvious?

Have tobacco companies gone out of business?  Has global peace broken out?


----------



## Nilbog

I find the whole PC/Monster build debate very fascinating, and I can definitely see both sides to the argument, I personally don't mind when they use different build methods.  I've always viewed it as a way that they 'plug in' to the rules and as long as the way they are built doesn't step outside those core rules, I'm happy with that.

I'm primarily a DM, and I can honestly say if I'd continued running 3/3.5e I'd have been in Arkham a long time ago, spending hours designing monsters/npc's that the group would overcome in minutes drove me crazy. Is that the fault of the method or of the individual system? its absolutely the systems fault, it was over complex and laden with hidden options, so I could switch to simpler system, however my players (or a big percentage of them) liked building PC's that way, they liked scouring books and finding weird and wonderful combinations, its not right or wrong its just peoples style.  So I could either continue playing 3/3.5/PF or similar system and lose my sanity or find an alternative.

I find that having a system where PC and NPC's are created differently but interact with the rules system in the same way to be the best compromise for me, we switched to 4e and enjoyed that system a lot, although towards the end we did have system fatigue, and we switched to 5e and are enjoying that also, however now we are a few campaigns in the players are starting to find the lack of crunch for the PC's a little frustrating.  I'm so hoping PF2 adds that extra crunch in without going the route of 3e.


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> I follow what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. From my perspective, those problems came directly from problems with PC complexity, and the perfectly-functional NPC rules were simply caught as collateral.
> 
> It's not _more_ wrong for an NPC to need six stat-boosting items, than it is for a PC to need them. Those problems are equally bad. If you fix it for PCs, then it would also be fixed for NPCs, and then everyone wins.
> 
> Likewise with obscure feat chains. The problem wasn't that some monsters used obscure feat chains that interacted in complex ways that required an extra paragraph to explain. The problem was in how feats were designed, such that most of them were entirely worthless outside of obscure builds, such that using them required you to figure out complex interactions. That feat chain wouldn't be _better_ if it was on a PC; it's simply bad design.



Now you seem to argue in favor of 5E and simpler systems, Saelorn. All this time I've thought you were in these discussions to defend older systems (like 3.x).

If you're content with simple PC options, then of course the issue of "1 hour build; 1 minute kill" goes away. 

The remaining question for you then is:

What about the calls for crunchier player character generation and build options?

If you loved 3.5 or Pathfinder as a player, you find 5E meager pickings. So you want a game with richer deeper and more complex options. 

But as a DM, I _definitely_ don't want that. As in I can't stand it. As in, the game won't be happening at all (with me as DM - I could probably use the game as a player, since that means the nightmarish admin is somebody else's problem  )

Ergo the solution to split PC and NPC generation rules!


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:


> /snip
> 
> Why don't you abandon this unproductive viewpoint and instead listen to me when I tell you that 5E feels like a proper successor to 3E while truly fixing its most egregious faults in a way neither 4E nor PF did.
> /snip.




Heh.  It feels that way because of the presentation.  It's certainly not the mechanics which are virtually identical to 4e.  If 5e is the proper successor to 3e, then 4e was as well.  But, the trick that WotC has performed has been to convince everyone that 4e and 5e are not related at all, while, at the same time, retaining virtually all of the mechanics of 4e.

The primary difference between 4e and 5e is the speed of combat.  Outside of that, the game is virtually identical.  Or, to put it another way, 5e is a very good successor to 4e.  It's only related to 3e through the leftover design DNA that passed through into 4e.  

Now, I think that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is going a bit too far in relating 5e to earlier editions and the whole "DM empowerment" thing.  Because, frankly, DM's are not terribly more empowered in 5e than they were in 4e.  Sure, some of the edge mechanics have a bit more wiggle room, but, by and large, a 5e DM has about the same amount of freedom and power as a 4e DM did.  It's just, again, that WotC has written the game in such a way as to convince everyone that 5e isn't 4e.

I imagine that some time in the future, WotC's 5e marketing decisions will become textbook fodder for MBA programs.  It's been absolutely fantastic to watch.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> The primary difference between 4e and 5e is the speed of combat.  Outside of that, the game is virtually identical.



What an odd thing to say. You come across as not having played either.

I have played both 4E and 5E and they're worlds apart. 

For D&D games, that is.

I guess you could say 5E is virtually identical to 4E compared to, say, Monopoly or Uno...


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:


> What an odd thing to say. You come across as not having played either.
> 
> I have played both 4E and 5E and they're worlds apart.
> 
> For D&D games, that is.
> 
> I guess you could say 5E is virtually identical to 4E compared to, say, Monopoly or Uno...




LOL.  I always shake my head when folks say this.

Hrm, 2 step recovery system, skill system that is virtually identical (strip out the level adjustments from 4e and you get the 5e skill system), every class is built on the same model, instead of powers, nearly every class gets spells, many of which do the same things that powers did in 4e.  What else... oh, removing the need for magic items - 4e used inherent bonuses, 5e just does without, umm, what else?  NPC's and PC's built on different rules, no magic item economy, spells attack stats, I'm sure I could come up with more.

Having played and run both for about equal numbers of years, I can honestly say that if you think they're worlds apart and that 5e is closer to 3e, well, I'm not sure what you're looking at.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> LOL.  I always shake my head when folks say this.
> 
> Hrm, 2 step recovery system, skill system that is virtually identical (strip out the level adjustments from 4e and you get the 5e skill system), every class is built on the same model, instead of powers, nearly every class gets spells, many of which do the same things that powers did in 4e.  What else... oh, removing the need for magic items - 4e used inherent bonuses, 5e just does without, umm, what else?  NPC's and PC's built on different rules, no magic item economy, spells attack stats, I'm sure I could come up with more.
> 
> Having played and run both for about equal numbers of years, I can honestly say that if you think they're worlds apart and that 5e is closer to 3e, well, I'm not sure what you're looking at.



I'm not denying the theoretical similarities. 

I'm telling you they look and feel completely different.

4E had an intense focus on the battle board. Every little push and move felt important and useful. While this made playing a Fighter much more fun and interesting and rewarding than in 3E or 5E, it contributed to making combats take forever (at least if you made them challenging). 5E is nothing like this.

The way you could not regain hit points without spending a Healing Surge completely transforms 4E into something alien contrasted to other editions - it means every character absolutely must get into the thick of it. If they don't soak any damage, their surges get unused, something the party simply cannot afford.

Skill Challenges was a hateful trainwreck of an idea. Minions were a fudge you simply don't need in 3E or 5E. 4E has solid support for Solos, which is good, but also something that differentiates the editions.

Spells are not just refluffed attacks. They do, well, magical stuff. Casters and martials feel completely different and not much-the-same. Fireball isn't a "daily" (except, I guess, at exactly level five). Huge difference.

Magic items are actually magical and powerful in 5E, much like in 3E. In 4E they were utterly bland and I routinely had to combine two items into one, and still the players simply forgot to use them. It's like night and day.

The vast majority of official 4E adventures are just stringed-along combat encounters. 5E adventures read much like AD&D or 3E adventures, which you may or may not like, but at least make for a sizeable difference.

Sure the default healing rule of 5E feels very off, but ruling you don't get back any hit points (but instead all of your hit dice) is quick and painless, and makes the game run close enough to older editions.

So...  not sure what to say. I never thought I had to point out something as obvious as this. 

I'm happy leaving it at that, and won't reply to you further on this matter.


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> The vast majority of official 4E adventures are just stringed-along combat encounters. 5E adventures read much like AD&D or 3E adventures, which you may or may not like, but at least make for a sizeable difference.




Now that I can't really argue with.  4e modules, particularly early ones, were egregiously bad.  To be fair, the Dungeon ones got better towards the end - the Chaos Scar adventures were actually a ton of fun.

On the other hand, magic items in 4e were what you made them.  My rogue with a life draining dagger and my warlock with the Crown of Winter were both fascinating to play.  Again, it's what you make it.  

But, yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.  You see these massive differences in play and I simply don't.  4e and 5e, outside of combat, play virtually identically.  5e, to me, is just sped up 4e.  It's an improvement, to be sure, but, the 4e DNA is most certainly there in every aspect of 5e.


----------



## zztong

Kurviak said:


> But then you are basically doing an ad hoc npc asymmetrical building ....




Is that undesirable?


----------



## Kurviak

zztong said:


> Is that undesirable?




Not at all but that isn’t what the published rules help you to do, that’s a patch over them


----------



## Haffrung

Mercurius said:


> I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for?




1) Paizo needs to address the relentless attrition of their existing player-base that all popular RPGs are subject to. The status-quo means decline. A new edition raises the profile of the game and will bring in new blood.   

2) Help maintain the existing PF1 player-base by addressing some of the widely acknowledged problems with PF1.

3) Get in on the incredible growth of the D&D market in the last few years. If even only 20 per cent of 5E players decide to try PF2, that's a huge influx of new players.

4) Sell a bunch of new books to keep the revenue flowing.


----------



## amethal

Kurviak said:


> Not at all but that isn’t what the published rules help you to do, that’s a patch over them



I'm not sure I'd call it a patch.

In my case, it is throwing out a major part of the rules-as-written in favour of something that I basically make up as I go along. The alternative would be not running Pathfinder at all. 

However, plenty of players prefer the GM to play by the rules and I'd be unable to run Pathfinder with those players.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> LOL.  I always shake my head when folks say this.
> Hrm, 2 step recovery system, every class is built on the same model, instead of powers, nearly every class gets spells, many of which do the same things that powers did in 4e, skill system that is virtually identical (strip out the level adjustments from 4e and you get the 5e skill system),  What else... oh, removing the need for magic items - 4e used inherent bonuses, 5e just does without, umm, what else?



You're not wrong about those being similarities, but they're not identical, and the play dynamic they generate can be /very/ different.

The short/long rest distinction in 5e, for instance, is 1 vs 8 hrs, often time enough for one is time enough for the other, you just can't take more than one of the latter in a given 24 hr period - the design assumption is 2-3 short rest & 6-8 encounters per long rest, or about a short rest every-other encounter.  
In 4e the short rest is 5 min, virtually guaranteed between encounters.

The latter is a much more practical assumption to design around.

And, it's further complicated by the differences in class design.  In 4e, AEDU classes were all on the same schedule, a variation in encounters:short rests:long rests impacted all classes about the same.  In 5e, while, if you look under the hood, and listen carefully to some things Mearls has said, yes, there's an underlying spell-based design framework, the resultant classes vary wildly in the proportions & powers of their resources that recharge with each type of rest, which means varying from the 6-8:2-3:1 assumption alters class balance... not that classes are balanced to begin with, nor that they balance at that same point dependably as the game progresses in level (LFQW).



> NPC's and PC's built on different rules, no magic item economy, spells attack stats, I'm sure I could come up with more.



So, /only/ 3.x of all the D&D species, built PCs & NPCs/monsters on exactly the same rules by default.  It was always an option in all the others, but the presentation of monsters/NPCs in completely different blocks is the norm for D&D, just one of the few ways that 4e was normative D&D. 

4e had a very prescriptive wealth/buy magic item economy, just like 3e.  It was simpler to do away with it, but it was there by default and assumed.  5e nominally assumes no items (first time in D&D history, BTW, one of the few unique things about it), but no 3.5 make/buy, it goes back to old-school exclusively-DM-curated items.

Linking spell effectiveness - saves are mathematically identical to attack rolls - dates to 3.0, at the latest, and linking caster effectiveness to one stat goes back to the beginning.  Using the same stat for the formal distinction of an attack roll as well as saves is almost trivial, really.



> Having played and run both for about equal numbers of years, I can honestly say that if you think they're worlds apart and that 5e is closer to 3e, well, I'm not sure what you're looking at.



4e and 5e and 3e and TSR-era D&D are definitely worlds apart.  Yes, even though they're worlds made of all the same elements in very closely similar proportions.  Like, Mars and Venus are both terrestrial nickel-iron-core planets in the life zone - but surface conditions vary between the two. The play experience of 5e is - OK, can be - entirely different from 3e or 4e.  (In all eds of D&D, the DM can greatly influence the play experience, of course.)



Hussar said:


> But, yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.  You see these massive differences in play and I simply don't.  4e and 5e, outside of combat, play virtually identically.  5e, to me, is just sped up 4e.  It's an improvement, to be sure, but, the 4e DNA is most certainly there in every aspect of 5e.



The DNA is certainly there in all d20/WotC eds... the same base-pairs, 98-99% identical like Humans, Chimps and Gorillas - and at least as different as humans, chimps and gorillas. 


I mean, your not wrong:  D&D has stayed the same much more than it's changed - even with 4e - but among versions of D&D, 4e is the outlier along a lot more dimensions than 5e.  And, in some of the most important ones, like the role of the DM, 3e & 4e are both more deviant than 5e.


----------



## zztong

Kurviak said:


> Not at all but that isn’t what the published rules help you to do, that’s a patch over them




That's an interesting perspective. I wouldn't have called it a patch, but I get your meaning.

I do appreciate that I can use the rules to make monsters/NPCs. I like having the option. I just don't feel bound to always use them.

When it comes to PF2, I may not be a fan, but I can appreciate why they may have switched philosophies.

I've met some folks who view using the rules for NPCs/monsters as a matter of balance. My interpretation is that they like that using the rules gives them a marker, like "its a CR4 encounter." But I usually look at "balance" as a matter between players. I don't want one player to feel slighted compared to another. As a DM, I regularly create encounters that are out of balance (over and under powered) with the PCs and I recognize that things like shapes of rooms, environmental hazards, numbers of opponents, the presence of flying creatures, surprise, and preparation can skew any CR-like computations.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> What about the calls for crunchier player character generation and build options?



As you say, crunchier PCs are incompatible with easy NPCs, if they both use the same rules. You have to choose your priorities.

Where Pathfinder 1 succeeded was that they chose the exact same priorities as 3.5 (complex characters, NPC symmetry, lots of work for the GM), which meant nobody had any reason to stick with 3.5 instead of moving to Pathfinder. With Pathfinder 2, they're going with different priorities than either Pathfinder 1 or D&D 5E, which means somebody is going to be left behind no matter what. That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.


----------



## MoonSong

Saelorn said:


> Where Pathfinder 1 succeeded was that they chose the exact same priorities as 3.5 (complex characters, NPC symmetry, lots of work for the GM), which meant nobody had any reason to stick with 3.5 instead of moving to Pathfinder. With Pathfinder 2, they're going with different priorities than either Pathfinder 1 or D&D 5E, which means somebody is going to be left behind no matter what. That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.




Speaking of this, wasn't there a PF1 clone of some sort in the works? I heard something about it in passing, but never got any details.


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> That's a much riskier move than if they'd just tried to update an existing game.



I fear you're not seeing the woods for all the trees.

The real risk is staying with the 3.x/PF system, since just about everyone that can't stand it's complexities have bailed for other games.

It would simply attract very few new customers.

My whole point is that Paizo will fail unless they're ready to accept that Pathfinder 1 doesn't cut it anymore. Why? Because 5th Edition has truly showed the people you CAN solve it's shortcomings (in a way that keeps the spirit of the game; without branching off into a completely new direction like 4E)

I believe 5E has "poisoned the well", as it were, for games that can't or won't adress LFQW and NPC complexity.


----------



## Zardnaar

I think you can make a fixed 3.5 drawing in a bit of ISR/2E concepts to fix it. PF2 seems to have doubled down on the complexity. 

 My idea of a fixed 3.X game would be Star Wars Saga Edition with overhauled math.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

MoonSong said:


> Speaking of this, wasn't there a PF1 clone of some sort in the works? I heard something about it in passing, but never got any details.




Porphyra or something like that. Being designed by purple duck games. AFAIK, it's not a clone but a genuine PF heartbreaker.


----------



## MoonSong

Matrix Sorcica said:


> Porphyra or something like that. Being designed by purple duck games. AFAIK, it's not a clone but a genuine PF heartbreaker.




Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.


----------



## Parmandur

MoonSong said:


> Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.




There is probably not a sufficient market for a full clone: anybody who wants to keep on playing 3.x/PF1 has several lifetimes if material at their disposal.


----------



## Remathilis

MoonSong said:


> Let me check... ok that is not what I had in mind. Doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it looks interesting in its own right, just not a substitute. I kind of expected a more serious effort to have surfaced by now.




Seeing as that the PF SRD is not going away and is loaded with 90% of the stuff made for Pathfinder, there is even less of a need for a clone rulebook than there was for 3.5.


----------



## Parmandur

Remathilis said:


> Seeing as that the PF SRD is not going away and is loaded with 90% of the stuff made for Pathfinder, there is even less of a need for a clone rulebook than there was for 3.5.




The big thing continuing players would want at this point is new adventures, and I am certain that companies such as Kobold Press will continue to offer Pathfinder versions of Kick-started Adventures, etc.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> The real risk is staying with the 3.x/PF system, since just about everyone that can't stand it's complexities have bailed for other games.
> 
> It would simply attract very few new customers.



Not that there's any way for us to know for certain, but I would wager that a PF2 that was just an updated PF1 would sell a _lot_ more than the PF2 that they ended up with. I mean, it's not like those players originally went to PF1 because they were sick of 3.5 or anything; they went to PF1 because they liked 3.5, but PF1 was better. Ergo, that audience would happily switch to a better version of the same thing.

If PF2 only targets the people who bailed on PF1, then that's a much harder audience to capture, because there were lots of different reasons for them to quit. For every GM who gave up on PF1 because of NPC complexity, there's a player who gave up on PF1 because of PC complexity, and two more who gave up on it because of balance issues. There is no possible product that will bring all of those players back, but there _is_​ a possible product that would get their existing audience to buy more books.


----------



## Remathilis

Saelorn said:


> Not that there's any way for us to know for certain, but I would wager that a PF2 that was just an updated PF1 would sell a _lot_ more than the PF2 that they ended up with. I mean, it's not like those players originally went to PF1 because they were sick of 3.5 or anything; they went to PF1 because they liked 3.5, but PF1 was better. Ergo, that audience would happily switch to a better version of the same thing.
> 
> If PF2 only targets the people who bailed on PF1, then that's a much harder audience to capture, because there were lots of different reasons for them to quit. For every GM who gave up on PF1 because of NPC complexity, there's a player who gave up on PF1 because of PC complexity, and two more who gave up on it because of balance issues. There is no possible product that will bring all of those players back, but there _is_​ a possible product that would get their existing audience to buy more books.




Its anecdotal, but of all the DMs I still keep in contact with.

Two (myself included) bailed on PF the minute 5e came out and haven't looked back. FWIW, I looked to see if there was anything from PF2 that I could use in my 5e game, but decided most of it was too incompatible and not worth conversion.

One played PF up to 2e, but is giving up on it for 5e.

Another is not converting to 2e and will continue to use 1e. For the record, he dislikes 5e as well. 

So just from my informal sample of four, PF2 got 0 converts based on the playtest. The plural of ancedote is not data, but amongst the conversations I've had, no one was excited for the game. I hope Paizo can find new converts (possibly 5e players who want something crunchier) but no one in my circle is keen to support them. Best of luck to them.


----------



## Parmandur

Saelorn said:


> Not that there's any way for us to know for certain, but I would wager that a PF2 that was just an updated PF1 would sell a _lot_ more than the PF2 that they ended up with. I mean, it's not like those players originally went to PF1 because they were sick of 3.5 or anything; they went to PF1 because they liked 3.5, but PF1 was better. Ergo, that audience would happily switch to a better version of the same thing.
> 
> If PF2 only targets the people who bailed on PF1, then that's a much harder audience to capture, because there were lots of different reasons for them to quit. For every GM who gave up on PF1 because of NPC complexity, there's a player who gave up on PF1 because of PC complexity, and two more who gave up on it because of balance issues. There is no possible product that will bring all of those players back, but there _is_​ a possible product that would get their existing audience to buy more books.




They are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to make something different enough to justify a new edition, bit any changes that threaten compatibility will run afoul of part of the community. A backwards compatible game would service the old edition users well, but would not sustain a robust publishing schedule. So they went with not backwards compatible: time will tell if enough people will switch, or new people get brought in, to make it a successful move.


----------



## CapnZapp

Remathilis said:


> FWIW, I looked to see if there was anything from PF2 that I could use in my 5e game, but decided most of it was too incompatible and not worth conversion.



FWIW, I've had good use out of the PFSRD in one (specialized) area:

Inspiration for more 5E items, and especially suggestions on market price.

(As some of might know, I've readded back into 5E a proper magic shoppe economy even if WotC was of zero help)


----------



## CapnZapp

Parmandur said:


> They are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to make something different enough to justify a new edition, bit any changes that threaten compatibility will run afoul of part of the community. A backwards compatible game would service the old edition users well, but would not sustain a robust publishing schedule. So they went with not backwards compatible: time will tell if enough people will switch, or new people get brought in, to make it a successful move.



Sorry but sticking to 3E/PF compatibility is a complete dead end imo. To me it's obvious Paizo must and will target new consumers, meaning 5E players, and I don't see a single one of them playing such a game more than once.

5E is a sea change when it comes to updating d20 and truly fixing it's issues! Sure it has drawbacks and weaknesses, but a PF 1.5 (or 3.875E ) would mean giving up a large amount of very sweet things for very clunky and cluttery old versions.

PF2 will be a hard enough sell, but at least we can hope it means regression in far fewer areas...


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry but sticking to 3E/PF compatibility is a complete dead end imo. To me it's obvious Paizo must and will target new consumers, meaning 5E players, and I don't see a single one of them playing such a game more than once.
> 
> 5E is a sea change when it comes to updating d20 and truly fixing it's issues! Sure it has drawbacks and weaknesses, but a PF 1.5 (or 3.875E ) would mean giving up a large amount of very sweet things for very clunky and cluttery old versions.
> 
> PF2 will be a hard enough sell, but at least we can hope it means regression in far fewer areas...




Yeah, I don't see that they would have much hope with a continued backwards compatibility in business terms. But I don't know how well they will do moving away from that...


----------



## CapnZapp

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I don't see that they would have much hope with a continued backwards compatibility in business terms. But I don't know how well they will do moving away from that...



No, personally I believe they should have positioned their game as "the game for those who love 5E but want more" and made sure their game contains all the things 5E bring (LFQW and the cleaned-up spells with no scry-teleport or detect evil or charm person or... or... or other cheese, easy DM prep, strong heroes that heal easily, Dex supremacy so you can play little sh*** for emo snowflakes , etc etc and just give up what you need for the deliciously crunchy PC charbuild Paizo is renowned for, like advantage obviously, a bit of bounded accuracy (but not all of it), and probably something I haven't even considered...)


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> No, personally I believe they should have positioned their game as "the game for those who love 5E but want more" and made sure their game contains all the things 5E bring (LFQW and the cleaned-up spells with no scry-teleport or detect evil or charm person or... or... or other cheese, easy DM prep, strong heroes that heal easily, Dex supremacy so you can play little sh*** for emo snowflakes , etc etc and just give up what you need for the deliciously crunchy PC charbuild Paizo is renowned for, like advantage obviously, a bit of bounded accuracy (but not all of it), and probably something I haven't even considered...)




There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.


----------



## Zardnaar

It won't be Paizos 4E. If it flops it will be for a different reason, it's possible there's nothing Paizo can do to compete at least at the levels they want.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.



IDK. Would the existing PF fanbase be offended if their system were positioned as Advanced D&D (w/1e UA & 2e Complete & Option books), to 5e's Basic D&D?


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> IDK. Would the existing PF fanbase be offended if their system were positioned as Advanced D&D (w/1e UA & 2e Complete & Option books), to 5e's Basic D&D?




Based on my reading of PF fan boards, yes, because doing so would involve integration of mechanics the PF base dislikes. Not everyone, certainly, but people who like PF and 5E don't seem interested in crossing those streams, either.


----------



## billd91

Parmandur said:


> There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.




I doubt it would be a question of cheesing off PF fans. But there’s no way Paizo could market PF2 like that, not would they want to. It just associates them even more with IP and trademarks they don’t control. The last time they did that, it almost killed them.


----------



## Parmandur

billd91 said:


> I doubt it would be a question of cheesing off PF fans. But there’s no way Paizo could market PF2 like that, not would they want to. It just associates them even more with IP and trademarks they don’t control. The last time they did that, it almost killed them.




No more than with PF1: OGL is fair game, innit?


----------



## CapnZapp

Parmandur said:


> There may well be a market for that, but it would have seriously cheesed off the existing PF fanbase beyond all hope, while still being a risk in terms of successfully attracting that new fan base. Both extremes seem fraught, but a middle approach seems deadly dangerous as well.



The existing PF fanbase seems to become cheesed off no matter what Paizo does, but will likely try out the system no matter how loudly they complain unless they absolutely will not leave 3.x (in which case they're a lost cause regardless) so listening to them seems like a poor business decision.

Plus, even if only, say, 10% of 5E players try out the new game, that's likely a bigger market than getting stuck in the old ways.


----------



## CapnZapp

Zardnaar said:


> It won't be Paizos 4E. If it flops it will be for a different reason, it's possible there's nothing Paizo can do to compete at least at the levels they want.



Though it would be interesting if you give your thoughts on the ideas of myself and others, instead of coming across as having decided ahead of time "nothing can be done"...?


----------



## CapnZapp

billd91 said:


> I doubt it would be a question of cheesing off PF fans. But there’s no way Paizo could market PF2 like that, not would they want to. It just associates them even more with IP and trademarks they don’t control. The last time they did that, it almost killed them.



But that's the corporation speaking. The only reason to exist is to eat or be eaten.

I believe the fundamental mistake Paizo is doing is not realizing (or accepting) that there is only one 500 pound gorilla in the room.

They're clearly trying to carve out a market segment of their own. But this has always without exception led to obscure heartbreakery games collecting dust on shelves.

The only place where a Paizo can retain anywhere close to it's PF size is as a satellite to that 500 pound gorilla.

If Paizo were content to be a small operation run from Lisa Stevens garage they can go the 13th Age or Numenera or Dungeon Quest route, but they're clearly not.

Which means they ought to have swallowed their pride and resentment (no matter how justified) and positioned once more their game as something existing D&D gamers should try.

Even if the exact nature of why would differ: PF 1 because WotC went in another direction, PF 2 because WotC seems content to go in no direction.


----------



## Zardnaar

CapnZapp said:


> Though it would be interesting if you give your thoughts on the ideas of myself and others, instead of coming across as having decided ahead of time "nothing can be done"...?




I said it's a possibility. 

 I don't know how it's gonna go but the circumstances are completely different. 

 For example we don't know Paizos financial position. If PF2 tanks plan B might be a 5E satellite. 

  If they go down that path though they're probably the next Kobold Press.


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> The existing PF fanbase seems to become cheesed off no matter what Paizo does, but will likely try out the system no matter how loudly they complain unless they absolutely will not leave 3.x (in which case they're a lost cause regardless) so listening to them seems like a poor business decision.
> 
> Plus, even if only, say, 10% of 5E players try out the new game, that's likely a bigger market than getting stuck in the old ways.




Yes, relying on people who are adamant on sticking with 3.X for twenty years might be poor business: but up until now, that was their business entirely. Anybody who would want something more in the direction of 5E has probably adapted 5E by now, and getting 0.01% of the 5E player base is not guaranteed. It is possible they will lose their core fanbase, and fail to make a new fanbase. And in this way, PF2 could be another 4E: throwing away one group of fans, and failing to replace them.


----------



## CapnZapp

Parmandur said:


> Yes, relying on people who are adamant on sticking with 3.X for twenty years might be poor business: but up until now, that was their business entirely. Anybody who would want something more in the direction of 5E has probably adapted 5E by now, and getting 0.01% of the 5E player base is not guaranteed. It is possible they will lose their core fanbase, and fail to make a new fanbase. And in this way, PF2 could be another 4E: throwing away one group of fans, and failing to replace them.



Absolutely. But the only message I see here is "a new edition at all is a mistake".

What I'm saying is, assuming there will be a new edition, positioning it as the natural evolution for 5E players looking for more crunch seems like a wise decision.

Wiser, that is, than creating a game that might go against some of the sensibilities 5E has gotten current players used to...


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> Absolutely. But the only message I see here is "a new edition at all is a mistake".
> 
> What I'm saying is, assuming there will be a new edition, positioning it as the natural evolution for 5E players looking for more crunch seems like a wise decision.
> 
> Wiser, that is, than creating a game that might go against some of the sensibilities 5E has gotten current players used to...




Quite possibly, but that would still not be a guaranteed success, if it didn't hit it off with the new crowd. What they went with might be the worst of all worlds, ticking off the 3.X hardcore while not being very modern in sensibility.

I do, actually, think a new edition was a mistake on their part: I think they would have been better served by slowing down their publishing stream fornPF1, mostly just adventures for the subscribers, kept the game in print, and put out a new third RPG to sit along PF and SF that they could focus publishing energy on (superheroes, maybe).


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> The existing PF fanbase ...will likely try out the system no matter how loudly they complain unless they absolutely will not leave 3.x



 Weren't those committed 3.x fans the basis for even having PF, in the first place, though.


> Plus, even if only, say, 10% of 5E players try out the new game, that's likely a bigger market than getting stuck in the old ways.



 Now that sounds like angling to repeat 4e marketing blunders.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> Weren't those committed 3.x fans the basis for even having PF, in the first place, though.



Yes. So?


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Weren't those committed 3.x fans the basis for even having PF, in the first place, though.
> Now that sounds like angling to repeat 4e marketing blunders.




Yeah, exactly. The playtest did not give the impression that the designers were on a journey of discovery with their fans, which is what made the Next playtest a marketing hit.


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> Yes. So?




There is heavy sense of irony to the situation.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, exactly. The playtest did not give the impression that the designers were on a journey of discovery with their fans..



 Playtest?

Seriously, though, if the point was ditching the small, established, loyal market for the much, much larger potential market of /people who might like your game if it didn't suck quite as hard/, then just coasting on name recognition as your marketing strategy, so that you only reach that established base you just cut loose, just might have been at cross purposes.

But, I exaggerate.  

A bit.



Parmandur said:


> put out a new third RPG to sit along PF and SF that they could focus publishing energy on (superheroes, maybe).



 Starfinder went well, right?

Superheroes, though? How would they work "...finder" into that?  Crimefinders?  Justicefinders Society?

Actually, I'd think (and I've never made a right prediction like this yet) that the thing to do, in the face of 5e's even-wilder-than-d20s-wild success, would be to happily go back to making APs and accessories  for D&D.

PF subscribers could get versions with PF stats, perhaps?


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Starfinder went well, right?
> 
> Superheroes, though? How would they work "...finder" into that?  Crimefinders?  Justicefinders Society?
> 
> Actually, I'd think (and I've never made a right prediction like this yet) that the thing to do, in the face of 5e's even-wilder-than-d20s-wild success, would be to happily go back to making APs and accessories  for D&D.
> 
> PF subscribers could get versions with PF stats, perhaps?




Honestly, that's where the money would be. The superhero is more of a for example: any other genre would do. Starfinder is a top 5 seller, currently the 4th biggest RPG in the hobby market, after Star Wars and Legend of the Five Rings.


----------



## Tony Vargas

After L5R?  What did L5R do?


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> After L5R?  What did L5R do?




Fantasy Flight released a new RPG edition last October: it's the second best seller in hobby stores as of Fall 2018, between D&D and Star Wars.


----------



## Celtavian

Nope. As a player that has played all versions of D&D since the beginning, PF2 is nothing like 4E. It is far more like 5E. Even that comparison is off. It's more of its own game testing a bunch of new ideas, some of them very interesting, some questionable, and it will take some time to figure out.


----------



## amethal

Tony Vargas said:


> So, /only/ 3.x of all the D&D species, built PCs & NPCs/monsters on exactly the same rules by default.  It was always an option in all the others, but the presentation of monsters/NPCs in completely different blocks is the norm for D&D, just one of the few ways that 4e was normative D&D.



That's clearly the case with monsters.

However, whilst probably no edition of D&D has used *exactly* the same rules for PCs and NPCs, the rules were very similar up until 4th edition, which was a massive change in the way NPCs were statted up. 5th edition dialled it back a lot, but the NPCs still look bizarre to me - an NPC might have 15 hit dice, cast as a 9th level wizard and have the proficiency bonus of a 7th level character. In a funny kind of way, 4th edition NPCs made more "sense" to me - "he's a senior cultist of Orcus, his stat block is nothing like yours because his life path has been *very* different to yours" - rather than 5th edition's "he's a wizard Jim, but not as we know it".


----------



## amethal

CapnZapp said:


> Which means they ought to have swallowed their pride and resentment (no matter how justified) and positioned once more their game as something existing D&D gamers should try.



I don't think Paizo are making their business decisions out of pride and resentment, and I'm surprised you would suggest they are.


----------



## Tony Vargas

amethal said:


> I don't think Paizo are making their business decisions out of pride and resentment, and I'm surprised you would suggest they are.



 Their most successful product - Pathfinder - was based on Pride & Resentment - not /their/ pride or resentment, but you sure can collect a lot of money from proud, resentful people intent on voting with their wallets.



amethal said:


> That's clearly the case with monsters.
> However, whilst probably no edition of D&D has used *exactly* the same rules for PCs and NPCs, the rules were very similar up until 4th edition, which was a massive change in the way NPCs were statted up.



NPCs were statted up, in 1e, just like monsters.  Heck, there were humanoids - actual humans, under the not-sexist-at-all entry "Men" - in the MM, with monster stat blocks. Other times they were condensed statistics.  Other times they were just like PCs, and still others they were built with "Unofficial NPC Classes" from the pages of The Dragon.  Often, they broke all sorts of rules that players probably wouldn't be allowed to get away with - multi-classed humans, for instance. ::shrug::


> 5th edition dialled it back a lot, but the NPCs still look bizarre to me - an NPC might have 15 hit dice, cast as a 9th level wizard and have the proficiency bonus of a 7th level character. In a funny kind of way, 4th edition NPCs made more "sense" to me - "he's a senior cultist of Orcus, his stat block is nothing like yours because his life path has been *very* different to yours" - rather than 5th edition's "he's a wizard Jim, but not as we know it".



There was plenty of that in 1e & 4e ( and 2e, I'm guess'n though I didn't pay enough attention to be sure).  It's just a case 5e being more classic-D&D-like, in a way that 3e was less-classic-D&D like (in fact, probably /least/-classic-D&D-like of all the eds - I title usually taken by 4e in virtually every other imaginable category).


----------



## wakedown

Celtavian said:


> Nope. As a player that has played all versions of D&D since the beginning, PF2 is nothing like 4E. It is far more like 5E. Even that comparison is off. It's more of its own game testing a bunch of new ideas, some of them very interesting, some questionable, and it will take some time to figure out.




Having played all the editions, I have to say PF2E is the closer to 4E than it is to 1E/2E, 3E or 5E.   The more PF2E is played, the more it feels like 4E.   I haven't gotten to play the final PF2E version yet (there's local resistance in doing so) but it doesn't look much different than the Playtest in terms of how it will feel.

First impressions are telling.  4E if you flip to a class you have all these little boxes and colors around a Power and a litany of keywords... (flipping) like the Warlock's Dreadful Blast, "Arcane, Fear, Implement, Psychic" and this little diamond shape separating that from it's indication it's an "Encounter" power.   PF2E is almost identical with how it delineates "powers" and you read through the keyword tagging.  5E, 3E, 2E, 1E read more naturally - it's just a bold ability name and then a non-bold sentence that follows that explains it.    PF2E is heavily based on the notion of using the terms "Stride" and "Strike" often at your table, i.e. spending 2 actions (of your 3) but that 2 action cost gives you the ability to make 3 Strides (a horse gallop IIRC).   After a few sessions, your brain recalls back when it used to say the word "Shift" aloud more often than would seem reasonable.

The action economy feels roughly 4E-esque.  In 4E, I recall folks trying to figure out their "3 action budget" - a standard action and 2 minor actions (or a standard, move and minor, or..).  In PF2E, it's kind of similar as players pretty much stand in place and try to figure out the optimal way to spend 3 actions, sometimes with pauses on determining the rough probability of hitting an AC, but now carrying further baggage of probability of a critical hit or critical miss.   1E, 2E and 5E didn't feel like this at all.  Folks could move freely without expending a "resource unit" that could be spent in another way.  

PF2E is a little worse in a sense because it codifies so many actions, like "Recall Knowledge".  You're jumped by skum and their weird crab-monster pet.  Do you spend 2 of your 3 actions doing "Recall Knowledge" on those 2 things you're facing?  Or do you metagame knowing what to expect because you don't want to spend the precious action that turn and instead get your buffs going?   PF2E really gets into combat crunch and if your players are a little OCD and a little math-bent, they'll start to act out-of-character in order to take the more mathematically sound options.    1E, 2E, 5E didn't have this baggage so much as you had all this freedom outside of combat actions to be like your character should be, and then just decide ultimately what you do with that action (which in the 3E era was more powerful if you didn't move and the conversion of a SA to FRA yielded an incremental benefit).

Overall the feel is a bit like it's a Fantasy Boardgame with its own unique ruleset vs a familar D&D coat you've worn before where at a 6-person table there's really only 1 or 2 people who really have mastery over the specialized rules and act as advisors helping the others play through by the rules and try to beat the challenges by helping them play their own characters more optimally.  To me, the best D&D editions the casual gamers had more autonomy in their decisions each turn because the variability of in-combat in-turn decisions wasn't so broad.   Your friends would encourage, "cast fireball!" at you or "attack it!", which felt more in-character vs explain the precise use of multiple actions, "open with your Swipe, then flourish with your Power Attack!"   This is the kind of Pandemic-esque "coaching"play that we had quite a bit of in the 4E era with unwieldy vocabulary terms that led to its shorter table life (there's a technical term for this across all board game genres which escapes me this morning).

EDIT: Quarterbacking.  That's the term.  PF2E feels like it has more quarterbacking to my groups to put it on par with 4E if not even beyond 4E.  (The next edition down in quarterbacking would be 3E, then a big divide before 5E, 2E, 1E).


----------



## Celtavian

wakedown said:


> Having played all the editions, I have to say PF2E is the closer to 4E than it is to 1E/2E, 3E or 5E.   The more PF2E is played, the more it feels like 4E.   I haven't gotten to play the final PF2E version yet (there's local resistance in doing so) but it doesn't look much different than the Playtest in terms of how it will feel.
> 
> First impressions are telling.  4E if you flip to a class you have all these little boxes and colors around a Power and a litany of keywords... (flipping) like the Warlock's Dreadful Blast, "Arcane, Fear, Implement, Psychic" and this little diamond shape separating that from it's indication it's an "Encounter" power.   PF2E is almost identical with how it delineates "powers" and you read through the keyword tagging.  5E, 3E, 2E, 1E read more naturally - it's just a bold ability name and then a non-bold sentence that follows that explains it.    PF2E is heavily based on the notion of using the terms "Stride" and "Strike" often at your table, i.e. spending 2 actions (of your 3) but that 2 action cost gives you the ability to make 3 Strides (a horse gallop IIRC).   After a few sessions, your brain recalls back when it used to say the word "Shift" aloud more often than would seem reasonable.
> 
> The action economy feels roughly 4E-esque.  In 4E, I recall folks trying to figure out their "3 action budget" - a standard action and 2 minor actions (or a standard, move and minor, or..).  In PF2E, it's kind of similar as players pretty much stand in place and try to figure out the optimal way to spend 3 actions, sometimes with pauses on determining the rough probability of hitting an AC, but now carrying further baggage of probability of a critical hit or critical miss.   1E, 2E and 5E didn't feel like this at all.  Folks could move freely without expending a "resource unit" that could be spent in another way.
> 
> PF2E is a little worse in a sense because it codifies so many actions, like "Recall Knowledge".  You're jumped by skum and their weird crab-monster pet.  Do you spend 2 of your 3 actions doing "Recall Knowledge" on those 2 things you're facing?  Or do you metagame knowing what to expect because you don't want to spend the precious action that turn and instead get your buffs going?   PF2E really gets into combat crunch and if your players are a little OCD and a little math-bent, they'll start to act out-of-character in order to take the more mathematically sound options.    1E, 2E, 5E didn't have this baggage so much as you had all this freedom outside of combat actions to be like your character should be, and then just decide ultimately what you do with that action (which in the 3E era was more powerful if you didn't move and the conversion of a SA to FRA yielded an incremental benefit).
> 
> Overall the feel is a bit like it's a Fantasy Boardgame with its own unique ruleset vs a familar D&D coat you've worn before where at a 6-person table there's really only 1 or 2 people who really have mastery over the specialized rules and act as advisors helping the others play through by the rules and try to beat the challenges by helping them play their own characters more optimally.  To me, the best D&D editions the casual gamers had more autonomy in their decisions each turn because the variability of in-combat in-turn decisions wasn't so broad.   Your friends would encourage, "cast fireball!" at you or "attack it!", which felt more in-character vs explain the precise use of multiple actions, "open with your Swipe, then flourish with your Power Attack!"   This is the kind of Pandemic-esque "coaching"play that we had quite a bit of in the 4E era with unwieldy vocabulary terms that led to its shorter table life (there's a technical term for this across all board game genres which escapes me this morning).




I don't agree. Spell durations are exactly like 5E. Powers are still very 3E like providing unique bonuses and not necessarily doing damage. Heightening is exactly like 5E which 4E did not have. There are no encounter powers. It's nothing like 4E.

If you have played 4E, then you know it did not have a 3 action economy. Nothing of the kind. You're reaching to shove it in the 4E box for some reason. I'm not sure why. Anyone that has played 4E will know PF2 is nothing like 4E. It's more like 5E in some areas and more like 3E in others like focus points and use on demand abilities rather than encounter or daily.

PF2 is it's own game. None of the mechanics you list were in 4E. I played that game and despised it. I know it well having gave it a good run as I do every edition of D&D. Anyone that has played 5E will see that PF2 drew some mechanics from 5E like spell durations and heightening. That it kept old D&D Vancian magic, something 4E didn't even try to do. That's its power structure is based on focus points, use on demand, and none that encounter power like 3E than encounter and daily video game like mechanics.

It is most definitely not 4E. I'm not going to discuss that comparison any longer because I despired 4E. Any discussion will bring out my vitriol recalling a game that almost ruined D&D. I'm glad 5E restored the fun in D&D for many. 5E felt far more like D&D even if I didn't enjoy running it. As far as PF2, we'll see where it ends up. It's so different and seems to pull from so much, it's hard to say whether I will like it or not.


----------



## Celtavian

Tony Vargas said:


> Their most successful product - Pathfinder - was based on Pride & Resentment - not /their/ pride or resentment, but you sure can collect a lot of money from proud, resentful people intent on voting with their wallets.




We're calling preferring a different way of playing D&D pride and resentment? Really? I gave 4E a shot. I didn't like it. So I moved to _Pathfinder_. I tried 5E. I thought it was ok and liked a lot of the mechanical changes, but boring to me. I stuck with _Pathfinder_. I always give D&D systems a shot. I'm glad _Pathfinder_ existed or I would have still been playing 3rd edition with no adventure support.


----------



## wakedown

Celtavian said:


> If you have played 4E, then you know it did not have a 3 action economy. Nothing of the kind. You're reaching to shove it in the 4E box for some reason. I'm not sure why.




I'm simply relating the assessment of multiple gaming groups.

You might not see the "3 action economy" of 4E and 3E but many local alpha players among my gaming groups fully optimized for it, particularly Turn 1 and Turn 2 action budgets.

Just to show I'm not picking on 4E, which was basically 3E in this regard except closer to a 3-action economy as it had a more apparent library of minor actions.   PF1E (3E) gave you 3 actions per turn (codified as a standard, a move and a swift action).   Alpha players, when asked about how their character did whatever crazy Turn 1 shenanigans they did, would then often share the theorycrafting about builds to ensure you had something to do with each of those actions.

So you'd have players trying to determine how to use their Move action and their Trickery domain to toss up a Copy Cat, then use their Free Action to rage, and maybe their Swift action to cast Divine Favor.  Again, it's all about maximizing the 3 actions per turn.   In 3E/PF1E/4E you'd often have players not moving because they found something better to do with that action budget.   The more you end up with an alpha player in PF2E, the more coaching you'll see about not actually using your actions to move, but instead use them to pay the cost of other things.

If you didn't play with any alpha player(s) who really maximized the action economy, the game would feel much different with more even parity.  Believe it or not, this became fairly prevalent in PFS Organized Play so much so that Paizo made a ruling on the maximum number of free actions that could be taken per turn at one point, which then led to a massive backlash as certain punishing OP GMs would then use that to try to curtail the players taking more than 3 actions per turn via free actions.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Celtavian said:


> We're calling preferring a different way of playing D&D pride and resentment? Really?



There sure was a lot of glee whenever PF sales numbers edged out D&D sales numbers.  I doubt conscious wallet-voting was an entirely trivial part of that.  (Though, to be fair, surveys indicated a /lot/ of crossover between D&D and PF fans - that is, lots of people bought into both for their respective runs - and the kind of single-ed-insistent 'pride' being alluded to was also shown, in WotC surveys, to be the exception, not the rule, with most fans of D&D liking all the editions they played, rather than exclusively committing to one or/and hating another.)

Mainly, having lived through all the very vocal resentment of the early edition war years, it was just too amusing a set-up to waste - 'pride' came along for the ride because the post I replied to happened to use it.   If they'd said 'pizza & resentment' I'd've had to've used that. 




wakedown said:


> You might not see the "3 action economy" of 4E



They're a Standard, Move, & Minor action, so there's /three/ of them.  ::shrug::



> PF1E (3E) gave you 3 actions per turn (codified as a standard, a move and a swift action).



Wow, how 'bout that. 

For that matter 5e has Action, Move, & Bonus Action, but...



> In 3E/PF1E/4E you'd often have players not moving because they found something better to do with that action budget.




… the thing 5e did, and it's one of the few things they tried to make at all 'tight' (along with BA), though, was not let you trade action.  3e & 4e both let you 'down grade' actions.  Standard for Move, Move for Minor, that kinda thing, so that, for instance, a double-move flowed fairly intuitively from the rules.
5e made each Action explicit, rather than a trade.  So moves do little more than move, and a double-move is accomplished with the specific Dash action, which is still an Action, not a Move, just an Action that moves you the same distance as a Move. Thus if some foolish designer ever let you do something broken with you Move, you couldn't double-up on it by downgrading your Action to a Move.
...and then your Bonus Action doesn't exist unless you come up with something that gives you one...



> Believe it or not, this became fairly prevalent in PFS Organized Play so much so that Paizo made a ruling on the maximum number of free actions that could be taken per turn at one point, which then led to a massive backlash as certain punishing OP GMs would then use that to try to curtail the players taking more than 3 actions per turn via free actions.



Sounds plausible. 







> The more you end up with an alpha player in PF2E, the more coaching you'll see about not actually using your actions to move, but instead use them to pay the cost of other things.



It seems like 3 fungible actions/round really invites optimizing 3 attacks per round... there's gotta be more to it than that.


----------



## Carmen Sbordone

I would never say P2 is paizo's akin to 4th edition. However. 2019 is not the same as 2007/2008. Times and situations have radically changed on 10 years.

5e is VERY popular. Unlike the last edition it has not split a fan base. More people are playing.

P2 on the other hand is a bit of a departure from its previous edition. Enough so some are sticking to P1 and i keep seeing posts like "is pathfinder 2 bad?". 

To be fair, i avoided the play test, but to my limited looking around, that seem to have some problems.

I wouldnt be surprised at all to see starfinder outshine and out do pathfinder2.


----------



## Celtavian

wakedown said:


> I'm simply relating the assessment of multiple gaming groups.
> 
> You might not see the "3 action economy" of 4E and 3E but many local alpha players among my gaming groups fully optimized for it, particularly Turn 1 and Turn 2 action budgets.
> 
> Just to show I'm not picking on 4E, which was basically 3E in this regard except closer to a 3-action economy as it had a more apparent library of minor actions.   PF1E (3E) gave you 3 actions per turn (codified as a standard, a move and a swift action).   Alpha players, when asked about how their character did whatever crazy Turn 1 shenanigans they did, would then often share the theorycrafting about builds to ensure you had something to do with each of those actions.
> 
> So you'd have players trying to determine how to use their Move action and their Trickery domain to toss up a Copy Cat, then use their Free Action to rage, and maybe their Swift action to cast Divine Favor.  Again, it's all about maximizing the 3 actions per turn.   In 3E/PF1E/4E you'd often have players not moving because they found something better to do with that action budget.   The more you end up with an alpha player in PF2E, the more coaching you'll see about not actually using your actions to move, but instead use them to pay the cost of other things.
> 
> If you didn't play with any alpha player(s) who really maximized the action economy, the game would feel much different with more even parity.  Believe it or not, this became fairly prevalent in PFS Organized Play so much so that Paizo made a ruling on the maximum number of free actions that could be taken per turn at one point, which then led to a massive backlash as certain punishing OP GMs would then use that to try to curtail the players taking more than 3 actions per turn via free actions.




It does not sound like you played 4E from your description. There was no optimizing for a 3 action round or anything of the kind. 4E had basic attacks which you could use all the time, encounter powers you could use per encounter, and dailies. Your actions were decided by those abilities along with a move action. One of things I hated about 4E was my players were blowing off their encounter powers regardless of how hard the encounter was because it felt like they were wasting the power if they didn't. That element right there drove me nuts. There is nothing like that in PF2. If there was, I'd probably not even try the game. You combined your whatever power (they were all mostly the same anyway) with your move action. The PF2 3 action system is fairly unique in my experience.

Maybe alpha player is the new term for min-maxers, I don't know. I play with min-maxers that spend hours trying to find every angle. It even gets stupid sometimes where the barbarian is wearing a headband of wisdom just to boost his will save and that complain if I don't let them make individualized magic items using the full extent of the magic item creation rules. I know what PF looks like when the players are pushing the envelope and squeezing every rule in their favor. Maybe that isn't alpha enough for the term, I can't say.

My early impressions are that PF2 won't allow that level of power, at least not in the core. I'm sure power creep will come in as splat books come. I do like that the current game doesn't seem to have as many clearly optimal choices for classes, archetypes, weapons, or feats. I hope that is the case as the players level. I'd like to see TWF, archery, 2hander, and sword and board all be viable options for a martial. So far it seems that is the case.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Celtavian said:


> It does not sound like you played 4E from your description. There was no optimizing for a 3 action round or anything of the kind. 4E had basic attacks which you could use all the time, encounter powers you could use per encounter, and dailies. Your actions were decided by those abilities along with a move action.



One 4e trick along those lines was to dig up minor-action attacks. Some striker classes had minor action attack encounter powers, there was a feat that let you use an at-will as a minor action 1/encounter, Dragonborn Breath, etc. Then you'd 'Alpha* Strike' with a high-damage encounter or daily as your Standard Action, Action Point for another(+ an extra basic, perhaps, from PP feature), then move-for-minor & minor for both minor-action attacks (it's not even like you necessarily gave up movement, as plenty of standard-action encounter attacks could include moving, shifting or charging). You could prettymuch flush all your encounter powers in the first round (maybe two), and easily erase a standard monster (or maybe elite), push a Solo past bloodied, or whatever. 
Then you kinda sat around plinking the rest of the fight, because you were a Pony and that was your One Trick.  


> One of things I hated about 4E was my players were blowing off their encounter powers regardless of how hard the encounter was because it felt like they were wasting the power if they didn't.



Encounter powers were like the visually defining 'signature moves' you'd see an action hero pull, they weren't always a lot more powerful than an at will, and might not always be worth using in absolutely every encounter, depending on how situational your choices were, but if, in contrast to the above 'optimized Alpha Strike,' you did take more interesting/situational encounter powers, and didn't burn through them in rapid succession, you'd often get to use them in a more effective or attention-catching way later in the encounter.

Same's true of Dailies over the day, of course.  It was a stylistic thing, which way you went, really.  The Alpha Strike optimization could actually turn out not that optimal, at all, depending on the set up of the encounter and the nature of the enemy.








* not in the same sense 'alpha player' seems to be being used in this thread, AFAICT, more in the usual 3.x era notion of 'Nova,' but, well, less so, because you had fewer daily resources to flush in 4e, and the payoff wasn't on the same order.


----------



## wakedown

Celtavian said:


> It does not sound like you played 4E from your description. There was no optimizing for a 3 action round or anything of the kind. 4E had basic attacks..




If I could go back and time and get the hours back from 2/3rd of the 4E games (1/3rd I'm sure had funny non-rules related hijinx), I probably would.   The most competitive gamers we played with in the 4E era regularly used 3 powers per turn by converting a move action into a 2nd minor action and deriving the most value from two minor actions in a turn.

5E & 1E/2E do not allow a player to trade a "move action" for something else that could be more optimal.  You move or don't.  Casual players like moving.  In fact, I'd say most 3E players, even those who read the rules a first pass, thought you could attack mid-move until they were illuminated that such antics were limited to the protected realms of Spring Attackers.

You're free to continue to suggest I've never played 4E, but that doesn't change the reality of what optimizers did in the 4e era and the social contract that was present in organized play where optimal use of potential actions per round is a thing.  If you didn't see this in your group playing 4E, you likely won't see it playing PF2E either so that's great news!


----------



## TwoSix

wakedown said:


> 5E & 1E/2E do not allow a player to trade a "move action" for something else that could be more optimal.  You move or don't.  Casual players like moving.  In fact, I'd say most 3E players, even those who read the rules a first pass, thought you could attack mid-move until they were illuminated that such antics were limited to the protected realms of Spring Attackers.



Even in 2019, most of my players who played 3e/PF for a long time still look for ways to cash in their movement for some other benefit, usually for some extra item interaction or stunting.   The preference for trading in your move definitely seems to be a mindset thing where people prefer one approach or the other.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Celtavian said:


> It does not sound like you played 4E from your description. There was no optimizing for a 3 action round or anything of the kind.



Of course there was. Did _you_ play 4E?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Matrix Sorcica said:


> Of course there was. Did _you_ play 4E?



To be fair, _most_ of that came from later supplements. The PHB didn't really have all that many minor-action powers.

I am of the understanding that the game eventually got to the point where you could throw out a minor-action attack almost every round, but that definitely wasn't my experience with 4E, shortly after release. (I still wanted to optimize my use of the action economy, of course, but I couldn't really push it very far with just the tools available at the time.)


----------



## Celtavian

Matrix Sorcica said:


> Of course there was. Did _you_ play 4E?





Yes. And the rounds were nothing like PF2 in the original release version. If some change came later, then it was nothing I experienced. The original game was move, use one of your powers, and perhaps a minor action. If that's what you mean by three actions, then every single game system since 3E has had a three action around.

PF2 is a three action round with each action being equal and flexible not even requiring you move at any time if you don't have a need to. PF2 action system is very different when we're talking about a 3 action paradigm.


----------



## CapnZapp

amethal said:


> I don't think Paizo are making their business decisions out of pride and resentment, and I'm surprised you would suggest they are.



Thank you for asking!

When I ask myself "why on earth would they ever go with a brand new system with no easy ties into either their previous system or the current edition of D&D" (where 99% of customers are at) I repeatedly get the reply Paizo wants to avoid getting burned again as they were when Wizards yanked their Dragon/Dungeon license and created 4E inside a walled garden.

Since I am convinced the only location where Paizo can thrive to the extent necessary to maintain the scale of current operations is in close orbit to the 500 ft gorilla, I conclude deciding to do otherwise must be rooted in pride and resentment.

Pride in thinking the Pathfinder brand is (much) stronger than it really is. Every dndish game that isn't D&D quickly ends up on dusty shelves. (Note: Pathfinder was not it's own game, it WAS D&D)

Resentment in harboring a grudge for WotC when the coldly rational choice would be to realize your nature as a parasite, essentially, and forget about past bad treatment and stay close to the host organism that nourishes you.

I hope that answers your question


----------



## CapnZapp

TwoSix said:


> Even in 2019, most of my players who played 3e/PF for a long time still look for ways to cash in their movement for some other benefit, usually for some extra item interaction or stunting.   The preference for trading in your move definitely seems to be a mindset thing where people prefer one approach or the other.



It's easy to mistake 5E's approach as a "simplified" one. At first, I made that mistake too. 

But 5E's approach isn't simple. I mean, yes it is, but more importantly it's the _correct_ approach.

That is, I have come to the conclusion the approach where move is "just extra" is the correct one:

§1 Liberal use of move means dynamic exciting cinematic battles. 
§1b Not moving around means static boring battles.

§2 Move needs to be free to be used liberally. 

§3 The only way for movement to stay free is if there is zero ways to "cash it in" for something more minmaxed (like even a single extra point of damage, or healing, or attack or defense).

Ergo, it is not merely "simple" to offer no ways to spend your move on other things than positioning. _It is good game design._


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Since I am convinced the only location where Paizo can thrive to the extent necessary to maintain the scale of current operations is in close orbit to the 500 ft gorilla, I conclude deciding to do otherwise must be rooted in pride and resentment.
> 
> Pride in thinking the Pathfinder brand is (much) stronger than it really is. Every dndish game that isn't D&D quickly ends up on dusty shelves. (Note: Pathfinder was not it's own game, it WAS D&D)
> 
> Resentment in harboring a grudge for WotC when the coldly rational choice would be to realize your nature as a parasite, essentially, and forget about past bad treatment and stay close to the host organism that nourishes you.
> 
> I hope that answers your question



And every time you post this, I point out that this is ridiculous to think that pride and resentment are the most plausible explanations, and how this further requires building upon your massive assumption in the first sentence that you have convinced yourself to be true.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> ...



Let me just remind you I wasn't talking to you. I was answering a direct question from Amethal.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> It's easy to mistake 5E's approach as a "simplified" one. At first, I made that mistake too.
> 
> But 5E's approach isn't simple. I mean, yes it is, but more importantly it's the _correct_ approach.



That's a bold assertion, but I can't actually disagree with it. 

On a similar note, I would say that a point-buy game the separates combat and non-combat abilities into different point pools is also the correct approach (for a combat-based game). A choice between something interesting and something useful is not really a choice, unless you expect people to shoot themselves in the foot in the name of style.


----------



## wakedown

CapnZapp said:


> Resentment in harboring a grudge for WotC when the coldly rational choice would be to realize..




Ah, I think this reads into the current state of Paizo too much.   Paizo's lost a ton of their talented creative personnel who helped them reach their peak - Wes Schneider, James Sutter, Sean K Reynolds, Crystal Frasier, etc.   Outside of Jacobs and Bulmahn they lost most of their folks who had over a decade of GM experience.   Even their old guard AP contributors have mostly moved on besides an occasional Pett AP chapter.  The general sentiment I've picked up is folks like Stevens and Mona are more managerial than ever so there's really a lot of the day to day being thought upon now by fairly new folks to the industry.   A lot of their own content is penned by GMs who often just have "1 GM star" in their own organized play campaign, and if I recall correctly Seifter was more of a player than a GM, and ultimately was mostly a single-system gamer so didn't have a broad background in "other games".

So I suspect it's really just mostly junior personnel in the halls while the senior folks are tackling financial matters (like deciding to use GameOn for the Kingmaker campaign in order to generate immediate cash to use for covering Core 2e production costs as a management level decision).

From what I understand they were at the 2e crossroads long prior to Starfinder and kind of passively aggressively kicking the can down the road to make a decision as far as they could.  Why worry today about what you could hopefully worry about tomorrow?

Thus 2e is really as by-product of a fatigued Bulhman, a 4e contributing Bonner, McFarland and power-gaming build-aficionado Seifter who probably had little framework outside of "get something out in the next year" since the financials show we passed the point of criticality.   2e isn't really a by-product of a veteran team with ungodly behind-the-screen-GM experience but a lot of contributors from the post-MMO era who got their wings in the Pathfinder 1E character builds era and I honestly don't think have gone much outside of that room.

PF2e really seems this way from a rules perspective.  Internally they probably don't see the 3-action system as much different than today's standard/move/swift system.   They probably feel like the Dedication system is better for curtailing the cheese from build dips that led to abusing the power curve in 1E PFS play (which thus then requires gating feats behind classes).  One point I come back to often is how they left a spell like Endure Elements in the system (whereas 5e removed it).  Or how they kept Barkskin in as an always useful get-DR spell (whereas 5e it's just get up to AC17 if you aren't already).   There's still all the fiddly bits to "win" the metagame system by ensuring you have the right scrolls or spells.   In that sense, PF2E swims close to PF1E in that folks who like to make builds get their candy, and folks who like the IWIN button in solving things that used to be real story points in 1E-2E (and returned to the realm of possibility in 5E).

TLDR: I think they just postponed 2E too long, lost all their experienced people, and the folks there really don't see 2E as that much different than 1E and grudgingly it's a compromise-design-by-committee system primarily oriented at plugging some organized play abuse points.


----------



## CapnZapp

wakedown said:


> Ah, I think



Interesting. Insightful, even!


----------



## TwoSix

CapnZapp said:


> It's easy to mistake 5E's approach as a "simplified" one. At first, I made that mistake too.



I....didn't say it was simple?  I just said that some of my players understand that the ability to move has a net-positive value, and so if they don't have to move they want to try to extract some value from an otherwise unused resource.  I understand and agree with your premise, but I also can't fault their psychology in trying to get as much as use out of their turn as possible, since that's the very heart of good combat play in every version of D&D.

I do quibble with the point that "liberal use of move means dynamic exciting cinematic battles".  The best way for that to happen is for the encounter to have a sense of place, with each area of the encounter having obvious tactical advantages and disadvantages.  Then the liberal use of move allows the battle to mutate as those advantages and disadvantages become part of the encounter.  Movement doesn't do much in battle in a 30' by 30' locked room with 4 orcs.


----------



## pogre

PFS is hanging tough here despite an uptick in 5e play. My observations from a recent convention I helped run last week:
PF1 tables were not filled, but had enough to play. The PF2 (playtest) table had to cancel one and had trouble filling the other tables. All of the Starfinder tables were completely filled. Very local and pretty small convention, but it was interesting to see.


----------



## MockingBird

I feel like Paizo should have made a gradual shift to support 5e. They could have kept starfinder and PF1e and double down on designing great APs double stated for 1e and 5e. Maybe even making an "advanced" rules option for 5e for the ones who like heavy math. PF2e just feels desperate but this is just my opinion on what little i have read and seen so far. Am i correct to believe some 4e designers took part in designing PF2e? Interesting if so because they are back to the same task they had for 4e. By what some are saying in these forums PF2e is leaning in a tactical way. Definitely staying tuned to see how this turns out.


----------



## JesterOC

CapnZapp said:


> §1 Liberal use of move means dynamic exciting cinematic battles.
> §1b Not moving around means static boring battles.
> 
> §2 Move needs to be free to be used liberally.
> 
> §3 The only way for movement to stay free is if there is zero ways to "cash it in" for something more minmaxed (like even a single extra point of damage, or healing, or attack or defense).



I would say
1) Location / placement in combat should have advantages and disadvantages which encourage you to use movement.
2) Movement should not be free as doing leads to no true choices, if you are at a disadvantage you would be foolish to not move, if you are at an advantage you would be foolish to move.

Having a cost to movement does two things
1) Forces you to weigh the cost vs the gain in advantage
2) Allows you to consider if you could force this cost on to your opponent.

In 5e with attacks of opportunity and free movement, once a player is near the average monster, the only movement I see players do is to orbit them. Mainly so they avoid an attack of opportunity, and to hopefully get a flanking bonus (which is an optional rule!).
Stepping into combat hitting and moving back is almost never done, because you have a potential to be hit on the way back and since movement towards the creature is free it looses nothing when it approaches you.

However if you take a look at PF2. A normal creature has no attack of opportunity this allows for more movement.

PC's fighting creatures have exhibited the following strategies.

The traditional move to get into flank

The use of a move to get out of flank is more common (due to lack of op attacks)

If the one side outnumbers the other, if the outnumbered members will often step away from the horde after attacking. Because it will force the greater number of creatures to waste actions on movement that could have been used for attacks. For instance if a PC was being swarmed by lets say 3 creatures, one action step action by the PC, removing 3 actions from the monsters side. 

If an opponent has a shield and the attacker does not. Stepping away after attacking a shield user will force the shield user must decide between a second attack and using the shield.


----------



## CapnZapp

MockingBird said:


> I feel like Paizo should have made a gradual shift to support 5e.



This


----------



## Parmandur

MockingBird said:


> I feel like Paizo should have made a gradual shift to support 5e. They could have kept starfinder and PF1e and double down on designing great APs double stated for 1e and 5e. Maybe even making an "advanced" rules option for 5e for the ones who like heavy math. PF2e just feels desperate but this is just my opinion on what little i have read and seen so far. Am i correct to believe some 4e designers took part in designing PF2e? Interesting if so because they are back to the same task they had for 4e. By what some are saying in these forums PF2e is leaning in a tactical way. Definitely staying tuned to see how this turns out.




Well, they are putting out a 5E version of Kingmaker now, so that might be Plan B: focus in-house developmentefforts on the very successful adventure card game, and make Adventure material for a variety of games (to fit their subscription model). Kobold Press might have beaten them to the niche, though.


----------



## wakedown

CapnZapp said:


> This




I ask myself -- What is "Paizo"?

Is it the guys who penned great stuff like Age of Worms back in the days of Dungeon?  And then great stuff like Rise of the Runelords?

If it's the actual human being with the creative idea, and the stat blocks to implement it... take some of the parts of Age of Worms:

Three Faces of Evil - Mike Mearls
Blackwall Keep - Sean K Reynolds
A Gathering of Winds - Wolfgang Bauer
Prince of Redhand - Richard Pett
Library of Last Resort - Nick Logue
Kings of the Rift - Greg Vaughan

Then you realize most of the "Old Paizo Guard" that has decades of GM experience has done just that and is penning plenty of 5E stuff these days.  I'm a big fan of almost all the Wes Schneider stuff and he's on the 5E bandwagon too.

Most notably missing?  James Jacobs.  He'd be fantastic if he would independently publish material outside of Paizo... with his creativity he could make a killing in the current Kickstarter age.


----------



## Aldarc

MockingBird said:


> *I feel like Paizo should have made a gradual shift to support 5e. *They could have kept starfinder and PF1e and double down on designing great APs double stated for 1e and 5e. Maybe even making an "advanced" rules option for 5e for the ones who like heavy math. PF2e just feels desperate but this is just my opinion on what little i have read and seen so far. Am i correct to believe some 4e designers took part in designing PF2e? Interesting if so because they are back to the same task they had for 4e. By what some are saying in these forums PF2e is leaning in a tactical way. Definitely staying tuned to see how this turns out.



God no. I already feel that the over abundance of 5e everything on the market has been a huge turn off for me and has increasingly soured me to 5e, with some people slobbering over it as if it farts rainbows and potpourri. I like that there are alternate systems out there for D&D style fantasy. I want to see gaming companies do non-5e things successfully. I want to see healthy competition in the market. I know a lot of people who played 5e and increasingly find it stale and have moved on. Paizo being another sheep in the flock does nothing to address that.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex

Aldarc said:


> God no. I already feel that the over abundance of 5e everything on the market has been a huge turn off for me and has increasingly soured me to 5e, with some people slobbering over it as if it farts rainbows and potpourri. I like that there are alternate systems out there for D&D style fantasy. I want to see gaming companies do non-5e things successfully. I want to see healthy competition in the market. I know a lot of people who played 5e and increasingly find it stale and have moved on. Paizo being another sheep in the flock does nothing to address that.




I wholeheartedly agree as much as I enjoy 5e, I'm really a person who likes a little more crunch and a few more options. 5e past level 3 you make so few meaningful character choices unless you multiclass that fundamentally by the time level 5 or 6 comes around who your character is doesn't change very much outside of a few classes(Bard and warlock and now the artificer which coincidentally are some of my favorite classes for that reason). Then compounding this issue of so little choice is the glacially slow pace of content release, so I notice the lack of options even more. Also Wizards is really ticking me off with how they are doing releases now with 1 or two subclasses in books instead of larger rules and PC and DM books. I don't want to be nickeled and dimed like that. Then there are the digital offerings like D&D Beyond which I refuse to ever pay for because if that company goes under all "my" content goes away with it which means it wasn't mine to begin with.


----------



## MockingBird

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I wholeheartedly agree as much as I enjoy 5e, I'm really a person who likes a little more crunch and a few more options. 5e past level 3 you make so few meaningful character choices unless you multiclass that fundamentally by the time level 5 or 6 comes around who your character is doesn't change very much outside of a few classes(Bard and warlock and now the artificer which coincidentally are some of my favorite classes for that reason). Then compounding this issue of so little choice is the glacially slow pace of content release, so I notice the lack of options even more. Also Wizards is really ticking me off with how they are doing releases now with 1 or two subclasses in books instead of larger rules and PC and DM books. I don't want to be nickeled and dimed like that. Then there are the digital offerings like D&D Beyond which I refuse to ever pay for because if that company goes under all "my" content goes away with it which means it wasn't mine to begin with.




That's why I suggested Paizo could make an advanced 5e Options book. 5e is very modular and more character Options or mechanics could possibly be added to support those who like the crunch. I understand yalls opinions though and I cant fully disagree with them because competition is good. I just feel a lot of good stories were missed by folks unwilling to dig through the complexity of PF1e.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> I like that there are alternate systems out there for D&D style fantasy. I want to see gaming companies do non-5e things successfully. I want to see healthy competition in the market. I know a lot of people who played 5e and increasingly find it stale and have moved on. Paizo being another sheep in the flock does nothing to address that.



Me too.

My point is merely that 5E has heightened the bar for all dndish games, and that Paizo better make games that listen and learn.

In no way do they have to be another sheep in flock to do that.

It just means that I am convinced 5E has brought an utter unacceptance from the market of another rehash of 3E era caster-martial balance or NPC build complexity


----------



## CapnZapp

MockingBird said:


> That's why I suggested Paizo could make an advanced 5e Options book.



This. Very much this.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Me too.
> 
> My point is merely that 5E has heightened the bar for all dndish games, and that Paizo better make games that listen and learn.



Where I differ from you CapnZapp is that I don't think that 5e somehow "solved" the game. I think that it provided _a_ solution - that happened to have the official WotC D&D logo - and many people found it tolerable enough to their liking. (As you occasionally hear on these forums, 5e is often everyone's second favorite edition. ) Even then, not everyone agrees that it's a good solution. Some may not even believe that there was a problem that needed to be solved. I think that it is important to recognize that 5e is not the end-all-be-all of d20 game design for D&D style fantasy and not everyone shares the same hang-ups that you fixate on (e.g., LFQW, etc.). 

I often get the sense from some of these threads that some people are pulling for PF2 to fail because 5e is their pet system that they want to see "win" rather than pulling for Paizo to succeed in creating a new, innovative fun game that can exist alongside 5e in a healthy diverse market. (It seems that the edition wars never went away; they only got a face lift and changed how the war is fought.) If this attitude turned me off from D&D during the d20 3.X era, it sure as hell does now in the 5e era. 



> It just means that I am convinced 5E has brought an utter unacceptance from the market of another rehash of 3E era caster-martial balance or NPC build complexity



I think that you are overstating the importance of this while also ignoring how 5e brought LFQW _back_, even if its 3e excesses have been curbed.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> while also ignoring how 5e brought LFQW _back_, even if its 3e excesses have been curbed.



Tony Vargas also keeps reminding me. And while I'm sure it's technically true it is also entirely irrelevant.

That is the reason I'm not bringing it it. I simply don't care about 4E. They could have cured cancer and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, since 4E lies still on the garbage heap of history.

The only comparison relevant to me is if PF2 will come across as a modern or retrograde game, seeing as we now live in a post 5E world.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> I often get the sense from some of these threads that some people are pulling for PF2 to fail because 5e is their pet system that they want to see "win" rather than pulling for Paizo to succeed in creating a new, innovative fun game that can exist alongside 5e in a healthy diverse market. (It seems that the edition wars never went away; they only got a face lift and changed how the war is fought.) If this attitude turned me off from D&D during the d20 3.X era, it sure as hell does now in the 5e era.



I'm sure you have ample reason for your concern.

Me however I would LOVE if PF2 ended up as an alternative for all of us wanting more playerside crunch than 5E can provide. Just a functional utility-based magic item economy alone would be very welcome!


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Tony Vargas also keeps reminding me. And while I'm sure it's technically true it is also entirely irrelevant.
> 
> That is the reason I'm not bringing it it. I simply don't care about 4E. They could have cured cancer and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, since 4E lies still on the garbage heap of history.
> 
> The only comparison relevant to me is if PF2 will come across as a modern or retrograde game, seeing as we now live in a post 5E world.



Look, I'm not talking about 4e or your garbage opinions about it. I'm talking about how 5e brought LFQW back. If 5e brought LFQW back, then that means that 5e retains LFQW. That's the actual point that both  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and I have been making which somehow gets lost. 5e has LFQW. For someone who puts up a fuss about LFQW, you turn a conveniently blind eye to its presence in 5e. It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."


----------



## CapnZapp

LFQW is unmanageable too large in 3E/PF1.

LFQW is manageably fixed and contained in 5E.

How can it be difficult to understand "I hope, for Paizo's sake, PF2 is like 5E and not like 3E"...?

I'm only talking about a game's level of LFQW. Not that one game needs to resemble another on any other plane.

And why are you having trouble with me not bringing 4E into this equation. What 4E does or do not do simply isn't needed to make the above point.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."




Please stop spreading this misinformation. It's edition warring nonsense.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> Look, I'm not talking about 4e or your garbage opinions about it. I'm talking about how 5e brought LFQW back. If 5e brought LFQW back, then that means that 5e retains LFQW. That's the actual point that both  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and I have been making which somehow gets lost. 5e has LFQW. For someone who puts up a fuss about LFQW, you turn a conveniently blind eye to its presence in 5e. It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."




4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field and making everything samey. 5E went back to an asymmetrical design, which is more pleasing, and then made that work.


----------



## wakedown

MockingBird said:


> That's why I suggested Paizo could make an advanced 5e Options book. 5e is very modular and more character Options or mechanics could possibly be added to support those who like the crunch. I understand yalls opinions though and I cant fully disagree with them because competition is good. I just feel a lot of good stories were missed by folks unwilling to dig through the complexity of PF1e.




While we love our ENworld team, it's telling that A Touch More Class (for 5E) had 2630 backers and Paizo/Legendary's Kingmaker (for PF2, PF1 & 5E) had 2347 backers (and has had a longer opportunity to secure that number and a CRPG audience to feed off).

Or a 5E campaign setting in the Humblewood Kickstarter grabbed 14,604 backers.

To a certain extent you have your wish in that older Paizo contributors are all mostly 5E contributors these days just that work is being done outside of Paizo Inc ownership.   I suspect it's just a matter of time (in the next 0-2 years) before some of the most tenured Paizoians (Jacobs & Bulmahn) attempt their own Kickstarters given that if they did something to support 5E as independents, done right they're probably looking at a $1M campaign with 10K backers.  I imagine for Jacobs it'll be harder since he essentially gifted his home world to Paizo Inc.   For Bulmahn it'll be a redemption path as he could conceivably be the guy who publishes the "3.875" rules being clamored for and as a sole-not-a-committee author show he's batting 2 of 2 on rules publishing while disassociating PF2E to a certain extent.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> That is the reason I'm not bringing it it. I simply don't care about 4E. They could have cured cancer and it wouldn't make an iota of difference



That's showing you care, /a lot/, just in a very negative way.  Like <a possible RL examples redacted> … er, like a Klingon cares about tribbles[/quote]


> while I'm sure it's technically true it is also entirely irrelevant.



When you assert that 5e has 'raised' a bar, and that reducing somewhat the enormity of the gap between caster & martial classes relative to 3.5, is a major way in which that bar was 'raised,' yeah, the fact that bar hasn't moved much at all is kinda relevant.

At least you're no longer trying to promulgate the fiction that 5e 'fixed LFQW,' when, in fact, it brought it back. 



> The only comparison relevant to me is if PF2 will come across as a modern or retrograde game, seeing as we now live in a post 5E world.



"Retrograde?"  Who doesn't just say 'retro.'  And, in the post-5e 'world' (of TTRPGs), it's a lot safer to follow the leader, and go retro - but not /quite/ OSR retro.  'Modern' would be following trends led by games like PbtA or DitV or something... and that would probably be a bad call for Paizo.

Really, it's kinda funny, D&D is riding a come-back wave, rivaling it's 80s popularity, in small part, by evoking the feel of the system as it was in the 80s, and, in large part, by having 'D&D' on the cover while threading that always-critical-when-selling-cult/nerd-IP-to-the-mainstream needle between accessible to new fans and acceptable to old fans. Because if you make the game too faithful to the existing fanbase, it'll repel too many of the newbies who try it - and if you don't make it faithful /enough/ the fans will raise such a 'controversy' that few newbies will want to try it.

The only way that matters to PF2 is that they don't have an old-fan backlash to hitch their clone-an-old-version wagon to, this time.




CapnZapp said:


> I'm sure you have ample reason for your concern.
> Me however I would LOVE if PF2 ended up as an alternative for all of us wanting more playerside crunch than 5E can provide. Just a functional utility-based magic item economy alone would be very welcome!



I get that, I really do, because 5e's slow pace of release is upsetting to the GABA receptors of anyone acclimated to 3.5/PF.  But, really, they can't easily be going that way. It'd've made a lot more sense, if they were going there, to have hopped onto the 5e bandwagon no later than the release of it's SRD, and started churning out high-quality adventures, either their usual APs or the smaller-format old-school-style modules WotC seems reluctant to print, and then segue from that into providing 'Advanced' supplemental options for 5e, finally bringing it up to 3.5-style speed.

We'd have the munching and the crunching.  

PF2 doesn't sound a thing like that - nor does it sound anything like 4e. 



CapnZapp said:


> LFQW is unmanageable too large in 3E/PF1.
> 
> LFQW is manageably fixed and contained in 5E.



Yeah.  No. Nice try though.  LFQW and Tier 1 caster supremacy was absolutely /crazy/ in 3.5, though, you're not wrong about that, even PF1 arguably reigned it in a little.  It's like 3.5 was the Joker running wild in Gotham City while Batman was on vacation, and 5e is the contained, manageable, Hannibal Lecter.



> I'm only talking about a game's level of LFQW. What 4E does or do not do simply isn't needed to make the above point.



[/quote]On an LFQW/caster-supremacy scale of 1-10, with 1 being theoretically-impossible perfect caster-martial balance, and 10 being "would make even an Ars Magica mage feel a little guilty."  And leaving out 4e:

3.5:  15
PF1:  14
5e:  13
2e: 12
1e: 11

j/k  

f'real, this time:


3.5:  10
5e:    9
AD&D:  8



> How can it be difficult to understand "I hope, for Paizo's sake, PF2 is like 5E and not like 3E"...?



It's not hard to understand, at all:  that's fairly clearly-stated.  

/The/ big difference between 5e & 3e, though, is DM Empowerment, as abetted by the 'play loop.'  
Other than that*, especially with options turned on, they're quite similar systems.




Imaro said:


> Aldarc said:
> 
> 
> 
> It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop spreading this misinformation. It's edition warring nonsense.
Click to expand...


Oh, be serious, there's no criticism of 5e that rises to the level of sheer libel that typified the edition war.  I mean, for one thing, Aldarc is just stating a fact:  every class in the 5e PH does, in fact, use magic, as a feature, no magic items required.  

What he's leaving out is that 3 of those classes - the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue - use magic in only one of their sub-classes (TB, EK, & AT).  That's hardly even misleading.  

It's not remotely in the same league of the old edition-warring "Fighters cast spells!" that was flatly false.  Because, in 5e, Fighters - who take the Eldritch Knight archetype at 3rd level - do, in fact, cast spells.

And nobody really cares. ;P


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, be serious, there's no criticism of 5e that rises to the level of sheer libel that typified the edition war.  I mean, for one thing, Aldarc is just stating a fact:  every class in the 5e PH does, in fact, use magic, as a feature, no magic items required.
> 
> What he's leaving out is that 3 of those classes - the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue - use magic in only one of their sub-classes (TB, EK, & AT).  That's hardly even misleading.
> 
> It's not remotely in the same league of the old edition-warring "Fighters cast spells!" that was flatly false.  Because, in 5e, Fighters - who take the Eldritch Knight archetype at 3rd level - do, in fact, cast spells.
> 
> And nobody really cares. ;P




I'm going to assume you were trying to quote me and note I didn't make any comparisons to levels of libel... Plain and simple everyone does not have magic in 5e. That simple undeniable fact makes his statement false (thus misinformation)... and the statement was being used to disparage one edition in comparison to another... but apparently for you that only seems to matter if it's 4e being disparaged... Continue fighting the silly fight last of the  4eriors... Lol


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> That's showing you care, /a lot/, just in a very negative way.  Like <a possible RL examples redacted> … er, like a Klingon cares about tribbles



When you assert that 5e has 'raised' a bar, and that reducing somewhat the enormity of the gap between caster & martial classes relative to 3.5, is a major way in which that bar was 'raised,' yeah, the fact that bar hasn't moved much at all is kinda relevant.

At least you're no longer trying to promulgate the fiction that 5e 'fixed LFQW,' when, in fact, it brought it back. 

"Retrograde?"  Who doesn't just say 'retro.'  And, in the post-5e 'world' (of TTRPGs), it's a lot safer to follow the leader, and go retro - but not /quite/ OSR retro.  'Modern' would be following trends led by games like PbtA or DitV or something... and that would probably be a bad call for Paizo.

Really, it's kinda funny, D&D is riding a come-back wave, rivaling it's 80s popularity, in small part, by evoking the feel of the system as it was in the 80s, and, in large part, by having 'D&D' on the cover while threading that always-critical-when-selling-cult/nerd-IP-to-the-mainstream needle between accessible to new fans and acceptable to old fans. Because if you make the game too faithful to the existing fanbase, it'll repel too many of the newbies who try it - and if you don't make it faithful /enough/ the fans will raise such a 'controversy' that few newbies will want to try it.

The only way that matters to PF2 is that they don't have an old-fan backlash to hitch their clone-an-old-version wagon to, this time.


I get that, I really do, because 5e's slow pace of release is upsetting to the GABA receptors of anyone acclimated to 3.5/PF.  But, really, they can't easily be going that way. It'd've made a lot more sense, if they were going there, to have hopped onto the 5e bandwagon no later than the release of it's SRD, and started churning out high-quality adventures, either their usual APs or the smaller-format old-school-style modules WotC seems reluctant to print, and then segue from that into providing 'Advanced' supplemental options for 5e, finally bringing it up to 3.5-style speed.

We'd have the munching and the crunching.  

PF2 doesn't sound a thing like that - nor does it sound anything like 4e. 

Yeah.  No. Nice try though.  LFQW and Tier 1 caster supremacy was absolutely /crazy/ in 3.5, though, you're not wrong about that, even PF1 arguably reigned it in a little.  It's like 3.5 was the Joker running wild in Gotham City while Batman was on vacation, and 5e is the contained, manageable, Hannibal Lecter.

[/quote]On an LFQW/caster-supremacy scale of 1-10, with 1 being theoretically-impossible perfect caster-martial balance, and 10 being "would make even an Ars Magica mage feel a little guilty."  And leaving out 4e:

3.5:  15
PF1:  14
5e:  13
2e: 12
1e: 11

j/k  

f'real, this time:


3.5:  10
5e:    9
AD&D:  8

It's not hard to understand, at all:  that's fairly clearly-stated.  

/The/ big difference between 5e & 3e, though, is DM Empowerment, as abetted by the 'play loop.'  
Other than that*, especially with options turned on, they're quite similar systems.




Imaro said:


> Oh, be serious, there's no criticism of 5e that rises to the level of sheer libel that typified the edition war.  I mean, for one thing, Aldarc is just stating a fact:  every class in the 5e PH does, in fact, use magic, as a feature, no magic items required.
> 
> What he's leaving out is that 3 of those classes - the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue - use magic in only one of their sub-classes (TB, EK, & AT).  That's hardly even misleading.
> 
> It's not remotely in the same league of the old edition-warring "Fighters cast spells!" that was flatly false.  Because, in 5e, Fighters - who take the Eldritch Knight archetype at 3rd level - do, in fact, cast spells.
> 
> And nobody really cares. ;P




As to the use of "retrograde," the Capn is Swedish (IIRC), and is working on his second language at any rate.

5E solves the caster/martial gap by making the difference manageable, rather than removing the difference. In combat, a Fighter without magic will, over the course of a full combat day, contribute the same asa Wizard: the difference now isn't linear progression versus quadratic progression, it's a steady line of contribution versus a wave pattern of contribution for the Wizard. If the casters are consistently outshining the martials, then the DM needs to up the ante and make the casters worry about the resource game. If resources are not pushed to their limit, it is a table issue, not the rules of 5E having failed to provide the solution.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Wow. Attribution. 



Parmandur said:


> 4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field



Correct. 
AEDU eliminated LFQW on the basic, mechanical level.  Resource progressions were at a rough parity.  

It certainly wasn't /perfect/ - there's no comparing Comeback Strike to Sleep, for instance, even though each was arguably its respective class's best level 1 daily.

And, even then, /encounter/ balance (challenge) was affected by pacing & day length, just not class balance.



Parmandur said:


> 5E solves the caster/martial gap by making the difference manageable, rather than removing the difference.



That's not actually /solving/, and, really, 'manageable's what every classic edition (and even 3.5) did, already, anyway...



> In combat, a Fighter without magic will, over the course of a full combat day, contribute the same asa Wizard: the difference now isn't linear progression versus quadratic progression, it's a steady line of contribution versus a wave pattern of contribution for the Wizard. If the casters are consistently outshining the martials, then the DM needs to up the ante and make the casters worry about the resource game. If resources are not pushed to their limit, it is a table issue, not the rules of 5E having failed to provide the solution.



Not actually what LFQW refers too, though it's closely related, and, well, it's a good description of an important issue that comes up when running /any/ edition of D&D, so worth talking about (more on LFQW later).

Yes, non-casters have generally tended to grind out their contribution (little more than dishing out and soaking up damage, in the case of the classic 'simple fighter') in a consistent, round-by-round, entirely at-will manner.  And the idea was that, while casters would completely upstage that any round they cast a spell, they wouldn't be casting spells all the time - because there were a /lot/ of considerations, limitations to casting in the olden days. 
[sblock="it was hard out there, for a caster"]A caster had to memorize spells in advance, so he had to pick not only the spells he'd likely need, but how many times he'd need each of them.  In practice, given imperfect information, that meant needing spells that you could have picked but didn't, and either casting a poor substitute or not casting at all in the round that came up; that meant not needing a spell you did memorize, at all, so ending the day with it uncast, essentially reducing your spells/day by 1; that meant hesitating to use a spell early even when that might end up having been the best chance to use it, even hesitating to cast a spell only to find the day's challenges over and, again, yourself functionally 'down' a spell/day.  Casters also had to deal with difficulties casting spells in melee (or even at range or under even slightly challenging adventuring conditions, like a pitching ship's deck or swaying rope bridge or back of a moving mount) and could /lose/ a spell they attempted to cast as a result - again, down another spell/day.[/sblock]
Later editions progressively did away with basically all those restrictions.  Casting in 5e is carefree, wasted slots are rarity, all your slots are likely used as efficiently as possible, limited only by your tactical acumen and DM's fiendishness.

What's more, the baseline that casters operated at has edged up, too.  A wizard throwing darts in 1e, in 3e, was shooting a light crossbow, and, in 5e, throws attack cantrips that scale with level.

It's no surprise that the prescribed day length to balance the Champion trudging along, grinding out the damage round after round, punctuated maybe every-other encounter by an action surge, with the Wizard, casting his best spell for the situation with every slot, and tossing one of several attack cantrips in between, required 5e prescribing a 6-8 encounter, 2-3 short rest 'day.'

Thing is, that's not a solution, it's an issue, in itself, as it's dictating how the DM run his game and what decisions the players have on the table.  Because, if the players /do/ decide to long rest more often or short rest less often, the values plugged into that formula change, and the putative 'balance' vanishes.  It's not like 5e doesn't give players tools to carry through with such a decision, either.

So, saying it's 'fixed' or 'manageable' is pushing it.  It was manageable the same way it was in the TSR era.  Heck, a draconian* enough DM could even tax 3.x casters so heavily with time pressures, misleading information, and brutal enemy tactics as to drag them down to the Tier 5 classes' baseline and impose heavy-handed balance, even on that 'peak magic' version of D&D. 


So, yeah, time pressure and encounters/day and restrictions on magic have always attempted to impose balance on innately unbalanced classes in D&D.


LFQW, though, actually refers to the progression of classes as they level.  A classic beatstick fighter increments his chance to hit every level.  He might get a better magic weapon now and then.  He eventually gets more than one attack per round.  His DPR steadily increases. That's the LF.  The caster, OTOH, starts out with 1 spell of 1st level cast at 1st level ability and as he levels gets more spell, higher level spells, and all those spells scale, so his power balloons at an accelerating place.  That's the QW (Q for quadratic, and it might be better to say geometric or hyperbolic or something else, depending on how big a math geek you are and how precise you need your metaphors to be).  You might think that a 5e caster's spells scaling some things, like damage, with slot instead of character level addresses that, and it does, a bit - but, then, so did 3.5 scaling save DCs & capping damage with slot rather than caster level, and that didn't help much, either.  (Bottom line, though, low level spells stay useful in both eds: 3.5 for spells without saves like utility spells, 5e for spells /with/ saves.  The coefficients are slightly different, but it's still metaphorically "quadratic.")
















* cf: Heart of Nightfang Spire.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Wow. Attribution.
> That's not actually /solving/, and, really, 'manageable's what every classic edition (and even 3.5) did, already, anyway...
> 
> Not actually what LFQW refers too, though it's closely related, and, well, it's a good description of an important issue that comes up when running /any/ edition of D&D, so worth talking about (more on LFQW later).
> 
> Yes, no-casters have generally tended to grind out their contribution (little more than dishing out and soaking up damage, in the case of the classic 'simple fighter') in a consistent, round-by-round, entirely at-will manner.  And the idea was that, while casters would completely upstage that any round they cast a spell, they wouldn't be casting spells all the time - because there were a /lot/ of considerations, limitations to casting in the olden days.
> [sblock="it was hard out there, for a caster"]A caster had to memorize spells in advance, so he had to pick not only the spells he'd likely need, but how many times he'd need each of them.  In practice, given imperfect information, that meant needing spells that you could have picked but didn't, and either casting a poor substitute or not casting at all in the round that came up; that meant not needing a spell you did memorize, at all, so ending the day with it uncast, essentially reducing your spells/day by 1; that meant hesitating to use a spell early even when that might end up having been the best chance to use it, even hesitating to cast a spell only to find the day's challenges over and, again, yourself functionally 'down' a spell/day.  Casters also had to deal with difficulties casting spells in melee (or even at range or under even slightly challenging adventuring conditions, like a pitching ship's deck or swaying rope bridge or back of a moving mount) and could /lose/ a spell they attempted to cast as a result - again, down another spell/day.[/sblock]
> Later editions progressively did away with basically all those restrictions.  Casting in 5e is carefree, wasted slots are rarity, all your slots are likely used as efficiently as possible, limited only by your tactical acumen and DM's fiendishness.
> 
> What's more, the baseline that casters operated at has edged up, too.  A wizard throwing darts in 1e, in 3e, was shooting a light crossbow, and, in 5e, throws attack cantrips that scale with level.
> 
> It's no surprise that the prescribed day length to balance the Champion trudging along, grinding out the damage round after round, punctuated maybe every-other encounter by an action surge, with the Wizard, casting his best spell for the situation with every slot, and tossing one of several attack cantrips in between, required 5e prescribing a 6-8 encounter, 2-3 short rest 'day.'
> 
> Thing is, that's not a solution, it's an issue, in itself, as it's dictating how the DM run his game and what decisions the players have on the table.  Because, if the players /do/ decide to long rest more often or short rest less often, the values plugged into that formula change, and the putative 'balance' vanishes.  It's not like 5e doesn't give players tools to carry through with such a decision, either.
> 
> So, saying it's 'fixed' or 'manageable' is pushing it.  It was manageable the same way it was in the TSR era.  Heck, a draconian* enough DM could even tax 3.x casters so heavily with time pressures, misleading information, and brutal enemy tactics as to drag them down to the Tier 5 classes' baseline and impose heavy-handed balance, even on that 'peak magic' version of D&D.
> 
> 
> So, yeah, time pressure and encounters/day and restrictions on magic have always attempted to impose balance on innately unbalanced classes in D&D.
> 
> 
> LFQW, though, actually refers to the progression of classes as they level.  A classic beatstick fighter increments his chance to hit every level.  He might get a better magic weapon now and then.  He eventually gets more than one attack per round.  His DPR steadily increases. That's the LF.  The caster, OTOH, starts out with 1 spell of 1st level cast at 1st level ability and as he levels gets more spell, higher level spells, and all those spells scale, so his power balloons at an accelerating place.  That's the QW (Q for quadratic, and it might be better to say geometric or hyperbolic or something else, depending on how big a math geek you are and how precise you need your metaphors to be).  You might think that a 5e caster's spells scaling some things, like damage, with slot instead of character level addresses that, and it does, a bit - but, then, so did 3.5 scaling save DCs & capping damage with slot rather than caster level, and that didn't help much, either.  (Bottom line, though, low level spells stay useful in both eds: 3.5 for spells without saves like utility spells, 5e for spells /with/ saves.  The coefficients are slightly different, but it's still metaphorically "quadratic.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * cf: Heart of Nightfang Spire.




The spell slots have a defined damage/healing HP value, as outlined in the DMG, yes. This is the basis for the balance. The tools to provide combat parity are provided to the DM, and aren't rocket science. Narrative balance outside combat is provided for in downtime rules. Note that the cantrips are always(literally always) never better than a crossbow: as they scale, they do so to keep up with what would be a Tier appropriate magical crossbow.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> The spell slots have a defined damage/healing HP value, as outlined in the DMG, yes. This is the basis for the balance. The tools to provide combat parity are provided to the DM, and aren't rocket science. Note that the cantrips are always(literally always) never better than a crossbow: as they scale, they do so to keep up with what would be a Tier appropriate magical crossbow.



That's about the idea, well, except for the assumption of magical crossbows, if that's what you meant (5e assumes no magic items & no feats; and, cantrips scale in step with extra attacks, so would leave a crossbow in the dust, due to the loading property).
Cantrips are an at-will baseline that stays a bit below the at-will baseline of non- (and 1/2 & 1/3rd &c) casters, so, if a 'day' is long enough, that difference adds up to the difference between the at-will baseline and that spell-casting spikes...

...and, yes, it does seem to be fairly neatly formulaic in terms of DPR, which /is/ the most easily calculated, thus most easily criticized metric with which D&D is typically flogged.  

But, it completely ignores versatility, the more difficult metric that organized the infamous 3.x "Class Tiers" which, really, haven't changed /that/ dramatically in 5e (apart from there being dramatically fewer classes, and the Bard really climbing).



> Narrative balance outside combat is provided for in downtime rules.



Not see'n that so much.  I mean, I /like/ that there are downtime rules, at all, but I don't see how they balance anything, they're just kinda neat. 

Out of combat balance is between at-will resources (checks) which casters are at least as good at as non-casters, and rituals, which are a little more time-consuming, though also unlimited-use.  So, again, it's a matter of imposing some rough balance through time-pressure.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> But, it completely ignores versatility, the more difficult metric that organized the infamous 3.x "Class Tiers" which, really, haven't changed /that/ dramatically in 5e (apart from there being dramatically fewer classes, and the Bard really climbing).




Yes but magic (in the form of rituals and even powers) in the game gave more versatility to casters in 4e as well... so how did 4e solve this if, according to you, 5e doesn't solve it because casters are more versatile?


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> That's about the idea, well, except for the assumption of magical crossbows, if that's what you meant (5e assumes no magic items & no feats; and, cantrips scale in step with extra attacks, so would leave a crossbow in the dust, due to the loading property).
> Cantrips are an at-will baseline that stays a bit below the at-will baseline of non- (and 1/2 & 1/3rd &c) casters, so, if a 'day' is long enough, that difference adds up to the difference between the at-will baseline and that spell-casting spikes...
> 
> ...and, yes, it does seem to be fairly neatly formulaic in terms of DPR, which /is/ the most easily calculated, thus most easily criticized metric with which D&D is typically flogged.
> 
> But, it completely ignores versatility, the more difficult metric that organized the infamous 3.x "Class Tiers" which, really, haven't changed /that/ dramatically in 5e (apart from there being dramatically fewer classes, and the Bard really climbing).
> 
> Not see'n that so much.  I mean, I /like/ that there are downtime rules, at all, but I don't see how they balance anything, they're just kinda neat.
> 
> Out of combat balance is between at-will resources (checks) which casters are at least as good at as non-casters, and rituals, which are a little more time-consuming.  So, again, it's a matter of imposing some rough balance through time-pressure.




Time pressure is often how stories get moved along, yes.

I haven't seen any attempt to place the 5E Classes into "Tiers" that actually worked out like in 3.X: except maybe "Rangers, and them everyone else" as WotC has found through their surveys. Yes, magic users have lots of magical versatility: it's magic. Narratively imposed limits (i.e., having a DM) are the main part of keeping that in line, and the tools to do so have been provided.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Time pressure is often how stories get moved along, yes.
> I haven't seen any attempt to place the 5E Classes into "Tiers"



They get shouted down pretty quickly, and it's not like they were ever non-controversial. 
Neo-Vancian keeps the usual suspects in Tier 1 (if you transplanted neo-Vancian into 3.5, it'd make them "Tier 0" for sure), the Bard has clawed it's way up quite a bit, arguably even that high. Some sub-classes arguably belong in different Tiers, the Fighter could be said to be splayed out from Tier 5 through 3.   But not all that hugely different, really, because the game's /trying not to be that hugely different, really/.



> Yes, magic users have lots of magical versatility: it's magic. Narratively imposed limits (i.e., having a DM) are the main part of keeping that in line, and the tools to do so have been provided.



DM fiat can keep /anything/ in line, sure. ::shrug::




Imaro said:


> Yes but magic (in the form of rituals and even powers) in the game gave more versatility to casters in 4e as well... so how did 4e solve this



 It didn't, it just didn't multiply it LFQW factors.  Like I said, not perfect.

The versatility disparity was there from 1st level.  Fighter got defender class features, skills. The Wizard got controller class features (which, itself, gets complicated), skills, plus cantrips, plus rituals.  
(Now, TBF, rituals cost to cast made them little more than a license to use a specific expendable item, and with wealth/level & make/buy, the fighter had quite the range of expendables, too.)
And, there was inherently less versatility in martial exploits - which were always weapon-keyword, virtually never typed damage, mostly attacked AC, typically melee/range, limited when Close & rarely area, and more combat-focused when utilities - than prayers or spells which had numerous damage types, were frequently range/area, imposed a wider range of conditions (slightly, you didn't expect to see Dominate on exploits, for instance), especially exception-based one-offs (like, oh, "I hurl you through Hell - save ends, tho"), and accomplished a wider range of effects with utilities.  

But, that didn't balloon at high level in the LFQW pattern.  The casters and non-casters /both/ got more options as they leveled up, so the relative versatility of those options didn't grow vastly with level.



> But,  if, according to you, 5e doesn't solve it because casters are more versatile?



Not /just/ for that reason, but, yes, spells & rituals are greatly upgraded (restored) in effect and versatility compared to spells & rituals in 4e.  

5e /did/ focus on getting BA & DPR to line up, though.  A Warlock's baseline DPR isn't obviously superior to an Archers, for instance. Single-target DPR is formulaic by slot level (& cantrips attack bonus, and save DCs by caster level) and not the most potent thing you can do with a spell.  Area & multi-target DPR is another thing entirely, and once you go beyond DPR, there's vanishingly little (the odd BM trick) on the non-caster side.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> They get shouted down pretty quickly, and it's not like they were ever non-controversial.
> Neo-Vancian keeps the usual suspects in Tier 1 (if you transplanted neo-Vancian into 3.5, it'd make them "Tier 0" for sure), the Bard has clawed it's way up quite a bit, arguably even that high. Some sub-classes arguably belong in different Tiers, the Fighter could be said to be splayed out from Tier 5 through 3.   But not all that hugely different, really, because the game's /trying not to be that hugely different, really/.
> 
> DM fiat can keep /anything/ in line, sure. ::shrug::
> 
> 
> It didn't, it just didn't multiply it LFQW factors.  Like I said, not perfect.
> 
> The versatility disparity was there from 1st level.  Fighter got defender class features, skills. The Wizard got controller class features (which, itself, gets complicated), skills, plus cantrips, plus rituals.
> (Now, TBF, rituals cost to cast made them little more than a license to use a specific expendable item, and with wealth/level & make/buy, the fighter had quite the range of expendables, too.)
> And, there was inherently less versatility in martial exploits - which were always weapon-keyword, virtually never typed damage, mostly attacked AC, typically melee/range, limited when Close & rarely area, and more combat-focused when utilities - than prayers or spells which had numerous damage types, were frequently range/area, imposed a wider range of conditions (slightly, you didn't expect to see Dominate on exploits, for instance), especially exception-based one-offs (like, oh, "I hurl you through Hell - save ends, tho"), and accomplished a wider range of effects with utilities.
> 
> But, that didn't balloon at high level in the LFQW pattern.  The casters and non-casters /both/ got more options as they leveled up, so the relative versatility of those options didn't grow vastly with level.
> 
> Not /just/ for that reason, but, yes, spells & rituals are greatly upgraded (restored) in effect and versatility compared to spells & rituals in 4e.
> 
> 5e /did/ focus on getting BA & DPR to line up, though.  A Warlock's baseline DPR isn't obviously superior to an Archers, for instance. Single-target DPR is formulaic by slot level (& cantrips attack bonus, and save DCs by caster level) and not the most potent thing you can do with a spell.  Area & multi-target DPR is another thing entirely, and once you go beyond DPR, there's vanishingly little (the odd BM trick) on the non-caster side.




It was less "shouted down" and more "proven to be not useful for optimizing" since the Class balance was fixed in 5E.

Relying on anything other than DM fiat to keep a tabletop RPG going is fools gold.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> It was less "shouted down" and more "proven to be not useful for optimizing"



It was always more about versatility/power and campaign planning than optimization.  I mean, that's like saying "E6 was proven not to be useful for optimizing."  



> since the Class balance was fixed in 5E.



"Fixed" as in "only exists at a certain number of encounters and short rests per day," arguably.  Fixed as in "repaired," hardly... 



> Relying on anything other than DM fiat to keep a tabletop RPG going is fools gold.



Heh. 
I mean, if you have a net, why even try to grab the trapeze, right?


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> It didn't...




We are certainly in agreement here.



Tony Vargas said:


> The versatility disparity was there from 1st level.  Fighter got defender class features, skills. The Wizard got controller class features (which, itself, gets complicated), skills, plus cantrips, plus rituals.
> (Now, TBF, rituals cost to cast made them little more than a license to use a specific expendable item, and with wealth/level & make/buy, the fighter had quite the range of expendables, too.)
> And, there was inherently less versatility in martial exploits - which were always weapon-keyword, virtually never typed damage, mostly attacked AC, typically melee/range, limited when Close & rarely area, and more combat-focused when utilities - than prayers or spells which had numerous damage types, were frequently range/area, imposed a wider range of conditions (slightly, you didn't expect to see Dominate on exploits, for instance), especially exception-based one-offs (like, oh, "I hurl you through Hell - save ends, tho"), and accomplished a wider range of effects with utilities.
> 
> But, that didn't balloon at high level in the LFQW pattern.  The casters and non-casters /both/ got more options as they leveled up, so the relative versatility of those options didn't grow vastly with level.




The number of powers has nothing to do with the amount of versatility provided if you have 4 powers that are... do X damage, do X+5 damage, do X damage and push, do X damage and pull... while I have 4 that are.... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball ... I have the same number of powers but much greater versatility.  4e created a like number of powers for each class but what those powers could accomplish is where versatility kicked in and casters outshined martials in 4e just like every other edition of D&D.



Tony Vargas said:


> Not /just/ for that reason, but, yes, spells & rituals are greatly upgraded (restored) in effect and versatility compared to spells & rituals in 4e.




In what way?  Let's take a look at Raise dead in both editions...

In 4e you can cast the spell at 8th level... In 5e you can't cast it until 9th level.
In 4e creature must have died within 30 days... In 5e creature must have died within 10 days
In 4e component cost is 500gp ... in 5e component cost is specifically a diamond worth 500 gp
In 4e creature returns to life as if it had taken an extended rest... In 5e creatire returns with 1 hit point
In 4e creature comes back with -1 penalty to attks, abil/skill checks & saves which is gone after 3 milestones... In 5e the creature comes back with a -4 penalty to attks, abil checks & saves which is reduce by 1 after each long rest
In 4e casting time is 8hrs... In 5e casting Time is 1hr

So where exactly is this nerfing of effect or versatility?  In nearly every comparable category the 4th edition Raise Dead is better then the 5e one.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> It was always more about versatility/power and campaign planning than optimization.  I mean, that's like saying "E6 was proven not to be useful for optimizing."
> 
> "Fixed" as in "only exists at a certain number of encounters and short rests per day," arguably.  Fixed as in "repaired," hardly...
> 
> Heh.
> I mean, if you have a net, why even try to grab the trapeze, right?




Certainly, one doesn't need to follow the encounter day to have fun: see Critical Role, for example, they never follow the full day guidelines and have a blast.

If a table cares about martial/caster balance, the tools to keep it in line are provided. If not, then bliss on.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> The number of powers has nothing to do with the amount of versatility provided
> .... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball ...



In the context of LFQW, it /really/ does.  If you have one character gain 6 over 20 levels, and they're not that versatile, vs another gaining 25 over 20 levels, and they're potentially quite varied & versatile, you go from a clear advantage to an overwhelming one.  If you both gain a total of 4 such powers, then even if one tends to have more versatile powers than the other, the gulf doesn't widen hugely as you go.



> In what way?  Let's take a look at Raise dead in both editions...



Raise Dead, really? 
Let's look at Wish:  Oh, we can't, it didn't even exist in 4e, because they purged it of the most problematic spells.
Oh, or how about, since you called them out: .... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball … since you already brought them up.

Levitate:
Available at:  4e, 6th level; 5e, 3rd level
Range/target:  4e self-only; 5e, 60'/creature or object, forces CON save
Duration:   4e sustain(move) up to 5 min; 5e concentration(no action) up to 10 min
Speed:   4e 15' vertical, 5' horizontal; 5e, 20' vertical, climb speed horizontal if near a surface
Ceiling:  4e 20'; 5e 60'
Usage:   4e 1/day (6th level utility); 5e 2nd level slot.

invisibility

Available at:  4e, 6th level; 5e, 3rd level
Range/target:  4e 25'/one creature; 5e, touch/one creature
Duration:   4e sustain(Standard) up to 5 min, broken if attacks, or moves more than 25' from you; 5e concentration(no action) up to 1 hr, broken if attacks no range limit.
Usage:   4e 1/day (6th level utility*); 5e 2nd level slot, higher level slots turn more creatures invisible.

*worth noting that a 4e wizard might know both invisibility & levitate (and nothing else of that level), but would have to prep one or the other as his 6th level utility, and, regardless of his level, could use it only 1/day, whereas a 5e wizard could prep both, and use any 2nd or higher level slot(s) to cast either spell.


minor illusion
Availability:  4e cantrip (Ghost Sound); 5e cantrip
Range:   50' ; 30' 
effect:  sound, whisper to yelling or fighting; sound whisper to lion's roar OR image of an object in a 5' cube
duration:  none ; 1 min (ends if re-cast in that time) 
usage:  at-will ; at-will


fireball 
Available at:  4e, 5th level; 5e, 5th level
Range/target:  4e 100'/12.5'r (25' cube, TBH); 5e, 150'/20'r (40' sphere)
Damage:  4e 4d6+INTmod; 5e 8d6
Save:    attacks REF*, miss:1/2 (no damage to minions); DEX* save: 1/2 (if that exceeds your Kobold's hps, too bad)
Usage:   4e 1/day regardless of level; 5e 3rd level slot, higher level slots add damage.

* 4e REF is one of 3 defenses, all of which scale with level, 5e DEX is one of 6 saves, 2 of which typically scale with level.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> Imaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of powers has nothing to do with the amount of versatility provided
> .... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of LFQW, it /really/ does. If you have one character gain 6 over 20 levels, and they're not that versatile, vs another gaining 25 over 20 levels, and they're potentially quite varied & versatile, you go from a clear advantage to an overwhelming one. If you both gain a total of 4 such powers, then even if one tends to have more versatile powers than the other, the gulf doesn't widen hugely as you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is more powers *that are more versatile * makes a character more versatile than someone with less powers that are *less versatile*... You're still seperating the versatility of the powers from number of powers... otherwise you wouldn't have to specify more versatile powers.
> 
> In other words in your same situation having the same number of powers the character with more versatile powers will still be more versatile and it is likely that if their powers are fundamentally more versatile even with less they will probably be more versatile.  not sure what exactly this was a rebuttal to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tony Vargas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at Wish: Oh, we can't, it didn't even exist in 4e, because they purged it of the most problematic spells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's... Wish in 5e duplicates and other spell of 8th level of lower (remember it's 9th level spell). Outside of that it can...
> 1. Create an object of up to 25,000 gp in value not magical and must fit in a 300 X 300 X 300 unoccupied space.
> 2. Heal 20 creatures that you can see in one space to full hit points.
> 3. Grant Immunity to 10 creatures a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours.
> 4. Force a reroll of any roll made within the last round.
> 
> Outside of these specific effects it's up to the individual DM if anything else can be accomplished.  And this is your supposedly all-powerful spell in 5e?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> At least you're no longer trying to promulgate the fiction that 5e 'fixed LFQW,' when, in fact, it brought it back.



I definitely do.

If we ignore 4E, which is easy to do, my advice to Paizo is clear.

"Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5E comprehensively fixed 3E in some very fundamental areas."


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah.  No. Nice try though.  LFQW and Tier 1 caster supremacy was absolutely /crazy/ in 3.5, though, you're not wrong about that, even PF1 arguably reigned it in a little.  It's like 3.5 was the Joker running wild in Gotham City while Batman was on vacation, and 5e is the contained, manageable, Hannibal Lecter.



You're just rambling.

I know from personal experience that the value of bringing along martials in 5E is far greater than anything in 3.x

On the other hand, PF1 did comparatively nothing to fix 3E. That's the reason Paizo really needs to step up now. They won't get away with something like PF1 now, in a 5E world.

And again, sorry, but nobody cares what 4E did or didn't do. The only lesson to be learnt from 4E is, don't do it like that.

LFQW index:

3.x and PF: unbearable
4E: irrelevant
5E: significantly improved to the degree I call it as fixed.

Now, if we add a fourth line to this table (and call it PF2), it's clear to me it better offer LFQW about on the level of what 5E is offering, because otherwise it will come across as an unwelcome throwback, a game not living with the times.

My point: nostalgia is indeed alive and well, but do not confuse the want for older times with a desire for the old bad days.

Us customers might want old styles and tropes, but that does not extend to uncomfortable mechanics and details.

Nobody accepts LFQW any longer. 5E has shown you can play a 2E-3E like game and not be plagued by rampant LFQW without having to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as 4E did. Them's the breaks and Paizo better know it.


----------



## CapnZapp

Parmandur said:


> 4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field and making everything samey. 5E went back to an asymmetrical design, which is more pleasing, and then made that work.




Exactly.

The value of "we fixed LFQW" in 4E is zero, if you can't stand the AEDU sameness.

The effort brought by 5E is far more valuable, since it shows us a way to play a 3E-like game but without 3E-like LFQW.

It is arguably 5E's greatest accomplishment.


----------



## FrogReaver

CapnZapp said:


> LFQW is unmanageable too large in 3E/PF1.
> 
> LFQW is manageably fixed and contained in 5E.
> 
> How can it be difficult to understand "I hope, for Paizo's sake, PF2 is like 5E and not like 3E"...?
> 
> I'm only talking about a game's level of LFQW. Not that one game needs to resemble another on any other plane.
> 
> And why are you having trouble with me not bringing 4E into this equation. What 4E does or do not do simply isn't needed to make the above point.




Honestly, Wizards are still quadratic in 5e.  There are 2 important mitigating factors though.
1.  Generally non-stacking effects (largely due to concentration)
2.  Martial niche of single target damage superiority

This means that even though a wizard gains power quadratically that he is often restricted from bringing it to bear in encounter/game trivializing ways.  He also will never be as good as a fighter at single target damage which means that even though the wizard scales quadratically, there's still a purpose for a fighter as a wizard isn't typically capable of doing his job of killing things better than he is.

So you are right, LFQW still exists in 5e, but it's contained to the point that is acceptable for now.  It could still have a vast amount of improvement though.


----------



## Hussar

I'd also point out that LFQW is largely restricted to wizards now (and maybe sorcerers).  The other caster classes certainly are not putting the fightery types to shame.  A cleric is nowhere near dealing the damage of a fighter.  Not even close.  Druids, depending on type, maybe, but, then, druids are pretty much just themed wizards in 5e anyway.

If your fightery type is being rendered useless in the game by the casters, you aren't trying very hard.  The range between the classes is pretty darn close.


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> I definitely do.
> 
> If we ignore 4E, which is easy to do, my advice to Paizo is clear.
> 
> "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5E comprehensively fixed 3E in some very fundamental areas."




It was pretty clear during the rollout of the playtest that the PF2 design team was not overly familiar with 5E, which is concerning from a practical standpoint. They don't need to mimic 5E, bit not knowing what people are playing in the Twenty-Teens doesn't bode well for designing the next big thing.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> I'd also point out that LFQW is largely restricted to wizards now (and maybe sorcerers).  The other caster classes certainly are not putting the fightery types to shame.  A cleric is *nowhere near dealing the damage of a fighter. * Not even close.  Druids, depending on type, maybe, but, then, druids are pretty much just themed wizards in 5e anyway.



 DPR would be a pretty limited way of looking at LFQW, but any damaging AE can wipe enemies off the mapTotM faster than the fighter could dream of, including the Cleric's notorious spirit guardians.

So, it's "just Wizards," which includes Sorcerers and Druids... and well, Clerics who happen to use Spirit Guardians... and, BTW, Warlocks can make with fightery DPR, plus spells over and above that...

...so, really,  the question is, "what have you got against Bards?"





That said,  you do have a point about Clerics (and, though you didn't make it, I'll add Druids' animal companions*) not being able to show up the fighter at his own thing in 5e the way they (suposedly) did in 3e from 1st level.









* low-hanging fruit, I know, since at most were talking whatever the Druid can cast Animal Friendship on.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> I'd also point out that LFQW is largely restricted to wizards now (and maybe sorcerers).  The other caster classes certainly are not putting the fightery types to shame.  A cleric is nowhere near dealing the damage of a fighter.  Not even close.  Druids, depending on type, maybe, but, then, druids are pretty much just themed wizards in 5e anyway.
> 
> If your fightery type is being rendered useless in the game by the casters, you aren't trying very hard.  The range between the classes is pretty darn close.




Close enough to be termed "fixed" in a meaningful way, as regards the LFQW problem. Even the Wizard, the versatility champion, faces a severe resource game that requires careful and prudent usage. Blowout novas are not a good idea, and hard to do with Concentration in place.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> DPR would be a pretty limited way of looking at LFQW, but any damaging AE can wipe enemies off the mapTotM faster than the fighter could dream of, including the Cleric's notorious spirit guardians.
> 
> So, it's "just Wizards," which includes Sorcerers and Druids... and well, Clerics who happen to use Spirit Guardians... and, BTW, Warlocks can make with fightery DPR, plus spells over and above that...
> 
> ...so, really,  the question is, "what have you got against Bards?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said,  you do have a point about Clerics (and, though you didn't make it, I'll add Druids' animal companions*) not being able to show up the fighter at his own thing in 5e the way they (suposedly) did in 3e from 1st level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * low-hanging fruit, I know, since at most were talking whatever the Druid can cast Animal Friendship on.




But the Fighter and Rogue can keep the damage train rolling, all the live long day, with no short nor long rests needed. Sure, the casters can pull out some fancy effects, but the good stuff is on a very limited burn. If the casters are not pushed to conserve resources strategically, that's a table issue. Or not, if the table is having fun. But it is not LFQW.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> But the Fighter and Rogue can keep the damage train rolling, all the live long day, with no short nor long rests needed.



 The same was true in 3.5, when LFQW, CoDzilla, 5MWD, and caster supremacy in general were at their absolute height.

And, in 5e, casters can make with cantrips and rituals, all the life-long day, too. 



FrogReaver said:


> So you are right, LFQW still exists in 5e, but it's contained to the point that is acceptable for now.  It could still have a vast amount of improvement though.



 First of all, it's misleading to say that 5e still has LFQW, rather, it has /brought back/ LFQW. 
That says something about direction and design intent. 
Likewise, it is not implausible to say that the effects of LFQW are contained, mainly with regard to buff-stacking (& thus DPR), which was unavoidable in order to keep any pretense of Bounded Accuracy, but it's misleading to imply that containment is to a minimal acceptable level.

5e is acceptable enough to avoid further edition warring precisely because it restored LFQW, and hasn't gone too far in containing it for the sake of BA.


But, that's 5e.  On topic, how much of 3.5/PF1's peak LFQW has PF2 retained?


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> The same was true in 3.5, when LFQW, CoDzilla, 5MWD, and caster supremacy in general were at their absolute height.
> 
> And, in 5e, casters can make with cantrips and rituals, all the life-long day, too.
> 
> First of all, it's misleading to say that 5e still has LFQW, rather, it has /brought back/ LFQW.
> That says something about direction and design intent.
> Likewise, it is not implausible to say that the effects of LFQW are contained, mainly with regard to buff-stacking (& thus DPR), which was unavoidable in order to keep any pretense of Bounded Accuracy, but it's misleading to imply that containment is to a minimal acceptable level.
> 
> 5e is acceptable enough to avoid further edition warring precisely because it restored LFQW, and hasn't gone too far in containing it for the sake of BA.
> 
> 
> But, that's 5e.  On topic, how much of 3.5/PF1's peak LFQW has PF2 retained?




Cantrips are comparable, slightly worse actually, in damage to what Fighters and Rogues do. The Wizard who can only cast Fire Volt and Acid Splash is not going to outshine the Half-Orc Champion Fighter making three attacks with a Greatsword every round.

Rituals are easy enough to constrain narratively, as needed.

LFQW, qua problem, is fixed and no longer a problematic dynamic. In combat, it is contained. Outside of combat, it is pretty much always a better option to pursue mundane solutions if possible (Knock creates potential problems compared to just having the Rogue use his tools).

On topic, from what we have seen, PF2 does not address the potential imbalance, and maintains a fairly 3.x approach on Caster/Martial balance.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Cantrips are comparable, slightly worse actually, in damage to what Fighters and Rogues do. The Wizard who can only cast Fire Volt and Acid Splash is not going to outshine the Half-Orc Champion Fighter making three attacks with a Greatsword every round.
> 
> Rituals are easy enough to constrain narratively, as needed.



 Rituals are constrained by casting time, and "all the live long day," kinda implies a surfeit of time. 

But, really, what you describe above, non-casters grinding out moar at-will damage, and casters spraying out less damage in more flavors & adding versatility of rituals - and everyone using skills, points to a reasonably balanced all-day-ling baseline.

Atop which, fighters & Rogues add Action Surge, Second Wind and Cunning Action - and casters add 9 levels of spells. 

...


> On topic, from what we have seen, PF2 does not address the potential imbalance, and maintains a fairly 3.x approach on Caster/Martial balance.



 Then, very much on-topic, it runs no risk of being Paizo's 4e!


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Rituals are constrained by casting time, and "all the live long day," kinda implies a surfeit of time.
> 
> But, really, what you describe above, non-casters grinding out moar at-will damage, and casters spraying out less damage in more flavors & adding versatility of rituals - and everyone using skills, points to a reasonably balanced all-day-ling baseline.
> 
> Atop which, fighters & Rogues add Action Surge, Second Wind and Cunning Action - and casters add 9 levels of spells.
> 
> ...
> Then, very much on-topic, it runs no risk of being Paizo's 4e!




Dealing out maor damage is probably, no joke, why the Fighter is far and away the most popular Class on the game: it's a major power fantasy. If different power fantasies can be accommodated, with everyone having fun, that is balance. WotC talks about "narrative balance," with different Classes getting their place to shine.

The topic of this thread, as to whether PF2 will be to Paizo what 4E was not WotC, is not about the mechanics. It is about whether PF2 will alienate PF1 fans or bring them along for the ride, and whether new players will jump aboard. Paizo would prefer people to stay on board, while attracting new players, rather than the opposite. Time will tell how it goes. 

On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Dealing out maor damage is probably, no joke, why the Fighter is far and away the most popular Class on the game



 It is not.  The fighter remained the most popular class in the game, even when it was out-damaged by Raging Barbarians, CoDzilla, and a host of other things.

The mechanics of the fighter have changed, sometimes radically, in each edition, yet it's popularity has been a constant.
It is the familiar, relatable concept of the archetypal hero, that's behind the class's enduring, Class-Tier-defying popularity.

Arguably, the reason there's such adamant insistence that the fighter remain a trap option /is/ it's popularity.  Were the Druid mad a trap option, people simply wouldn't play it, but the archetype fighting hero is just too appealing, so system masters get to dominate play by picking a less popular, Tier 1 class, like, oh, Druid, and new players either eventually stop playing, gratefully accept it the way the proletariat accepts exploitation by the monied classes, or graduate to system mastery, themselves.



> The topic of this thread, as to whether PF2 will be to Paizo what 4E was not WotC, is not about the mechanics. It is about whether PF2 will alienate PF1 fans or bring them along for the ride,



 And that was very much about mechanics and class balance.  4e eliminated LFQW and made classes better balanced than ever - if still far from perfect, with fighters still sucking out of combat, and casters still having a non-trivial edge in versatility in & out of combat - and was marked for death by a segment if the fanbase that would not tolerate that, touching off the edition war.

5e returned to LFQW and more moderated (or at least, obfuscated) caster superiority, and is permitted to seek new players in relative peace.



> . Paizo would prefer people to stay on board, while attracting new players, rather than the opposite. Time will tell how it goes.



 Thing us, PF never attracted many new players, it attracted resentful D&D players.

No non-D&D TTRPG has ever attracted a lot of new players to the hobby - the closest claimant might be Storyteller in the 90s,  but it pulled in new players on the LARP side, where it was dominant.

And the supply of resentful D&D players is pretty limited, especially now that 5e has put all the sacred cows back in the pasture.



> On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.



 Ouch.


----------



## FowlJ

Parmandur said:


> On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.




Not really arguing for or against anything that you're saying, but I'll point out that the main pathfinder sub has been around for _7 years_. If a spinoff sub for a game that hasn't actually been released yet was anywhere _close_ to the same user count in a small fraction of the time, that would be extraordinary.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> It is not.  The fighter remained the most popular class in the game, even when it was out-damaged by Raging Barbarians, CoDzilla, and a host of other things.
> 
> The mechanics of the fighter have changed, sometimes radically, in each edition, yet it's popularity has been a constant.
> It is the familiar, relatable concept of the archetypal hero, that's behind the class's enduring, Class-Tier-defying popularity.
> 
> And that was very much about mechanics and class balance.  4e eliminated LFQW and made classes better balanced than ever - if stii far from perfect, with fighters still sucking out of combat, and casters still having a non-trivial edge in versatility in & out of combat - and was marked for death by a segment if the fanbase that would not tolerate that, touching off the edition war.
> 
> 5e returned to LFQW and more moderated (or at least, obfuscated) caster superiority, and is permitted to seek new players in relative peace.
> 
> Thing us, PF never attracted many new players, it attracted resentful D&D players.
> 
> No non-D&D TTRPG has ever attracted a lot of new players to the hobby - the closest claimant might be Storyteller in the 90s,  but it pulled in new players on the LARP side, where it was dominant.
> 
> And the supply of resentful D&D players is pretty limited.
> 
> Ouch.




So, for my money, the real big deal breaker for some portion of people on 4E is sunk cost: they spent X number of years learning how to do things like Y, and are turned doffnwhen Y is changed to Z. 3.x changed a lot from AD&D, but much of it was formalizing popular houserules or simplifying math (oversimplifying, or failing to understand the consequences, of breaking open the THAC0 bellcurve). The flavor was retained, except where expanded to allow things like Gnome Barbarians and Dwarf Wizards. So the transition, though not universal, went fairly smoothly. 4E introduced a new set of fluff assumptions, and really gave the mechanics a complete overhaul. People ball at losing their built up skills (see the reactions when companies introduce new tools and systems for employees to use).

The PF core fanbase is people who are really conservative on this spectrum.

PF2 is radically changing a lot of the 3.x mechanics, and breaking backwards compatibility completely. Now, the player base for PF1 has nearly 20 years of sink cost into their chosen system, and often a lifetime of material to play with already. O don't see what they have been laying down bringing in huge crowds of teenagers and college students. Hence, a recipe for 4E style reception: Grognard rejection, lack of new player recruitment.

r/dndnext, the main 5E group, has 213,000 members, and the edition neutral r/DnD has 1.3 million.


----------



## Parmandur

FowlJ said:


> Not really arguing for or against anything that you're saying, but I'll point out that the main pathfinder sub has been around for _7 years_. If a spinoff sub for a game that hasn't actually been released yet was anywhere _close_ to the same user count in a small fraction of the time, that would be extraordinary.




I agree, but the release is just days away. There doesn't seem to be massive, breakout enthusiasm from the PF faithful.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> First of all, it's misleading to say that 5e still has LFQW, rather, it has /brought back/ LFQW.




Is it?  4e didn't get rid of it (thought it mitigated it) so how is it misleading to claim it still exists in 5e?


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> 4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field and making everything samey. 5E went back to an asymmetrical design, which is more pleasing, and then made that work.



Asymmetrical design is a popular design feature for a lot of games (e.g., MtG, DotA, etc.). I'm certainly not opposed to such asymmetrical design, but this mainly applies to competitive PvP rather than cooperative PvE. 



CapnZapp said:


> "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5E comprehensively fixed 3E in some very fundamental areas."



Again, I think that "fixed" is far too strong of a hardlined opinion here that suggests there is only one "fix" for an issue. IMHO, it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e _approached fixing_ 3E in some very fundamental areas." 



CapnZapp said:


> On the other hand, PF1 did comparatively nothing to fix 3E. That's the reason Paizo really needs to step up now. They won't get away with something like PF1 now, in a 5E world.



Could that possibly be because PF1's goal was never about "fixing" 3.x but instead about providing continued support for 3.x? 



> 5E: significantly improved to the degree I call it as fixed.



I'm not sure that you really demonstrate much grasp on the intricacies of the situation. Do you know why 3.x was "unbearable"? But do you know what 5e did? Do you know what PF2 is doing or changing? 



> Nobody accepts LFQW any longer. 5E has shown you can play a 2E-3E like game and not be plagued by rampant LFQW without having to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as 4E did. Them's the breaks and Paizo better know it.



5e has shown that LFQW is alive and well. Is it as bad as 3.x? Nope. Is it still kicking in 5e? Yes. 



Tony Vargas said:


> But, that's 5e.  On topic, how much of 3.5/PF1's peak LFQW has PF2 retained?



You have to use a higher level slot to heighten the spell. I think autoscaling is only a thing for cantrips. No bonus spells based on attribute. Buff stacking will still be possible, though spells requiring concentration (don't have the list) will require that the caster use one of their three actions per round to maintain. Spells are redistributed between spell levels ranging from 1 to 10, with Wish being a 10th level spell that requires a Wizard using one of their feats to obtain. Levitate is now a 3rd level spell. Fly has been moved from being a 3rd level spell to a 4th level spell. So this does change the curvature somewhat. 



Parmandur said:


> On Reddit, the main Pathfinder sub has 73 thousand followers and almost all the chatter is focused in PF1: the PF2 sub has 4 thousand followers, by comparison.



A game that has been around for 10 years has more 70K more followers than a game that hasn't been released yet? Shock. I guess that means that PF2 failed. You win, Parmandur. We should all just worship at the Church of 5e now.


----------



## MockingBird

I feel there will be a reluctance from PF1e players to switch over. I feel like 5e has captured the would be PF2e adopters (or the majority not necessarily all of them). The hardcore PF1e fan has invested deeply to the game, tons of books and APs that I doubt many have had time to consume. Saying all that Paizo had to do something and they couldn't just keep producing 1e supplements. I agree with whoever said they should have taken a long hard look at 5e, studied it and proceeded accordingly. Whether that was making supplements for 5e or producing their own game, 5e should have been a major factor in those choices. Who knows it might have been and they just wanted to get as far away from D&D as possible. However I do find it ironic that 4e designers have had their hand in PF2e. It's a full circle it seems. Its interesting to watch and itll be even more so next month. Paizo should definitely try to make deals with streamers to make their game as visible as possible.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> Asymmetrical design is a popular design feature for a lot of games (e.g., MtG, DotA, etc.). I'm certainly not opposed to such asymmetrical design, but this mainly applies to competitive PvP rather than cooperative PvE.
> 
> Again, I think that "fixed" is far too strong of a hardlined opinion here that suggests there is only one "fix" for an issue. IMHO, it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e _approached fixing_ 3E in some very fundamental areas."
> 
> Could that possibly be because PF1's goal was never about "fixing" 3.x but instead about providing continued support for 3.x?
> 
> I'm not sure that you really demonstrate much grasp on the intricacies of the situation. Do you know why 3.x was "unbearable"? But do you know what 5e did? Do you know what PF2 is doing or changing?
> 
> 5e has shown that LFQW is alive and well. Is it as bad as 3.x? Nope. Is it still kicking in 5e? Yes.
> 
> You have to use a higher level slot to heighten the spell. I think autoscaling is only a thing for cantrips. No bonus spells based on attribute. Buff stacking will still be possible, though spells requiring concentration (don't have the list) will require that the caster use one of their three actions per round to maintain. Spells are redistributed between spell levels ranging from 1 to 10, with Wish being a 10th level spell that requires a Wizard using one of their feats to obtain. Levitate is now a 3rd level spell. Fly has been moved from being a 3rd level spell to a 4th level spell. So this does change the curvature somewhat.
> 
> A game that has been around for 10 years has more 70K more followers than a game that hasn't been released yet? Shock. I guess that means that PF2 failed. You win, Parmandur. We should all just worship at the Church of 5e now.




Amen, hallelujah, and pass the ammunition, brother.

The topic of this thread is, does it seem as if PF2 is set to receive a chilly response from PF1 fans, and not bring in new players? While anything can happen, both of those seem to be the case.


----------



## Parmandur

MockingBird said:


> I feel there will be a reluctance from PF1e players to switch over. I feel like 5e has captured the would be PF2e adopters (or the majority not necessarily all of them). The hardcore PF1e fan has invested deeply to the game, tons of books and APs that I doubt many have had time to consume. Saying all that Paizo had to do something and they couldn't just keep producing 1e supplements. I agree with whoever said they should have taken a long hard look at 5e, studied it and proceeded accordingly. Whether that was making supplements for 5e or producing their own game, 5e should have been a major factor in those choices. Who knows it might have been and they just wanted to get as far away from D&D as possible. However I do find it ironic that 4e designers have had their hand in PF2e. It's a full circle it seems. Its interesting to watch and itll be even more so next month. Paizo should definitely try to make deals with streamers to make their game as visible as possible.




They have been courting the streaming scene: Geek & Sundry has a PF2 game going, for instance.


----------



## MockingBird

Parmandur said:


> They have been courting the streaming scene: Geek & Sundry has a PF2 game going, for instance.




That's good then, I believe this will help the game succeed.


----------



## FowlJ

Parmandur said:


> I agree, but the release is just days away. There doesn't seem to be massive, breakout enthusiasm from the PF faithful.




I've never been in touch with a forum for a game within a few days of its release, so I'm not sure how much excitement is _supposed_ to be happening - there's been some, that I've seen, but maybe not a lot.

One more thing I'd note about the PF subreddit is that a lot of the posts are very mechanics focused, which PF2 posts couldn't possibly be about (yet). Some of today's posts include "Catfolk Unchained Monk Build Advice: Long Ranger's Bane?", "[Request] Strange Aeons Maps (3rd Book)", and "How do Efreeti Switch/Cords work?" - all of those (and many more in the first few pages) are about specific products or character options, while some others are system neutral questions about the setting and stuff. When PF2's options are actually public, I imagine questions and discussion about them will become more popular.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> The topic of this thread is, does it seem as if PF2 is set to receive a chilly response from PF1 fans, and not bring in new players? While anything can happen, both of those seem to be the case.



I don't think that it has been chilly. It's down right tame in comparison with the reaction that 4e received, which is one reason why the enthusiasm for 5e felt so one-sided. A lot of the reaction seems fairly standard for a typical edition change. I have also seen a lot of praise for the 3-action-economy, the ancestries, the change to paladins, and spellcasting. And there are threads in the PF2 subreddit that include people who play 5e (including those who never played PF1) talking about why they plan on switching to PF2.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that it has been chilly. It's down right tame in comparison with the reaction that 4e received, which is one reason why the enthusiasm for 5e felt so one-sided. A lot of the reaction seems fairly standard for a typical edition change. I have also seen a lot of praise for the 3-action-economy, the ancestries, the change to paladins, and spellcasting. And there are threads in the PF2 subreddit that include people who play 5e (including those who never played PF1) talking about why they plan on switching to PF2.




Chilly might be worse than passionate hatred: but time will tell.

I was actually enthusiastic to try the playtest out, because I liked done of what the general overview was suggesting, and I love lifepath character generation. I was... disappointed.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> Is it?  4e didn't get rid of
> <LFQW> (thought it mitigated it) so how is it misleading to claim it still exists in 5e?



 LFQW is not just a fancy way if saying "Wizards rule, fighters drool!"  LFQW is a structural feature of class designs in every instance of D&D, except 4e AEDU classes.

4e /completely eliminated LFQW/.  Everyone gained limited-use resources at the same rate, all of them scaled at the same rate. Those resources, along with class features, were very different, but they weren't progressing at different rates, which is what LFQW describes.

What it didn't do was perfectly balance classes.  Fighters were still the worst out of combat, especially compared to Rogues & Rangers.  Wizards were still given a few too many toys, and were still over-versatile.  Even if the gaps were a lot smaller, they were still there.

That's not LFQW.  



Aldarc said:


> I'm certainly not opposed to such asymmetrical design, but this mainly applies to competitive PvP rather than cooperative PvE.



 That TTRPGs /are/ cooperative games isn't always an easy insight. D&D grew out of competitive wargames, and the early game retained that quality, with PCs more like rivals cooperating for survival, while competing for the greatest gains.

Fairness - same options and rules applying to everyone - is enough in a competitive game, because (not too obviously-)bad options just add to the skill factor.  Balance is a higher bar, and more important to cooperative games.



> , it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e _approached fixing_ 3E in some very fundamental areas."



 5e wasn't a fix-up of 3e, it followed 4e, which had fixed a lot if perennial issues.  So 5e was a matter of re-breaking solved issues, so that play would be channeled back into the familiar dynamics that coped with, masked, or exploited those issues.


> Could that possibly be because PF1's goal was never about "fixing" 3.x but instead about providing continued support for 3.x?



 Ding!



RE PF2:







> You have to use a higher level slot to heighten the spell.



Wasn't that the case for the Heighten metamagic feat in 3.x/PF1? It raised the save DC by 1 per level higher?



> I think autoscaling is only a thing for cantrips...



 Sounds like 5e...



> spells requiring concentration (don't have the list) will require that the caster use one of their three actions per round to maintain....Levitate is now a 3rd level spell. Fly has been moved from being a 3rd level spell to a 4th level spell.



 Those actually do sound a bit like 4e.


----------



## Parmandur

MockingBird said:


> That's good then, I believe this will help the game succeed.




Certainly won't hurt, and will give an introduction that older games have lacked.


----------



## Parmandur

FowlJ said:


> I've never been in touch with a forum for a game within a few days of its release, so I'm not sure how much excitement is _supposed_ to be happening - there's been some, that I've seen, but maybe not a lot.
> 
> One more thing I'd note about the PF subreddit is that a lot of the posts are very mechanics focused, which PF2 posts couldn't possibly be about (yet). Some of today's posts include "Catfolk Unchained Monk Build Advice: Long Ranger's Bane?", "[Request] Strange Aeons Maps (3rd Book)", and "How do Efreeti Switch/Cords work?" - all of those (and many more in the first few pages) are about specific products or character options, while some others are system neutral questions about the setting and stuff. When PF2's options are actually public, I imagine questions and discussion about them will become more popular.




Become more popular, probably. But how much more?


----------



## Aldarc

Tony Vargas said:


> RE PF2:Wasn't that the case for the Heighten metamagic feat in 3.x/PF1? It raised the save DC by 1 per level higher?



It's more like upcasting spells in 5e. The difference though is that PF2 reduced redundancy by including the upgraded version of some spells in the heightened version. For example, there is only Invisibility. You gain the greater effect associated with Greater Invisibility by casting Invisibility at a higher spell level. Or likewise a lot of the Cure Wounds spells have been reduced to Heal, which increases in benefits when heightened.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> The same was true in 3.5, when LFQW, CoDzilla, 5MWD, and caster supremacy in general were at their absolute height.



In the context of your quote, it's possible to read this to mean something is similar between 3E and 5E.

But the point made was the total opposite. The damage output of Fighters and Rogues is generally of a competitive useful level in 5E (compared to casters casting) but a joke in 3E.

The point was to contrast one edition with a troubling level of LFQW (3E) and one without (5E).

Just to clarify that which might not need clarification...


----------



## CapnZapp

Parmandur said:


> On topic, from what we have seen, PF2 does not address the potential imbalance, and maintains a fairly 3.x approach on Caster/Martial balance.



If true, a complete disaster.

Not for me. For Paizo.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> Then, very much on-topic, it runs no risk of being Paizo's 4e!



A funny joke to you.

But we're not talking about specific 4E mechanics. We're essentially asking "Is PF2 Paizo's Waterloo?"


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> Again, I think that "fixed" is far too strong of a hardlined opinion here that suggests there is only one "fix" for an issue. IMHO, it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e _approached fixing_ 3E in some very fundamental areas."



I will happily use your preferred wording verbatim!


----------



## Campbell

CapnZapp said:


> A funny joke to you.
> 
> But we're not talking about specific 4E mechanics. We're essentially asking "Is PF2 Paizo's Waterloo?"




Maybe you should have said that instead then.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> So this does change the curvature somewhat.



The lesson I learned from 5E, and the lesson Paizo ought to have learned too, is that you don't fix 3E by tweaking curvatures.

You do a comprehensive smart overhaul where entire subsystems are thrown out and expectation rejected outright.


----------



## CapnZapp

Campbell said:


> Maybe you should have said that instead then.



I didn't start the thread.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> In the context of your quote, it's possible to read this to mean something is similar between 3E and 5E.



 There are many somethings similar between 3.5 and 5e.

For instance, all the classes in 5e were in 3.5 - two were even introduced by it.  And, the fighter classes in both editions were marked by linear progressions, while the casters in both went from very few spells of 1st level,  at first to many at high level.  There were also differences.  For instance, in 3.5, spells scaled with caster level, while save DCs scaled with slot level,  while in 5e saves scale with character level while spells scale with slot level.

And yes, both innately have LFQW, 5e just to the minimum level needed to avoid another edition war.

PF2 really has nothing much to learn from that comparison ...

....except, maybe, "fans will argue anything."


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> LFQW is not just a fancy way if saying "Wizards rule, fighters drool!"  LFQW is a structural feature of class designs in every instance of D&D, except 4e AEDU classes.
> 
> 4e /completely eliminated LFQW/.  Everyone gained limited-use resources at the same rate, all of them scaled at the same rate. Those resources, along with class features, were very different, but they weren't progressing at different rates, which is what LFQW describes.
> 
> What it didn't do was perfectly balance classes.  Fighters were still the worst out of combat, especially compared to Rogues & Rangers.  Wizards were still given a few too many toys, and were still over-versatile.  Even if the gaps were a lot smaller, they were still there.
> 
> That's not LFQW.




By that definition, then, I would not Co Sider LFQW a problem to be solved. The asymmetric resource game is part of the fun: different Classes working differently is a deaireable good in the game, especially because it is cooperative and players need to pull together.

The AEDU system does "solve" the resource game, in a "they make a desert and call it peace" sort of way. Not that it can't be fun in itself, but it is a solution only be eliminating a dynamic that many people actually enjoy. 5E revived the dynamic, but provided a context for it to work so that Class "Tiers" of optimal playability are meaningless. Ergo, solving the problem of party balance.

As to PF2, I douvt that it will eliminate the dynamic of Class differences from what I have seen, nor implement either a 4E or 5E style approach. I don't think that will be the defining reason for how it is received, but that on one hand backwards incompatibility with previous material will make it a hard sell to the PF crowd, while on the other hand the complexity of management (look at the character sheet! I started literally laughing out loud when I read the formula for Skill check resolution) will limit adoption by new players


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> There are many somethings similar between 3.5 and 5e.
> 
> For instance, all the classes in 5e were in 3.5 - two were even introduced by it.



You come across as someone not listening, just rambling on.

My point was that your remark could be interpreted as the opposite of the point Parmandur made.

I didn't start a discussion of what things are similar between the two editions. I flagged that something in particular is very different between them.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> The lesson I learned from 5E, and the lesson Paizo ought to have learned too, is that you don't fix 3E by tweaking curvatures.
> 
> You do a comprehensive smart overhaul where entire subsystems are thrown out and expectation rejected outright.



That's an odd lesson to learn from 5e when "tweaking curvatures" is exactly what WotC did with 5e.  



CapnZapp said:


> You come across as someone not listening, just rambling on.



That's an ironic accusation to make.


----------



## Campbell

Honestly this market is suffocating. Outside of story gaming communities and some other niche groups it is damn hard to find or start a game that isn't 5e. You'll even get perspective players who will run up to you and be like "Why don't you run 5e instead?"

Given the conservative nature of its fan base and this one note marketplace it was always going to be extremely difficult for Paizo no matter what PF2 ended looking like. No matter how things turn out I don't think how well PF2 ends up doing is really going to be a reflection of the quality of the product.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> That's an odd lesson to learn from 5e when "tweaking curvatures" is exactly what WotC did with 5e.
> 
> That's an ironic accusation to make.




See this I don’t agree with. 5e didn’t just tweak 3e. 5e took most of the complete overhaul that 4e did, repackaged it and then sent it out the door. 

I mean very little of 3e made it to 5e without being strained through the 4e sieve. 

Skills, bounded accuracy, limited spell lists, powers for classes, two step recovery, huge reduction in lethality- these are all 4e designs. All wrapped up in a pretty presentation that has folks drooling for more.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> See this I don’t agree with. 5e didn’t just tweak 3e. 5e took most of the complete overhaul that 4e did, repackaged it and then sent it out the door.
> 
> I mean very little of 3e made it to 5e without being strained through the 4e sieve.
> 
> Skills, bounded accuracy, limited spell lists, powers for classes, two step recovery, huge reduction in lethality- these are all 4e designs. All wrapped up in a pretty presentation that has folks drooling for more.



All nice and good, but here I am talking specifically about the spell system.


----------



## Mistwell

CapnZapp said:


> But that's the corporation speaking. The only reason to exist is to eat or be eaten.
> 
> I believe the fundamental mistake Paizo is doing is not realizing (or accepting) that there is only one 500 pound gorilla in the room.
> 
> They're clearly trying to carve out a market segment of their own. But this has always without exception led to obscure heartbreakery games collecting dust on shelves.
> 
> The only place where a Paizo can retain anywhere close to it's PF size is as a satellite to that 500 pound gorilla.
> 
> If Paizo were content to be a small operation run from Lisa Stevens garage they can go the 13th Age or Numenera or Dungeon Quest route, but they're clearly not.
> 
> Which means they ought to have swallowed their pride and resentment (no matter how justified) and positioned once more their game as something existing D&D gamers should try.
> 
> Even if the exact nature of why would differ: PF 1 because WotC went in another direction, PF 2 because WotC seems content to go in no direction.




What they should have done is re-release a bunch of their APs for 5e, one at a time. And then as 5e fans bought those APs and liked them, THEN release a PF2 after 5e fans are more aware of PF and accepting of Paizo as a supplier of their D&D stuff.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> That's an odd lesson to learn from 5e when "tweaking curvatures" is exactly what WotC did with 5e.



You will never understand why 5E is popular or why Paizo needed to look at it's solutions, if you keep underestimating it like that.


----------



## CapnZapp

Hussar said:


> See this I don’t agree with. 5e didn’t just tweak 3e. 5e took most of the complete overhaul that 4e did, repackaged it and then sent it out the door.
> 
> I mean very little of 3e made it to 5e without being strained through the 4e sieve.
> 
> Skills, bounded accuracy, limited spell lists, powers for classes, two step recovery, huge reduction in lethality- these are all 4e designs. All wrapped up in a pretty presentation that has folks drooling for more.



I simply don't get the compulsive need to elevate 4E. 5E is not 4E. 5E did not succeed because of 4E. This discussion does not need 4E.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> You come across as someone not listening, just rambling on.



 Oh, I'm listening, I can't always easily credit what I hear, but I haven't completely given it up yet.

But I do ramble on - I'm a bitter, cynical, old man - I'll stop rambling sometime after they exorcise my ghost to the Outer Darkness.  Maybe quite some time after.
So, brace yourselves....



Parmandur said:


> different Classes working differently is a deaireable good in the game, especially because it is cooperative and players need to pull together.



 I pulled this bit to the top because it's part of a very important aspect of cooperative games: while mere fairness is quite sufficient for competitive games, and can be readily achieved by giving each player equal access to all choices, the more difficult standard of /balance/ is more important in cooperative games. Because slipping in a trap choice to create an enhanced contrast between a naive player and a system master doesnt rewardvthe sysyem master or punish the bad choice - it punishes the whole group.  And, because the joy and accomplishment of succeeding in a cooperative game doesn't come from being mvp or blandly participating as a warm body, or even having your own spotlight moment, but from cooperating and being fully contributing.

D&D was designed as a wargame, and wargames were traditionally competitive, but it turned out becoming the first RPG, and, increasingly, being played more like a cooperative game.

It did /try/.  'Niche Protection' was such an attempt make an otherwise lowly, minor,  infrequent, or non-cooperative contribution, make it critical, and make it exclusive.  Did not work well.

Fighters just faught, clerics healed, thieves scouted for traps & enemies. Problem was, two of those were repetitive, and one was solitary, and they were far from comparably weighted.

But,  they prevailed for a quarter-century. And we got used to making the best of 'em.

WotC, for whatever reason - hubris at the success of M:tG,  perhaps - though, tried.  The 3.0 fighter didn't just fight, he protected, anchored the team, was the natural leader. The cleric was not just healing but flexible support. The thief, now Rogue, still scouted, but added meaningful damage in combat.  The Barbarian, Druid, Ranger could step in to fill similar functions.

The mechanics to back those ideas up, though: the fighter got nothing to protect or lead; the cleric got a variety of good spells and could prep them, then heal spontaneously, the intent may have been to heal a lot, but the result was CoDzilla; the Rogue still had niche-protected trapfinding, but it's damage contribution got very situational, indeed, and it's BAB didn't support it well at high level.

But it was an attempt.  It wasn't balanced, but it actually gave you a lot to work with, especially working with system mastery, which was fair enough.  In fact it worked very well in competitive mode: PvP worked better than in any other edition, because fair is all you need in a competition,  imbalanced choices just add a dimension of skill.

To run it as a cooperative game was not an insurmountable challenge, though, that's what E6 let you do, that's actually what the Class Tiers were about, assemble a party within a tier or two and you'd have a more balanced party, and, of course, it wasn't /that/ different, so much of what worked before could be made to, again.

So, 3.5 received a lot if complaints about balance, but it was a great competitive game because of those 'problems,' worked well as a game of competitors cooperating for survival, and could be run more cooperatively with some work.

WotC took all those complaints too seriously when designing 4e.  The result was a solid cooperative RPG, with defined roles based on the originals. The fighter had mechanical support for it's tradition of protecting the rest of the party, the cleric's healing duties were no longer onerous, and the Rogue was a stand-out damage contributor. All reasonably balanced.  Pretty awful for PvP unless you pitted parties against eachother, and had lots of time to kill. Also not wonderful for the old-school competing allies of necessity, nor compatible with all the little tricks that had banged the game into cooperative shape for decades.

So, 5e rewound most of that, and D&D is D&D, again.



> By that definition, then, I would not Co Sider LFQW a problem to be solved.



 If it's a competitive game, sure.  Starting at different capabilities and advancing at different rates just gives you a variety if possible strategies to achieve victory.

But, for a cooperative game, it's awful: some players are dead weight, some are marginalized, others dominate - that it can shift over a long campaign is hardly helpful...

But, if it's cooperation among rivals, it's back to strategy, and, at times, rather odd ones.


> The asymmetric resource game is part of the fun



 LFQW is not exactly the same issue as 5MWD.  

You could have asymmetric resources, but linear advancement across the board.  Imagine a version of D&D where the fighter hits stuff at 1st, and gets slowly better at hitting stuff as he levels, and the MU at 1st, casts Sleep 1/day, and, as he levels, is able to affect more and more HD of subjects with that 1 sleep spell.
Resource asymmetry, one is at-will, the other daily, but no "Q" it'd be LFLW.



> The AEDU system does "solve" the resource game



 Part of it, it removes the issue of class imbalance from the 5MWD, pacing becomes a consideration only in encounter challenge.  So, a cooperative game could use a strategy like the 5MWD, or, conversely, time pressure and long days, and remain functional as such, with everyone still contributing in their role & class's different ways.

...hey, I said I was gonna ramble...



> As to PF2, on one hand backwards incompatibility with previous material will make it a hard sell to the PF crowd, while on the other hand the complexity of management (look at the character sheet! I started literally laughing out loud when I read the formula for Skill check resolution) will limit adoption by new players



 That sounds plausible,  not that I think new-to-gaming players are a realistic target audience for any RPG that isn't the current, official version of D&D.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> You will never understand why 5E is popular or why Paizo needed to look at it's solutions, if you keep underestimating it like that.



 5e is not popular because of the details of the system. 
 You're looking for a game-design answer to a marketing question.



CapnZapp said:


> I simply don't get the compulsive need to elevate 4E. 5E is not 4E. 5E did not succeed because of 4E. This discussion does not need 4E.




4e is right in the title of said discussion.


----------



## Hussar

CapnZapp said:


> I simply don't get the compulsive need to elevate 4E. 5E is not 4E. 5E did not succeed because of 4E. This discussion does not need 4E.




Because you cannot get 5e without 4e. There is no line from 3e to 5e that doesn’t pass through the 4e development cycle. 

Pretending that we can just jump over 4e without understanding where the 5e elements came from will result in a complete misreading of game development and a failed game line for dnd. 

And frankly pathfinder draws on a lot of the recent developments in dnd as well. 

I don’t get the compulsive need to lampshade what happened in dnd ‘s development.


----------



## CapnZapp

Not taking the bait.

Is PF2 Paizo's 4E?

If you mean will it resemble 4E mechanically, it does not seem so. (Unless you find 5E is similar to 4E, in which case you think everything is similar to 4E, and your opinion won't be taken seriously)

If you mean will it be successful like 4E - that is, not successful at all, quickly followed by a revised edition, then dropped entirely, then, yes, unfortunately it seems there are quite a number of worrying indicators (as discussed upthread).

In no case does the thread title invite us to have our discussion revolve around 4E. It is an edition thrown on the garbage heap, so why would we? All Paizo needs to do visavi 4E is avoid similarities, and that's all we need to hear from that edition.

A much more relevant take would be: maybe PF2 will end up as the 4E of Paizo if they come across as oblivious to the advances offered by the edition Paizo's prospective customers ARE playing, namely 5E.

So I'd say one interesting take is: in what areas is it clear PF2 has learned from 5E, and in what areas does PF2 come across as clueless to the standards expected by its players?


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, I'm listening, I can't always easily credit what I hear, but I haven't completely given it up yet.



What I have never seen you do, is characterize 5E in actually positive terms. And I have never seen you attempt a run-down of the differences between 3E and 5E. Your analysis is always 4E-centric, and always describing 5E as something that goes the wrong way design-wise.

I find that approach wholly unproductive.

You will never understand the profound upgrade of 3E that 5E represents with that point of view.

You need to understand that the D&D community by and large like D&D the way d20 presented it. Some could tolerate its annoyances and idiosyncrasies and stuck with Pathfinder, the latest model of the d20 engine.

But most have moved on to 5E. Not everyone realizes what a fundamental upgrade that represents. (Lots have never even seen 3E!)

You're correct that 5E isn't popular because it does something better than 3E. But that completely missed the point:

5E is a thorough upgrade of... not the 4E way of playing D&D, but the 3E way of playing. It is also simple and beginner friendly. This is why it is popular.

Now, the upgrade from 3E does enter the picture when we're talking about switching to a Pathfinder game. For instance, if you switch from 5E to PF1, it represents a clean downgrade, where so many things fixed by 5E again rear their ugly heads.

But we're not talking about PF1. We're talking about PF2.

And here is my point: 

No way that game will be successful without a considerable interest from 5E gamers, simply because that's where the market is.

And no way 5E gamers will be interested in a game should it throw them back into the dark bad days of LFQW, complex NPC building and more. These gamers might not even know D&D used to be that Byzantine. Boy are they up for a rude awakening if the indications Paizo hasn't learned from 5E are true!

Now note, Tony, how I don't need to focus on 4E at all to make this train of thought.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> You will never understand why 5E is popular or why Paizo needed to look at it's solutions, if you keep underestimating it like that.



This is a complete non sequitur to the discussion. Do you plan on engaging the point made or not?


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> This is a complete non sequitur to the discussion. Do you plan on engaging the point made or not?



What specific issue do you feel you are uncertain of my opinion on? Name it, and you shall have it.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> What specific issue do you feel you are uncertain of my opinion on? Name it, and you shall have it.



Let's back up. I said that PF2 appears to be tweaking the curvature of LFQW. You replied by saying: 


CapnZapp said:


> The lesson I learned from 5E,..., is that you don't fix 3E by tweaking curvatures.



However, this is fundamentally what 5e did to 3e (in the context of spellcasting): it tweaked the curvature of LFQW. We can even talk about the particular changes that it made to spellcasting in this regard (e.g., removal of auto-scaling spells, removal of bonus spells based on ability scores, concentration rules, removal of some key spells, etc.) or even alterations that actually favor the QW even more (e.g., neo-Vancian casting, cantrips). The QW is still there in 5e, but its rate of acceleration has been changed. 

When I said this, your response was a non sequitur because you claimed: 


CapnZapp said:


> You will never understand why 5E is popular or why Paizo needed to look at it's solutions, if you keep underestimating it like that.



My statement is in no way about underestimating 5e or its popularity. My statement was a recognition of the fact that WotC took steps in tweaking the curvature of the QW in 5e. LFQW is not gone in 5e. It has been curtailed from its more egregious excesses in 3e. PF2 is working on curtailing LFQW as well. 

We can compare how 5e and PF2 tweak the LFQW curvature. (Or soon will be able to once we have the books.) Some of their methods will be similar. Some will be different. Spells will have different spell levels, effects, and write-ups. This will lead to different results. You may prefer how 5e does it over PF2. You may think that PF2 does not curve it enough. That's fine. But that does not change that both are fundamentally tweaking the curvature of spellcasting from its 3e/PF1 precedents, which flies against your entire point in your second quote above because _*5e tweaked the curvature*_.


----------



## CapnZapp

Calling 5E's fix of 3E a "tweak" is entirely inappropriate and sells the huge improvement short.

My point was and is that a mere tweak of the LFQW endemic to PF1 is not gonna cut it. Paizo ought to have studied what 5E does differently. 

And not differently to 4E, mind. Differently to 3.x/PF. Then Paizo doesn't need to come up with the specific solutions 5E offers.

It just needs to present a similar level of fix. I believe it was your quote I bought hook, line and sinker.

5E isn't a "tweak" of 3E. It is a most impressive fundamental rebuilding of the d20 magic system we all know and love.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Calling 5E's fix of 3E a "tweak" is entirely inappropriate and sells the huge improvement short.



I'm hardly wrong when you are just quibbling at semantics because I don't praise 5e hard enough to your liking. What you describe is 5e tweaking the 3e system.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, I'm listening, I can't always easily credit what I hear, but I haven't completely given it up yet.
> 
> But I do ramble on - I'm a bitter, cynical, old man - I'll stop rambling sometime after they exorcise my ghost to the Outer Darkness.  Maybe quite some time after.
> So, brace yourselves....
> 
> I pulled this bit to the top because it's part of a very important aspect of cooperative games: while mere fairness is quite sufficient for competitive games, and can be readily achieved by giving each player equal access to all choices, the more difficult standard of /balance/ is more important in cooperative games. Because slipping in a trap choice to create an enhanced contrast between a naive player and a system master doesnt rewardvthe sysyem master or punish the bad choice - it punishes the whole group.  And, because the joy and accomplishment of succeeding in a cooperative game doesn't come from being mvp or blandly participating as a warm body, or even having your own spotlight moment, but from cooperating and being fully contributing.
> 
> D&D was designed as a wargame, and wargames were traditionally competitive, but it turned out becoming the first RPG, and, increasingly, being played more like a cooperative game.
> 
> It did /try/.  'Niche Protection' was such an attempt make an otherwise lowly, minor,  infrequent, or non-cooperative contribution, make it critical, and make it exclusive.  Did not work well.
> 
> Fighters just faught, clerics healed, thieves scouted for traps & enemies. Problem was, two of those were repetitive, and one was solitary, and they were far from comparably weighted.
> 
> But,  they prevailed for a quarter-century. And we got used to making the best of 'em.
> 
> WotC, for whatever reason - hubris at the success of M:tG,  perhaps - though, tried.  The 3.0 fighter didn't just fight, he protected, anchored the team, was the natural leader. The cleric was not just healing but flexible support. The thief, now Rogue, still scouted, but added meaningful damage in combat.  The Barbarian, Druid, Ranger could step in to fill similar functions.
> 
> The mechanics to back those ideas up, though: the fighter got nothing to protect or lead; the cleric got a variety of good spells and could prep them, then heal spontaneously, the intent may have been to heal a lot, but the result was CoDzilla; the Rogue still had niche-protected trapfinding, but it's damage contribution got very situational, indeed, and it's BAB didn't support it well at high level.
> 
> But it was an attempt.  It wasn't balanced, but it actually gave you a lot to work with, especially working with system mastery, which was fair enough.  In fact it worked very well in competitive mode: PvP worked better than in any other edition, because fair is all you need in a competition,  imbalanced choices just add a dimension of skill.
> 
> To run it as a cooperative game was not an insurmountable challenge, though, that's what E6 let you do, that's actually what the Class Tiers were about, assemble a party within a tier or two and you'd have a more balanced party, and, of course, it wasn't /that/ different, so much of what worked before could be made to, again.
> 
> So, 3.5 received a lot if complaints about balance, but it was a great competitive game because of those 'problems,' worked well as a game of competitors cooperating for survival, and could be run more cooperatively with some work.
> 
> WotC took all those complaints too seriously when designing 4e.  The result was a solid cooperative RPG, with defined roles based on the originals. The fighter had mechanical support for it's tradition of protecting the rest of the party, the cleric's healing duties were no longer onerous, and the Rogue was a stand-out damage contributor. All reasonably balanced.  Pretty awful for PvP unless you pitted parties against eachother, and had lots of time to kill. Also not wonderful for the old-school competing allies of necessity, nor compatible with all the little tricks that had banged the game into cooperative shape for decades.
> 
> So, 5e rewound most of that, and D&D is D&D, again.
> 
> If it's a competitive game, sure.  Starting at different capabilities and advancing at different rates just gives you a variety if possible strategies to achieve victory.
> 
> But, for a cooperative game, it's awful: some players are dead weight, some are marginalized, others dominate - that it can shift over a long campaign is hardly helpful...
> 
> But, if it's cooperation among rivals, it's back to strategy, and, at times, rather odd ones.
> LFQW is not exactly the same issue as 5MWD.
> 
> You could have asymmetric resources, but linear advancement across the board.  Imagine a version of D&D where the fighter hits stuff at 1st, and gets slowly better at hitting stuff as he levels, and the MU at 1st, casts Sleep 1/day, and, as he levels, is able to affect more and more HD of subjects with that 1 sleep spell.
> Resource asymmetry, one is at-will, the other daily, but no "Q" it'd be LFLW.
> 
> Part of it, it removes the issue of class imbalance from the 5MWD, pacing becomes a consideration only in encounter challenge.  So, a cooperative game could use a strategy like the 5MWD, or, conversely, time pressure and long days, and remain functional as such, with everyone still contributing in their role & class's different ways.
> 
> ...hey, I said I was gonna ramble...
> 
> That sounds plausible,  not that I think new-to-gaming players are a realistic target audience for any RPG that isn't the current, official version of D&D.




Here's the thing about 5E: there are no trap options. You can bring a Rock Gnome Way of the Elements Monk or a Kobold Beastmaster Ranger to the table, and still be able to contribute to the group and have moments in the sun in the course of a given adventure day. Fighters and Rogues are lean, mean murder machines who never stop being whirlwinds of death, in my experience. Wizards can pull neat tricks, but not consistently and unceasingly. As a group, a party has to pull together to manage resources and work around the Warlock needing a short rest, and when to retreat if the Wizard and Cleric are out of juice and reduced to Cantrips. Having listened to all of Mike Mearls late great Happy Fun Hour, the progression is more similar than appearances would have you believe: spell slots are secretly hit die powered, as are martial abilities, and they've crunched the math to make them seem more different than they are.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> Calling 5E's fix of 3E a "tweak" is entirely inappropriate and sells the huge improvement short.



 Calling 5e in any way -tweak, fix, simplification, bowdlerization, betrayal, whatever  - a direct modification of 3e is inaporopriate as it is no such thing.

5e followed 4e, it reaches back and re-introduces aspects of 2e, 1e, 3e, even a bit of other classic versions, but it is at best(worst) a hybrid, chimera or mash-up of those past editions with 4e's evolution of d20 base mechanics,  encounter design and pacing - and no small amount of copypasta, for that matter.



> My point was and is that a mere tweak of the LFQW endemic to PF1 is not gonna cut it. Paizo ought to have studied what 5E does differently.



 What 5e /really/ does differently is that it sells itself on feel of its presentation and the experience provided by the DM, not on the virtues (or loopholes) of its mechanics.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Here's the thing about 5E: there are no trap options.



 They may not be the cruel, saw-toothed bear-traps of 3e or the natural deadfalls of 1e, but they're there.  

LFQW, alone,  means anything but a full caster is a trap, the only question is how many levels before it's sprung.


> You can bring a Rock Gnome Way of the Elements Monk or a Kobold Beastmaster Ranger to the table, and still be able to contribute to the group and have moments in the sun in the course of a given adventure day.



 BA guarantees that even the least optimal character can make the occasional warm-body contribution via a good roll on an unmodified d20.  


> Fighters and Rogues are lean, mean murder machines who never stop being whirlwinds of death, in my experience. Wizards can pull neat tricks, but not consistently and unceasingly. As a group, a party has to pull together to manage resources



 You could as truthfully say that about 3.x/PF.




> . Having listened to all of Mike Mearls late great Happy Fun Hour, the progression is more similar than appearances would have you believe: spell slots are secretly hit die powered, as are martial abilities, and they've crunched the math to make them seem more different than they are.



 I did notice that.  5e designs anchor around hps, so you have this rough parity in nominal single-target DPR, through the sweet spot, if you stick to the prescribed adventuring day.  
What that principle fails to adequately value is versatility,  the stuff of Class Tiers, and 5e neo-Vancian represents a high watermark in Tier 1 casting, that way.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> What 5e /really/ does differently is that it sells itself on feel of its presentation and the experience provided by the DM, not on the virtues (or loopholes) of its mechanics.




This might be more to the on-topic point than CapnZapp's views on specific details: PF2 is being positioned regarding the virtues of it's mechanics, unlike 5E. Lots of mechanics. Not necessarily what the market is looking for, if you look at some of the top modern RPGs like 5E and Star Wars (with the funny narrative dice).


----------



## generic

Mercurius said:


> Anyone have any insight into the thoughts behind Pathfinder 2? Is it Paizo's 4E?




Yes, if by Paizo's 4e you mean the best edition of the game ever made.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> They may not be the cruel, saw-toothed bear-traps of 3e or the natural deadfalls of 1e, but they're there.
> 
> LFQW, alone,  means anything but a full caster is a trap, the only question is how many levels before it's sprung.
> BA guarantees that even the least optimal character can make the occasional warm-body contribution via a good roll on an unmodified d20.
> You could as truthfully say that about 3.x/PF.
> 
> 
> I did notice that.  5e designs anchor around hps, so you have this rough parity in nominal single-target DPR, through the sweet spot, if you stick to the prescribed adventuring day.
> What that principle fails to adequately value is versatility,  the stuff of Class Tiers, and 5e neo-Vancian represents a high watermark in Tier 1 casting, that way.




The Neo-Vancian mechanics, like the Material component rules (inherited from 4E, I'll note) seem to codify a certain amount of Handwavium which I suspect would happen at a lot of tables in prior editions (1E seems to have sought "balance" by being strict about bat guano rations, based on my reading, but did anybody ever really enforce that outside of Lake Geneva back in the day?).

Versatility is a major consideration, but it comes at a price that comes due eventually, whereas the Fighter and Rogue leave the table with swords covered in Orc blood, laden with many pies, without needing to have made those calculations. That is the impressive result of all the playtesting for 5E: they came up with a system with Classes that have different progressions and resource pools, that achieve balance in player satisfaction with their choices (any choice). That's slick.

The main result I see from the PF2 playtest is that they beat the magic item restriction system to death with the Nerf bat.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> This might be more to the on-topic point than CapnZapp's views on specific details: PF2 is being positioned regarding the virtues of it's mechanics, unlike 5E. Lots of mechanics.



 TBF, D&D has always had a lot of mechanics, we get used to some, ignore, ban or change others - heck, in most eds, to some extent, each spell is its own little mechanical sub-system.
But, yeah, 5e is lauded (or critcized or analyzed) by us fans down its rabbit hole, for its mechanics, but it's not sold to new players on that basis, at all...


> Not necessarily what the market is looking for, if you look at some of the top modern RPGs like 5E and Star Wars (with the funny narrative dice).



 There's always been two get distinct markets for RPGs, the huge, virtually untapped market of people who haven't played an RPG yet, and the tiny, extremely fragmented & niche market of those who have, weren't immediately & completely repelled by the experience, and have been looking for something better than D&D that they can actually find a few other players to play it with...

...ok, as with all pronouncements that start with "There are two kinds of..." that was excluding a LOT:  there's markets within any given fandom for licensed RPGs, there's market for RPGs that are a good read that'll never be played, there's demand for RPGs that are just vehicles to present a few experimental mechanics, etc...
...which just means that the market that's not non-gamers deciding whether or not to try D&D is all the more niche.


----------



## Campbell

Parmandur said:


> This might be more to the on-topic point than CapnZapp's views on specific details: PF2 is being positioned regarding the virtues of it's mechanics, unlike 5E. Lots of mechanics. Not necessarily what the market is looking for, if you look at some of the top modern RPGs like 5E and Star Wars (with the funny narrative dice).




I have Edge of the Empire. It is not a simple game by any stretch.


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> I have Edge of the Empire. It is not a simple game by any stretch.




No TTRPG is "simple" as such: but the rules involved in Star Wars are more...fluid...than PF2, more symbolical and less numerical.


----------



## Staffan

Tony Vargas said:


> LFQW, though, actually refers to the progression of classes as they level.  A classic beatstick fighter increments his chance to hit every level.  He might get a better magic weapon now and then.  He eventually gets more than one attack per round.  His DPR steadily increases. That's the LF.  The caster, OTOH, starts out with 1 spell of 1st level cast at 1st level ability and as he levels gets more spell, higher level spells, and all those spells scale, so his power balloons at an accelerating place.  That's the QW (Q for quadratic, and it might be better to say geometric or hyperbolic or something else, depending on how big a math geek you are and how precise you need your metaphors to be).  You might think that a 5e caster's spells scaling some things, like damage, with slot instead of character level addresses that, and it does, a bit - but, then, so did 3.5 scaling save DCs & capping damage with slot rather than caster level, and that didn't help much, either.  (Bottom line, though, low level spells stay useful in both eds: 3.5 for spells without saves like utility spells, 5e for spells /with/ saves.  The coefficients are slightly different, but it's still metaphorically "quadratic.")




There is a more subtle change in 5e that helps a little with the LFQW issue: the number of spell slots.

In 3e, your spell slots for most levels followed a predictable pattern (for prepared casters): first you get 1 slot when you first learn a new spell level, then you have 2 slots for two levels, then 3 slots for 3 levels, and then 4 slots. The exception is 8th and 9th level spell slots which are accelerated a little (for 8th) or a lot (for 9th) in order to give you 4 slots of each level at level 20. In addition, you will probably have 1 or more additional slots per level from a high casting stat, and if you're a cleric or a specialist wizard you will have an extra slot per level that can only be used for a domain spell or a school spell. So the daily slots for a 10th level specialist wizard will likely look like this: 7/6/5/5/4.

But in 5e, things are different. You start out with more slots at lower levels (2 slots for spell levels 1 through 3), but you don't get any additional slots for stats, domains, or school specialization. And only 1st level spells only get to 4 slots. The others max at 3 (for 2nd through 5th level), 2 (for 6th and 7th level), or 1 (for 8th or 9th level). So a 10th level wizard will have a slot progression of 4/3/3/3/2. That's like half the slots of the 3e wizard, rounded up. Some classes (wizards and land druids) get a feature to recover some slots on a short rest once per day, but that basically translates into one additional top-level slot that can only be accessed after a short rest.

Of course, neo-Vancian casting combined with cantrips that are weak but not a joke means that you can probably *use* your slots more efficiently, but it's still a factor to consider.


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> I'm hardly wrong when you are just quibbling at semantics because I don't praise 5e hard enough to your liking. What you describe is 5e tweaking the 3e system.



The reason is that by calling it a tweak you undercut my entire argument: if 5E is a sea change compared to 3E it can't be a mere tweak.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> LFQW, alone,  means anything but a full caster is a trap, the only question is how many levels before it's sprung.



Okay this proves you have no interest in understanding the success of 5E, because this reveals you haven't tried it, and only look at it from your bitter shipwreck of 4E.

It's time to move on.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> LFQW, alone,  means anything but a full caster is a trap, the only question is how many levels before it's sprung.
> BA guarantees that even the least optimal character can make the occasional warm-body contribution via a good roll on an unmodified d20.




In 5E, that trap doesn't spring by level 20, and WotC has set 20 as a hard limit to the game, probably for this very reason (beyond people not playing much into third Tier levels).

By that point, the Champion is the Wolverine, gaining 5 HP every turn when below half health, and hitting a critical about every other round. The Assasin has their Sneak Attack possibly doubled on a given target due to Death Strike, and has an "unfailing" ability to move hidden in society without magic. High level martials are the stuff of legend in 5E, and still masters without major resource usage.


----------



## Parmandur

Aebir-Toril said:


> Yes, if by Paizo's 4e you mean the best edition of the game ever made.




I see what you did there, but no, this is about the business angle, not the game qua game.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> In 5E, that trap doesn't spring by level 20, and WotC has set 20 as a hard limit to the game, probably for this very reason (beyond people not playing much into third Tier levels



The 'trap' is sprung earlier than the whole campaign starts to suffer from its effects, which'd be after you leave the sweet spot which reaches 11th, inclusive.
But, without some vigilance and compensation by a good DM, it'll start to wear on the trapped player long before.

But, then, 5e worked some minor miracles in Empowering good DMs for a reason.




Staffan said:


> There is a more subtle change in 5e that helps a little with the LFQW issue: the number of spell slots.



True. Like someone, maybe  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], said, 5e 'tweaked the curve,' yeah.
LFQW returned with a vengeance in 5e, but was only back, not badder than ever like in 3e.



> But in 5e, things are different. You start out with more slots at lower levels...<but top out with fewer>
> Some classes (wizards and land druids) get a feature to recover some slots on a short rest once per day...
> Of course, neo-Vancian casting combined with cantrips, means that you can probably *use* your slots more efficiently, but it's still a factor to consider.



Yep, 5e casters get more spells at low level, plus attack cantrips, but fewer high level spells, and fewer slots, overall.
They also don't blow through near as many:  you don't need to stack buffs to keep up with the fighter or precast whole slates of spells for major battles. A spell,especially a concentration spell can often turn a whole encounter.
And, everyone casts spontaneously, there's no concentration to cast or loss of spells from interruption, so slots are rarely ever wasted nor go unused because you memorized something you didn't need.

None of which bears directly on LFQW, which is about progression.

In the classic game, LFQW was arguably part of a balance scheme.  Fighters (and multiclass non/demi- hunans) were profoundly superior at 1st, but fell to virtual irrelevance at higher levels due to LFQW (and racial level limits).

By 3e, Mcing was the same for everyone, and casters were competitive at first level, but restrictions on casters vanished and LFQW was only slightly tweaked by damage caps and save DCs scaling with slot level.

4e, MCing is barely a thing, Races & Classes are reasonably balanced, racial level limits & LFQW are gone, and feats are a few must-haves in an insufferable cloud of chaff. Casters are on equal footing from the start (and the rules are simpler &  easier on casters than ever, with AOs, but no loss for  interruption only on range/area, and only wizards prepping & simply /one of two spells per slot, and at-will attack spells).

5e only made it even easier on casters, no OAs, no spell loss, all spontaneous, multiple at will attack cantrips.  At first level, casters are doing just fine, even before casting one of their spells &/or after being tapped out.  But it added back LFQW - even if slightly tweaked in opposite directions as 3e, by spells scaling with slot, but save DCs with level - that's an issue.
And, compared to the prior ed, in no way a fix or improvement.


----------



## Zardnaar

There's only a handful of broken spells in 5E and 4E had a heap of powers that got errated. 

 The main problem is when you have a lot of primary spell casters and they can combo together.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> Okay this proves you have no interest in understanding the success of 5E, because this reveals you haven't tried it, .



 I've much more than merely tried 5e, I was the only DM at my FLGS to stick with the Next playtest, I ran 5e at Encounters, ran intro games at local conventions - I championed(npi) 5e.

And, I'm quite interested in it's success, I just don't labor under the assumption that the people driving that success - new players, because it has exceeded sales that could be attributed primarily to old guard and returning fad-era players - are attracted by subtle details of the mechanical differences between 3e and 5e.

Rather, they're pulled in by the ongoing mainstreaming of nerd culture, the remarkable renaissance in TT boardgaming, and not repulsed before they can even try it by a toxic atmosphere of nerdrage.

While that may sound like little more than timing - It is more in a significant and hard to accomplish way:  after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous (and, yes, that last has something to do with mechanical difference, but between 5e & 4e, 3.5 being, at the time, so well-served by PF1).

...

Actually, that's a thought: 5e isn't exactly hostile to 3.x fans sensibilities, just a little light on options and system mastery rewards.  If PF2 /does/ alienate it's base, maybe 5e could pick them back up?  Something along the lines of 'Ultimate' books but positioned so as not to confuse new players?


----------



## Zardnaar

First two ultimate books were very good IMHO.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> I've much more than merely tried 5e, I was the only DM at my FLGS to stick with the Next playtest, I ran 5e at Encounters, ran intro games at local conventions - I championed(npi) 5e.
> 
> And, I'm quite interested in it's success, I just don't labor under the assumption that the people driving that success - new players, because it has exceeded sales that could be attributed primarily to old guard and returning fad-era players - are attracted by subtle details of the mechanical differences between 3e and 5e.
> 
> Rather, they're pulled in by the ongoing mainstreaming of nerd culture, the remarkable renaissance in TT boardgaming, and not repulsed before they can even try it by a toxic atmosphere of nerdrage.
> 
> While that may sound like little more than timing - It is more in a significant and hard to accomplish way:  after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous (and, yes, that last has something to do with mechanical difference, but between 5e & 4e, 3.5 being, at the time, so well-served by PF1).
> 
> ...
> 
> Actually, that's a thought: 5e isn't exactly hostile to 3.x fans sensibilities, just a little light on options and system mastery rewards.  If PF2 /does/ alienate it's base, maybe 5e could pick them back up?  Something along the lines of 'Ultimate' books but positioned so as not to confuse new players?




Lol... new players only play 5e because it's a fad, not because they are actually having fun playing the game (and by the game I mean interacting with the mechanics of said game).  Is that the argument you're going with... people don't really know what they enjoy or want even when they are playing and purchasing it in droves??  This reminds me of the old arguments that if people just played more of 4e they'd realize how great a game it was... only many did play and there was still something about it (possibly multiple things) that turned them off of it and reduced or eliminated their fun.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> I've much more than merely tried 5e, I was the only DM at my FLGS to stick with the Next playtest, I ran 5e at Encounters, ran intro games at local conventions - I championed(npi) 5e.
> 
> And, I'm quite interested in it's success, I just don't labor under the assumption that the people driving that success - new players, because it has exceeded sales that could be attributed primarily to old guard and returning fad-era players - are attracted by subtle details of the mechanical differences between 3e and 5e.
> 
> Rather, they're pulled in by the ongoing mainstreaming of nerd culture, the remarkable renaissance in TT boardgaming, and not repulsed before they can even try it by a toxic atmosphere of nerdrage.
> 
> While that may sound like little more than timing - It is more in a significant and hard to accomplish way:  after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous (and, yes, that last has something to do with mechanical difference, but between 5e & 4e, 3.5 being, at the time, so well-served by PF1).
> 
> ...
> 
> Actually, that's a thought: 5e isn't exactly hostile to 3.x fans sensibilities, just a little light on options and system mastery rewards.  If PF2 /does/ alienate it's base, maybe 5e could pick them back up?  Something along the lines of 'Ultimate' books but positioned so as not to confuse new players?




Anecdotally, two of the PF1 fan reactions I have been seeing are "I have all the game I'll ever need" and "let's pick up 5E."

The success of 5E is likely not simply timing, as the tabletop board game Renaissance was in full swing for years prior to even 4E, and nerd culture, fantasy especially, was big even in early 3.x days: the content plays a part as well. 

The fact that gameplay styles for modern D&D and Ye Oldde Fadde days align might be a coincidence, or it might be that is the style that scratches folks itch for fantasy adventure.


----------



## Zardnaar

Imaro said:


> Lol... new players only play 5e because it's a fad, not because they are actually having fun playing the game (and by the game I mean interacting with the mechanics of said game).  Is that the argument you're going with... people don't really know what they enjoy or want even when they are playing and purchasing it in droves??  This reminds me of the old arguments that if people just played more of 4e they'd realize how great a game it was... only many did play and there was still something about it (possibly multiple things) that turned them off of it and reduced or eliminated their fun.




That's more or less it. I think what that mentality is about trying to undermine the legitimacy of liking other editions that are not 4E.

 If you like OSR gaming it's because if nostalgia, nothing because the playstyle is different or it does some things better/different than modern gaming.

 I don't like 4E but I don't think people who like it are wrong. It stratches a different itch and everyone has different itches.


----------



## mewzard

Parmandur said:


> Anecdotally, two of the PF1 fan reactions I have been seeing are "I have all the game I'll ever need" and "let's pick up 5E."
> 
> The success of 5E is likely not simply timing, as the tabletop board game Renaissance was in full swing for years prior to even 4E, and nerd culture, fantasy especially, was big even in early 3.x days: the content plays a part as well.
> 
> The fact that gameplay styles for modern D&D and Ye Oldde Fadde days align might be a coincidence, or it might be that is the style that scratches folks itch for fantasy adventure.




As a PF1 fan who absolutely hates 4E...I want to play PF2e so badly. While I've loved my years with Pathfinder since our group ditched 4E (and thank God for that), the game is starting to really show its flaws with age. Whether it's one of the DMs finding building encounters a pain, another DM's frustration about balance, a player's annoyance at trap options, or my own desires to not have to sacrifice out of combat utility or stick to stringent guides just to not feel underwhelming in said combat.

At first, the group showed little interest in it...but as the months have passed on, and our frustrations with PF1e's flaws have grown, the group's listened more and more to the details I've been able to provide about PF2e, and there's some level of excitement, to at least give it a proper look into. One DM in particular thinks the game could be a fine enough game to bring new players in without having to go 5e.

For me, the game's been looking like the perfect middle ground between PF1e and 5e that I've needed. I won't know for sure until we play, but I haven't been this excited for potentially swapping systems since I first looked at Pathfinder when 4e's flaws were really starting to grate on me.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> The success of 5E is likely not simply timing



You don't say?



Tony Vargas said:


> While that may sound like little more than timing - *It is more** in a significant and hard to accomplish way: after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous *



*



Parmandur said:



			as the tabletop board game Renaissance was in full swing for years prior ,
		
Click to expand...


 Seemed like it was picking up c2012, to me, just as D&D was going on hiatus.  








			nerd culture, fantasy especially, was big even in
		
Click to expand...


 That's been slowly building since the 90s. 
But it's been a nagging question: why couldn't  D&D catch that bandwagon?  
Maybe because M:tG diverted the usual demographic in the 90s? Clearly because of the toxic atmosphere of the edition war...
What stopped 3e, IDK, but the d20 phenom did seem a very hobby-insider thing?




			The fact that gameplay styles for modern D&D and Ye Oldde Fadde days align might be a coincidence, or it might be that is the style that scratches folks itch for fantasy adventure.
		
Click to expand...


 Or, it might be what 5e consciously evokes, since doing just that was an avowed goal of Next in the playtest.*


----------



## Arilyn

Imaro said:


> Lol... new players only play 5e because it's a fad, not because they are actually having fun playing the game (and by the game I mean interacting with the mechanics of said game).  Is that the argument you're going with... people don't really know what they enjoy or want even when they are playing and purchasing it in droves??  This reminds me of the old arguments that if people just played more of 4e they'd realize how great a game it was... only many did play and there was still something about it (possibly multiple things) that turned them off of it and reduced or eliminated their fun.




I think you have missed Tony Vargas' point. D&D has huge brand name recognition, at a time where TT games are have been experiencing a surge in popularity. The game is fun, and relatively easy to get into.  Most new players aren't playing 5e because of the rules differences from prior editions.  As long as WOTC put out a game that wasn't too different from 3e, but lighter, and enjoyable, they would have had a big success. I don't think Tony was saying it's just doing well because it's a fad. Where did you get this from his post?


----------



## Hussar

Tony Vargas said:


> /snip
> 5e only made it even easier on casters, no OAs, no spell loss, all spontaneous, multiple at will attack cantrips.  At first level, casters are doing just fine, even before casting one of their spells &/or after being tapped out.  But it added back LFQW - even if slightly tweaked in opposite directions as 3e, by spells scaling with slot, but save DCs with level - that's an issue.
> And, compared to the prior ed, in no way a fix or improvement.




Honestly [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I think that you are overblowing this by a LOT.  You are ignoring a lot of things:

1.  Most classes have spells.  LFQW doesn't mean much when everyone has casting abilities.  And, even the half casters get pretty significant abilities.

2.  Even the totally non magic classes (in core, there's what, 3 of them?) still get "magical" abilities.  What are Battlemaster maneuvers if not low powered spells?  Regeneration.  Damage resistance.  Etc.  5e does not have a "non magic" class.  At all.  Everyone is getting fantastic (as in stuff that's not mundane) abilities.  

3.  You mention the buffing - but, that's what the LFQW was all about.  The fact that the wizard (or casters) could make the non-casters surplus to needs.  Why bother with a rogue when a handful of scrolls and a wand of knock pretty much does everything you need a rogue for?  But, that's not how 5e works.  5e casters cannot ignore their daily limits by crafting wands or scrolls.  

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> 1.  Most classes have spells.  LFQW doesn't mean much when everyone has casting abilities.  And, even the half casters get pretty significant abilities.



 As long as they present 'L' sub-classes as equally-weighted choices to "Q" ones, the issue will remain.



> Even the totally non magic classes (in core, there's what, 3 of them?)



 5 sub-classes, are definitively non-magical in the PH. 


> 3.  You mention the buffing - but, that's what the LFQW was all about.



 I hope I mentioned it in the context of CoDzilla or effective spells/day, or BA.  



> 5e casters cannot ignore their daily limits by crafting wands or scrolls.



 They do actually need to contrive a 5MWD, yes.  Then again, their at-will baseline is higher,  too.


> I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here.



 SQUIRREL!


----------



## MockingBird

I'm sure it's been hit on but I like the discussion so ima put my bits in. 5e is popular because it's super easy to get into. It isn't hard and can be made as rules light as you want it. I've tried and failed to get casual friends to play 4e, it was just too much for them. I then tried to get them to play PF and again it was too much to grab their attention. Then comes 5e and now we have a regular game going. They enjoyed the simplicity, how fluid combat works, and the overall feel. I dont think it's just a fad or a by product of nerd culture. It only takes one RPG fan to potentially create 3 or 4 more out of casual passer bys. I credit the simplicity of 5e for the up swing. Saying all that, I hope PF2e can do the same.


----------



## Zardnaar

5E was the first social media edition. 

Technically it existed with 4E but things like critical role didn't exist and YouTube etc were very new. And the social media that was being used was to bury it in any event. 

 An edition fans like plus social media plus less rules heavy game=success.


----------



## Hussar

Tony V said:
			
		

> They do actually need to contrive a 5MWD, yes. Then again, their at-will baseline is higher, too.




But, the at wills don't even come close to what the martial classes can do.  We're talking about half as much damage with maybe a rider - which martial classes often get as well.  An 11th level caster at will is doing 3d10 at best.  That's literally half what the fighter types are doing.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> You don't say?
> 
> 
> 
> Seemed like it was picking up c2012, to me, just as D&D was going on hiatus.   That's been slowly building since the 90s.
> But it's been a nagging question: why couldn't  D&D catch that bandwagon?
> Maybe because M:tG diverted the usual demographic in the 90s? Clearly because of the toxic atmosphere of the edition war...
> What stopped 3e, IDK, but the d20 phenom did seem a very hobby-insider thing?
> 
> Or, it might be what 5e consciously evokes, since doing just that was an avowed goal of Next in the playtest.




Right, and I would suggest they chose consciously to do that because their research determined that is what people wanted...and I would go so far as to say that was the missing piece for 3.x, failure to get that fantasy genre feel just right.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> As long as they present 'L' sub-classes as equally-weighted choices to "Q" ones, the issue will remain.
> 
> 5 sub-classes, are definitively non-magical in the PH.
> I hope I mentioned it in the context of CoDzilla or effective spells/day, or BA.
> 
> They do actually need to contrive a 5MWD, yes.  Then again, their at-will baseline is higher,  too.
> SQUIRREL!




The "non-magical" Level 20 Champion is regenerating health constantly and firing 40 arrows in a minute, which have a 15% chance of critical hitting their target. Any high level character is Avengers/Justice League material.


----------



## Parmandur

mewzard said:


> As a PF1 fan who absolutely hates 4E...I want to play PF2e so badly. While I've loved my years with Pathfinder since our group ditched 4E (and thank God for that), the game is starting to really show its flaws with age. Whether it's one of the DMs finding building encounters a pain, another DM's frustration about balance, a player's annoyance at trap options, or my own desires to not have to sacrifice out of combat utility or stick to stringent guides just to not feel underwhelming in said combat.
> 
> At first, the group showed little interest in it...but as the months have passed on, and our frustrations with PF1e's flaws have grown, the group's listened more and more to the details I've been able to provide about PF2e, and there's some level of excitement, to at least give it a proper look into. One DM in particular thinks the game could be a fine enough game to bring new players in without having to go 5e.
> 
> For me, the game's been looking like the perfect middle ground between PF1e and 5e that I've needed. I won't know for sure until we play, but I haven't been this excited for potentially swapping systems since I first looked at Pathfinder when 4e's flaws were really starting to grate on me.




Not trying to invalidate that PF1 fans are looking forward to PF2: but what percentage?


----------



## Zardnaar

Forums are negative but so was the lead up to 5E. 

Playtest wasn't good, my wife really liked the PF2 Bard so buying the PDF and see how it goes from there. Getting the players will be the hard part, they all want to play 5E.


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> The reason is that *by calling it a tweak you undercut my entire argument*: if 5E is a sea change compared to 3E it can't be a mere tweak.



LOL. 

I don't really think it's a sea of change. Some of the changes that curb LFQW a bit were just common sense ones that basically many of the post-3e d20 lines also did, such as removing auto-scaling spells, bonus spells based on attribute, and curtailing magic items, etc. These are three factors that had previously contributed to the sheer through-put efficiency of spellcasting in 3e and PF1. 

However, 5e to its credit also sought to prevent buff stacking through its one-concentration-spell-per-time rule. (This says nothing of the Neo-Vancian system; however, I would suggest that Neo-Vancian spellcasting favored spellcasters in that LFQW by making up for lost efficiency through increased flexibility.) These changes are tweaks to the spellcasting system. They are tweaks that add up to more than the sum of their parts, but they are tweaks nevertheless.


----------



## Zardnaar

Aldarc said:


> LOL.
> 
> I don't really think it's a sea of change. Some of the changes the curb LFQW a bit were just common sense ones that basically many of the post-3e d20 lines also did, such as removing auto-scaling spells and bonus spells based on attribute, curtailing magic items, etc. These are three factors that had previously contributed to the sheer through-put efficiency of spellcasting in 3e and PF1.
> 
> However, 5e to its credit also sought to prevent buff stacking through its one-concentration-spell-per-time rule. (This says nothing of the Neo-Vancian system; however, I would suggest that Neo-Vancian spellcasting favored spellcasters in that LFQW by making up for lost efficiency through increased flexibility.) These changes are tweaks to the spellcasting system. They are tweaks that add up to more than the sum of their parts, but they are tweaks nevertheless.




I think removing auto scaling damage spells being a mistake.

 The warmage wasn't remotely broken in 3.5. Damage dealing spells mostly suck in 5E especially with the way saves work.


----------



## Imaro

Arilyn said:


> I think you have missed Tony Vargas' point.




I don't think I did at all...



Arilyn said:


> D&D has huge brand name recognition, at a time where TT games are have been experiencing a surge in popularity.



Never disputed this... though I would go so far as to say 5e seems responsible for the majority of that surge.  Something I thinkg would have been impossible if people didn't enjoy the actual gameplay.



Arilyn said:


> The game is fun, and relatively easy to get into.




Again I agree... though I would ask where in Tony's post is this mentioned?



Arilyn said:


> *Most new players aren't playing 5e because of the rules differences from prior editions.*  As long as WOTC put out a game that wasn't too different from 3e, but lighter, and enjoyable, they would have had a big success. I don't think Tony was saying it's just doing well because it's a fad. Where did you get this from his post?




Emphasis mine... how do you know this?  I mean you're contradicting your first statement in this very paragraph and calling out it's differences from 3e (a past edition) as one of the reasons for it's success... so which is it?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> Forums are negative but so was the lead up to 5E.
> 
> Playtest wasn't good, my wife really liked the PF2 Bard so buying the PDF and see how it goes from there.



 Y'know, with the exception if one player who liked the Next playtest Sorcerer, nobody I knew seemed to ike it, much, but, they're mostly fine with the finished product.


----------



## MockingBird

Tony Vargas said:


> Y'know, with the exception if one player who liked the Next playtest Sorcerer, nobody I knew seemed to ike it, much, but, they're mostly fine with the finished product.




I was very much afraid it was going to be an updated 4e and by that I mean keeping the "powers" and heavy focus on grid and mini's. I was digging out my old 2e books to try one last time to get a regular game going.


----------



## Zardnaar

Tony Vargas said:


> Y'know, with the exception if one player who liked the Next playtest Sorcerer, nobody I knew seemed to ike it, much, but, they're mostly fine with the finished product.




I didn't mind the playtest, it was rough in the middle but the start and end were fun.

 But the forums were negative mostly with the Avengers dumping all over it. 

 Paizo could design the best rules in the world, I think the main problem will be 5E existing. 

 In 2009 you didn't really have much choice. 4E was pushing people away PF offered a safety net. 

 5E isn't really pushing anyone away. The casuals seem to have left already the remaining Pathfinder players are probably fairly hardcore. 

As much as people like dumping on older editions you can still have fun with them.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> I would ask where in Tony's post is this mentioned?



 Just requires a good enough DM.

Though, to be cynical, so long as they decide they hate the game after buying a PH, they're a sale, and as long as they actually played it, count towards that 40 million factoid.



> Emphasis mine... how do you know this?



 Its a given, really.  New players have no knowledge of past editions' mechanics, so how 5e differs is, at most, a matter of academic interest.  Either the DM runs a good enough game to hook 'am, or he doesnt.

Where 5e content pulled a hat trick was in offending no one enough to actively get an edition war rolling against it - the environment that creates is actively hostile to new players even trying the game.  There, the differences from past eds really mayter.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> I didn't mind the playtest, it was rough in the middle but the start and end were fun.
> But the forums were negative mostly with the Avengers dumping all over it.



 The high watermark for negativity was certainly DoaM

The ragequit "threats" were hilarious, though.  



> Paizo could design the best rules in the world, I think the main problem will be 5E existing.



 Good rules do seem a positive liability, especially the closer your orbit brings you to D&D.



MockingBird said:


> I was very much afraid it was going to be an updated 4e and by that I mean keeping the "powers" and heavy focus on grid and mini's. I was digging out my old 2e books to try one last time to get a regular game going.




You shouldve tried Next, it was never a bit like 4e, it started out evoking 1e pretty hard, and worked it's way up to 2e-ishness.  
TotM fetish from the get-go... drove one of my poor* players nuts, his turns took forever. 





*In the sense of unfortunate, not lacking funds or skill.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> Just requires a good enough DM.
> 
> Though, to be cynical, so long as they decide they hate the game after buying a PH, they're a sale, and as long as they actually played it, count towards that 40 million factoid.




Sooo nowhere?  I think you might have quoted me by accident since you didn't actually answer the question I asked.



Tony Vargas said:


> Its a given, really.  New players have no knowledge of past editions' mechanics, so how 5e differs is, at most, a matter of academic interest.  Either the DM runs a good enough game to hook 'am, or he doesnt.




Disagree.  A new player having a lack of knowledge around the mechanics of previous editions in no way determines whether a difference from previous editions is one of or the reason they enjoy the game.  In other words I don't need to have knowledge of gravity in order for it to affect me.



Tony Vargas said:


> Where 5e content pulled a hat trick was in offending no one enough to actively get an edition war rolling against it - the environment that creates is actively hostile to new players even trying the game.  There, the differences from past eds really mayter.




Lol, or 5e is just a better game.


----------



## Parmandur

Zardnaar said:


> I didn't mind the playtest, it was rough in the middle but the start and end were fun.
> 
> But the forums were negative mostly with the Avengers dumping all over it.
> 
> Paizo could design the best rules in the world, I think the main problem will be 5E existing.
> 
> In 2009 you didn't really have much choice. 4E was pushing people away PF offered a safety net.
> 
> 5E isn't really pushing anyone away. The casuals seem to have left already the renaing Pathfinder players are probably fairly hardcore.
> 
> As much as people like dumping on older editions you can still have fun with them.




Yeah, PF2 biggest competition is PF1. Paizo can't invalidate anyone's existing books, nor the SRD material, do many folks still playing 3.X will have no strict motivation to change. That mainstream D&D is doing well is the anvil, but PF1 Grognardism is the hammer.


----------



## Parmandur

Imaro said:


> Sooo nowhere?  I think you might have quoted me by accident since you didn't actually answer the question I asked.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.  A new player having a lack of knowledge around the mechanics of previous editions in no way determines whether a difference from previous editions is one of or the reason they enjoy the game.  In other words I don't need to have knowledge of gravity in order for it to affect me.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, or 5e is just a better game.




It's not mutually exclusive to say that 5E doesn't offend any major grouping of fans and that it is a superior game: a strong case can be made that it is the same thing, since the end goal of the game is to harmoniously enjoy a game with friends.


----------



## Parmandur

Zardnaar said:


> Forums are negative but so was the lead up to 5E.
> 
> Playtest wasn't good, my wife really liked the PF2 Bard so buying the PDF and see how it goes from there. Getting the players will be the hard part, they all want to play 5E.




I started paying attention to things around February of 2014 (when a D&D Kreo ad before The Lego Movie reminded me that RPGs existed after ignoring them for 4 years), and what I saw in the forums was a lot of excitement. I largely ignored the Warlord subforum, though.


----------



## Zardnaar

Paizo released a lot of PF material. 

 Personally I have a lot of 2E and 3E material essentially untested. By that I mean mostly unused maybe a few feats etc.


----------



## Zardnaar

Parmandur said:


> I started paying attention to things around February of 2014 (when a D&D Keep ad before The Lego Movie reminded me that RPGs existed after ignoring them for 4 years), and what I saw in the forums was a lot of excitement. I largely ignored the Warlord subforum, though.




2012 was bad, the old WotC forums. The hardcore 4E players had existed in a mod enforced bubble. 

 They were prepared to fight 3.X players but the influx of OSR and casuals flummoxed them lol. 

 It was around then I think some of the smarter ones worked out why 4E flopped. They spent so much time inventing arguments over 3.5. Ideas of playing OSR for balance reasons mostly eluded them. 

 It's was funny watching them trying to project 3.5isms onto older D&D when it became obvious a few hadn't played it and were projecting things based on hearsay.


----------



## Parmandur

Zardnaar said:


> 2012 was bad, the old WotC forums. The hardcore 4E players had existed in a mod enforced bubble.
> 
> They were prepared to fight 3.X players but the influx of OSR and casuals flummoxed them lol.
> 
> It was around then I think some of the smarter ones worked out why 4E flopped. They spent so much time inventing arguments over 3.5. Ideas of playing OSR for balance reasons mostly eluded them.
> 
> It's was funny watching them trying to project 3.5isms onto older D&D when it became obvious a few hadn't played it and were projecting things based on hearsay.




I always got the impression those official forums were a give of scum and villainy, to be honest. Lots of moderaters, but not much moderation.


----------



## Campbell

You cannot meaningfully compare 4e and 5e. They were games with radically different design goals. In many ways 4e tried to transform mainstream roleplaying game culture and suffered for it. 5e embraced the existing paradigm and has flourished. Both are good games. There is literally no point in continuing to pursue this. All you succeed in doing is sowing division.

Look there are plenty of good games that are not popular. There have been bad games that were massively popular (like Vampire - The Masquerade).


----------



## Zardnaar

Parmandur said:


> I always got the impression those official forums were a give of scum and villainy, to be honest. Lots of moderaters, but not much moderation.




Wasn't always like that, some of the mods posted on other sites. 

They had the gleemax thing followed by 4E. Alot of people just left and the same names turned up on other forums. 

 At its best the old forums were great and very active. They had designers and authors posting, your post could be of the front page two hours later. Various sub forums were very active.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> Sooo nowhere?.



 Right.  So I corrected the oversight, in that same reply.

I really should watch the whole "obvious" thing.



> Disagree.



 I know, I recognized  your name. 



> A new player having a lack of knowledge around the mechanics of previous editions in no way determines whether a difference from previous editions is one of or the reason they enjoy the game.



The /change/ from prior eds makes no difference.  Only the New players actual experience with that game he plays actually matters to him.



> In other words I don't need to have knowledge of gravity in order for it to affect me.



 Gravity change a lot where you come from?




> Lol, or 5e is just a better game.



Even if it were better than 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Essentials, or worse than Spawn of Fshawn and FATAL, it would make no difference to whether someone tried Roleplaying for the first time after 2014, it'd still be the only RPG they were likely to have heard of, and tried.

Quality, they'll judge, after.... relative quality only if they stick with the hobby long enough to try something else.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Campbell said:


> Look there are plenty of good games that are not popular. There have been bad games that were massively popular (like Vampire - The Masquerade*).



 /Ad populum/ is a fallacy for a reason.  It is also, perhaps not ironically, a very popular one 

(So is the contrary: that something unpopular must be rarefied and elite in it's superiority.  Gamers, and nerds in general, used to go for that one, a lot, too.)




> <4e & 5e> Both are good games.



 That's charitable.  

Metaphorically different eds of D&D may be Oldowan vs Mousterian vs Clovis tools, but they're all still in the TTRPG stone age - and the rest of the hobby's still trying to get bronze and agriculture right.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> Right.  So I corrected the oversight, in that same reply.
> 
> I really should watch the whole "obvious" thing.




You probably should since a correction wasn't what I was asking about.  A simple yes or no would have sufficed... I thought that was pretty obvious.



Tony Vargas said:


> The /change/ from prior eds makes no difference.  Only the New players actual experience with that game he plays actually matters to him.




An experience shaped by 5e's differences and similarities to previous editions...



Tony Vargas said:


> Gravity change a lot where you come from?




Nope... Point still stands.



Tony Vargas said:


> Even if it were better than 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Essentials, or worse than Spawn of Fshawn and FATAL, it would make no difference to whether someone tried Roleplaying for the first time after 2014, it's still be the only RPG they were likely to have heard of, and tried.




And I am pretty sure if it provided a bad experience, irregardless of it being their first time trying a roleplaying game, new players would not only stop playing but would also affect the growth of 5e negatively... it also wouldn't continue to get positive buzz from old and new players alike, you know since since social media works both ways. 

 Or let me guess they aren't really having fun or enjoying their D&D games... they just don't know any better. Do you realize how arrogant and condescending that is... just like when you push the nostalgia angle for why people enjoy OSR games. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Quality, they'll judge, after.... relative quality only if they stick with the hobby long enough to try something else.




Well with the internet at our fingertips it's easier now than ever before to find out about other rpg's... the funny thing is we saw the dissatisfaction with the quality of other editions pretty quickly...5e doesn't seem to be heading in that direction anytime soon but I guess time will tell.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> An experience shaped by 5e's differences and similarities to previous editions...



 By it's qualities, at the table, the new player has no experience of the prior ed, thus none if the changes.  If you're playing for the first time with an experienced DM, his attitudes towards those changes /might/ have an effect on the experience he delivers, though


> And I am pretty sure if it provided a bad experience, irregardless of it being their first time trying a roleplaying game, new players would not only stop playing



 Yes. Happens a lot, RPGs aren't for everyone.







> but would also affect the growth of 5e negatively...



 It might, if they were invested enough in the hobby to assertively share the experience.

But, there's only so many new players the hobby can accommodate, anyway.  Relatively few DMs are born, most need experience. 

So a steady stream is probably better than a sudden flood.


> it also wouldn't continue to get positive buzz from old and new players alike, you know since since social media works both ways.



 Buzz is a funny thing, and it's one area where nerdy/cult properties have to tread especially carefully.  A few newbs disliking an established cult IP will be told off, with practiced defensiveness and well-honed arguments, and aren't invested enough to dig in.  A few disgruntled hardcore fans, OTOH, can get quite the torrent of nerdrage going.




> the funny thing is we saw the dissatisfaction with the quality of other editions pretty quickly...



From established fans who disapproved of changes, yes.  Grognards were incensed at 3e's grid dependence, RaW-obsession, Multi-classing, & player entitlement, among other things, for instance, and with 3.5 as a 'money-grab.' Similar diatribes were locked and loaded before 4e even hit the shelves.

New players weren't making those complaints.


----------



## Zardnaar

There difference in scale is key. 
 Grognards were a minority. Paizo gave the numbers that 2/3rds of the Dragon/Dungeon subscriber lists stuck with them.

 Some numbers at PAX also came out similar to Ryan Danceys numbers on the Giant in the Playground numbers. Circa 2014 PF sold around 2/3rds to 100% of 3.5.

 You can also look at the numbers of online players from pre 5E. It wasn't just a few Grognards the majority of the 3.X playerbase went to Pathfinder, a decent number stuck with 3.5.

 The overall trend was downwards year after year.

 I don't expect Pathfinder 2 to do Pathfinder numbers but hopefully they'll do all right. Monopolies are kinda bad.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> /Ad populum/ is a fallacy for a reason.  It is also, perhaps not ironically, a very popular one
> 
> (So is the contrary: that something unpopular must be rarefied and elite in it's superiority.  Gamers, and nerds in general, used to go for that one, a lot, too.)
> 
> 
> That's charitable.
> 
> Metaphorically different eds of D&D may be Oldowan vs Mousterian vs Clovis tools, but they're all still in the TTRPG stone age - and the rest of the hobby's still trying to get bronze and agriculture right.




All TTRPGs are still in the "Stone age," many of the first people to ever play an RPG are still playing.

If we want to use technological analogies, the actual mechanics are less important than the design structure: in which case WotC and Paizo are currently ahead of the pack due to their access to big data pools for what does and doesn't work for their player base.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> By it's qualities, at the table, the new player has no experience of the prior ed, thus none if the changes.  If you're playing for the first time with an experienced DM, his attitudes towards those changes /might/ have an effect on the experience he delivers, though
> Yes. Happens a lot, RPGs aren't for everyone. It might, if they were invested enough in the hobby to assertively share the experience.
> 
> But, there's only so many new players the hobby can accommodate, anyway.  Relatively few DMs are born, most need experience.
> 
> So a steady stream is probably better than a sudden flood.
> Buzz is a funny thing, and it's one area where nerdy/cult properties have to tread especially carefully.  A few newbs disliking an established cult IP will be told off, with practiced defensiveness and well-honed arguments, and aren't invested enough to dig in.  A few disgruntled hardcore fans, OTOH, can get quite the torrent of nerdrage going.
> 
> 
> From established fans who disapproved of changes, yes.  Grognards were incensed at 3e's grid dependence, RaW-obsession, Multi-classing, & player entitlement, among other things, for instance, and with 3.5 as a 'money-grab.' Similar diatribes were locked and loaded before 4e even hit the shelves.
> 
> New players weren't making those complaints.




New players might not be able to make the comparisons, but they may find a particular thing (such as grid-intensive miniature combat) a turn-off.


----------



## Hussar

Parmandur said:


> New players might not be able to make the comparisons, but they may find a particular thing (such as grid-intensive miniature combat) a turn-off.




On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze.  I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop.  It was all point and click.  We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.

4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.


----------



## Celtavian

Hussar said:


> On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze.  I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop.  It was all point and click.  We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.
> 
> 4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.




I doubt it. That was the least of my problems with the game. It just wasn't a very good game for suspending reality. 4E let you look at the wizard behind the curtain too much and expected you to forget he was there. RPGs walk a very fine line much like a good book, movie, or TV show of creating rules that allow a DM to create a suspension of reality for the players. 4E was very bad at that in my opinion in a way that 5E and PF are not, though they do it in different ways.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze.  I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop.  It was all point and click.  We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.
> 
> 4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.




Not by a lot though. My wife right now is playing fire emblem on the switch. It's a tactical rpg, but it's niche compared to say Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc.

 The young uns using maps do it for convenience, they are still not big fans of complexity.


----------



## Hussar

Celtavian said:


> I doubt it. That was the least of my problems with the game. It just wasn't a very good game for suspending reality. 4E let you look at the wizard behind the curtain too much and expected you to forget he was there. RPGs walk a very fine line much like a good book, movie, or TV show of creating rules that allow a DM to create a suspension of reality for the players. 4E was very bad at that in my opinion in a way that 5E and PF are not, though they do it in different ways.




This I actually 100% agree with.  4e let you see (or more accurately force you to see) how the sausage was made.  And a lot of folks were REALLY turned off by that.


----------



## Aldarc

Celtavian said:


> I doubt it. That was the least of my problems with the game. It just wasn't a very good game for suspending reality. 4E let you look at the wizard behind the curtain too much and expected you to forget he was there. RPGs walk a very fine line much like a good book, movie, or TV show of creating rules that allow a DM to create a suspension of reality for the players. 4E was very bad at that in my opinion in a way that 5E and PF are not, though they do it in different ways.



Some of this, however, could have been solved by the writing. The 4e Essentials line, for example, was a move back towards more natural language and changing the aesthetic of 4e in a way that attempted to hide the nuts and bolts. If 4e had been written in a way that adopted natural language, then you can bet that it would have been better received. Presentation is key. 



Zardnaar said:


> Not by a lot though. My wife right now is playing fire emblem on the switch. It's a tactical rpg, but it's niche compared to say Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc.



Then you also have the resurging popularity of Tacitcal CRPGs like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, and Banner Saga. These are certainly niche when compared to AAA games from Bioware, but Bioware also got its start from similar sort of tactical games.


----------



## Zardnaar

They're still niche, last time I played one new was 1996. They're an acquired taste. She bought Pillars of Eternity and couldn't get into it. But she loves Fire Emblem, I bought it for the GBA years ago and she started playing it and has stuck with the series ever since.

 She's actually taken a week's holiday to play it lol. It's close to midnight and she's still playing and she is normally in bed around 9.


----------



## Aldarc

Zardnaar said:


> They're still niche, last time I played one new was 1996. They're an acquired taste.



If you are not a AAA game, then you are niche. That said, Dragon Age Origins is a turned-based tactical game wearing an RPG coat.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze.  I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop.  It was all point and click.  We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.
> 
> 4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.




I don't know about this one.  I think that games played on a VTT have become more visible but I'm not sure I'd buy into the thinking that they are necessarily used by a large portion of the player base, I still tend to think the vast majority of games are played face to face.  Now I'll readily admit I could be wrong since I don't have data to back it up, but I just don't think a large enough portion of the playerbase are using (or want to be required to use) VTT where it would have made a difference in the case of 4e.  Honestly I think if you need to be using electronic devices to bring the overhead of a roleplaying game down to manageable levels for most people... well that's still going to be a nail in it's coffin even if said VTTs exist and are readily available...


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze.  I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop.  It was all point and click.  We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.
> 
> 4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.




VTT are much more common now, but it does seem the majority of people still play without them, particularly people who like TTRPGs as a break from electronic media. I think you are right, that 4E would run more smoothly with a computer aid, which they promised day one as a first party solution.


----------



## Zardnaar

I think they just messed up their assumptions. Here we are 10 years later, everyone has smart phones and most people still use books. 

 I suspect books are just part of the D&D experience for most people. It's about selling emotions and feelings, hell vinyl still sells despite being obsolete for 30+ years.


----------



## Parmandur

Zardnaar said:


> I think they just messed up their assumptions. Here we are 10 years later, everyone has smart phones and most people still use books.
> 
> I suspect books are just part of the D&D experience for most people. It's about selling emotions and feelings, hell vinyl still sells despite being obsolete for 30+ years.




Vinyl is superior for DJ mix table purposes, and always will be by the nature of that medium. And, yeah, I think people are looking for that analog feel with TTRPGs: a TTRPG with crunchy combat will never be able to keep up with Fire Emblem or X-Com.


----------



## Aldarc

Zardnaar said:


> I think they just messed up their assumptions. Here we are 10 years later, everyone has smart phones and most people still use books.
> 
> I suspect books are just part of the D&D experience for most people.



Also keeping in mind that WotC was hoping for an online toolset along the lines of the successful DnDBeyond for 4e, but that this never materialized because of a murder-suicide by their contract. There are so basically so many online programs (e.g., Roll20, DnDBeyond, etc.) that are all about selling you books and materials that you already own. So I am not entirely sure if their assumptions were messed up, beyond their choice of web developers. This was one of the unfortunate setbacks that unfairly did hurt the reception of 4e, regardless of one's attitudes towards the rules.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> All TTRPGs are still in the "Stone age," many of the first people to ever play an RPG are still playing.



I believe I implied that they all are - the later Neolithic. Working on agriculture, haven't gotten bronze right?  







> If we want to use technological analogies, the actual mechanics are less important than the design structure: in which case WotC and Paizo are currently ahead of the pack due to their access to big data pools for what does and doesn't work for their player base.



 So, they've skipped from flaking scrapers off flint cores to conspicuous consumption?  I'm sorry, I don't think my metaphor can take that.   Seriously, though, even a paleolithic tool culture /did/ include design (intent, pre-visualiztion).    



Parmandur said:


> New players might not be able to make the comparisons, but they may find a particular thing a turn-off.



Nod, and, IMX (and I've introduced tons of people to D&D over 39 years), they have, yes, and not always the same thing, it varies with player.  For instance, Vancian magic lost of no end of players back in the day, and led to myriad alternate 'mana' systems, because it was so unintuitive and counter-genre.  But, in the intervening decades, D&D Vancian has bled through video games and D&D-themed and D&D-inspired fiction and into the mainstream consciousness... and D&D has softened Vancian, a lot, with 'prep' replacing 'memorization,' now, with 5e, Spontaneous Casting for all.  (And, yes, that's an example of a change, and one that's well-received by new players, all unknowing that in the past they've had to've picked not only which spells they wanted to cast that days, but how many times they were going to be able to cast each of them.)

But, very often, especially with older eds of D&D, new players show up once, voice no particular complaint even seem interested & to have a good time, and are then never seen again.  Just "see'n what all the fuss is about" I guess.  At my FLGS, we actually /do/ see more turnover and more one-time players, now, under AL then we did with Encounters, but we also see /so many more new players/ (and returning players, the first couple years of 5e) that we've easily retained just as many past that critical-seeming first session.  




> (such as grid-intensive miniature combat)



I've never seen a new-to-RPGs payer turned off by the use of a grid - returning players, OTOH... nope, also not really an issue. Every  table at our FLGs still uses a battlemat. (OK, every /D&D/ table, the one non-D&D table, playing Rolemaster, of all things, didn't.)

I remember when, on the old 3e WotC boards, pre-Gleemax, grognards started grousing about 'grid dependence' like they didn't play at sandtables back in the day.  And since then it's taken on a bizarre life of it's own.  

I mean, TotM is great, but it is, IMHO/X, an 'advanced' technique - you don't want to give new & casual players the added overhead of trying to visualize range/area/positioning in a turn-based game, so TotM with them turns into the DM describing, re-describing, and re-re-describing the same, slightly different scene, each and every turn.  A play surface (grid or plain) and some sort of figures really helps new players.



Hussar said:


> 4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.



You'd just see "grid dependence" replaced with "VTT dependence," and more emphasis on "it's an MMO" over "it's a tactical boardgame."  That's the thing about stalking horses, you can use whatever color horse is available.

Enough people took the things they disliked personally enough to edition war over them.  A nice/efficient on-line venue to play the game wouldn't've in any way mollified them, if anything, it'd've made them more determined.



Celtavian said:


> I doubt it. That was the least of my problems with the game. It just wasn't a very good game for suspending reality.



 'Suspending reality' or "immersion" is a very personal experience.  For me, I get there more easily if I'm /less/ comfortable/familiar with the system, it gives me a sense of feeling out and exploring like the character is.  I get the sense I'm an outlier, it seems most folks achieve immersion more readily when they're fully conversant with the system - it becomes second-nature, and becomes the 'nature' (natural laws) of the imagined setting.  ::shrug::  Either way, if you hate* the system, it's not going to deliver that sort of experience, you'll constantly be reacting to the system, itself, instead of the fiction its modeling.











*or, conversely, if you're really into the system for it's own sake.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> I believe I implied that they all are - the later Neolithic. Working on agriculture, haven't gotten bronze right?   So, they've skipped from flaking scrapers off flint cores to conspicuous consumption?  I'm sorry, I don't think my metaphor can take that.   Seriously, though, even a paleolithic tool culture /did/ include design (intent, pre-visualiztion).
> 
> Nod, and, IMX (and I've introduced tons of people to D&D over 39 years), they have, yes, and not always the same thing, it varies with player.  For instance, Vancian magic lost of no end of players back in the day, and led to myriad alternate 'mana' systems, because it was so unintuitive and counter-genre.  But, in the intervening decades, D&D Vancian has bled through video games and D&D-themed and D&D-inspired fiction and into the mainstream consciousness... and D&D has softened Vancian, a lot, with 'prep' replacing 'memorization,' now, with 5e, Spontaneous Casting for all.  (And, yes, that's an example of a change, and one that's well-received by new players, all unknowing that in the past they've had to've picked not only which spells they wanted to cast that days, but how many times they were going to be able to cast each of them.)
> 
> But, very often, especially with older eds of D&D, new players show up once, voice no particular complaint even seem interested & to have a good time, and are then never seen again.  Just "see'n what all the fuss is about" I guess.  At my FLGS, we actually /do/ see more turnover and more one-time players, now, under AL then we did with Encounters, but we also see /so many more new players/ (and returning players, the first couple years of 5e) that we've easily retained just as many past that critical-seeming first session.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a new-to-RPGs payer turned off by the use of a grid - returning players, OTOH... nope, also not really an issue. Every  table at our FLGs still uses a battlemat. (OK, every /D&D/ table, the one non-D&D table, playing Rolemaster, of all things, didn't.)
> 
> I remember when, on the old 3e WotC boards, pre-Gleemax, grognards started grousing about 'grid dependence' like they didn't play at sandtables back in the day.  And since then it's taken on a bizarre life of it's own.
> 
> I mean, TotM is great, but it is, IMHO/X, an 'advanced' technique - you don't want to give new & casual players the added overhead of trying to visualize range/area/positioning in a turn-based game, so TotM with them turns into the DM describing, re-describing, and re-re-describing the same, slightly different scene, each and every turn.  A play surface (grid or plain) and some sort of figures really helps new players.
> 
> You'd just see "grid dependence" replaced with "VTT dependence," and more emphasis on "it's an MMO" over "it's a tactical boardgame."  That's the thing about stalking horses, you can use whatever color horse is available.
> 
> Enough people took the things they disliked personally enough to edition war over them.  A nice/efficient on-line venue to play the game wouldn't've in any way mollified them, if anything, it'd've made them more determined.
> 
> 'Suspending reality' or "immersion" is a very personal experience.  For me, I get there more easily if I'm /less/ comfortable/familiar with the system, it gives me a sense of feeling out and exploring like the character is.  I get the sense I'm an outlier, it seems most folks achieve immersion more readily when they're fully conversant with the system - it becomes second-nature, and becomes the 'nature' (natural laws) of the imagined setting.  ::shrug::  Either way, if you hate* the system, it's not going to deliver that sort of experience, you'll constantly be reacting to the system, itself, instead of the fiction its modeling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *or, conversely, if you're really into the system for it's own sake.




I'm not too sure how representative game store play is: I've played the game for over 15 years, and never played in a store or convention, and that's true of most of the players I know (I do shop at the local stores, however, and I'd lay odds that the one you run in is one of those, actually).

When I started playing in earnest in College, we only ever did theatre if the mind, busting out minis for one single large fight in years of play. And that was 3.X, albeit with a healthy dose of Handwavium to keep things running (in practice similar to what 5E assumes as basic).


----------



## Campbell

I'm a big fan of theater of the mind myself, but I find it difficult to employ in 5e. All ranges and area of effects specified in feet make me constantly feel like I'm getting it wrong. Something like zones or range bands from other games make it a lot easier to deal with.


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> I'm a big fan of theater of the mind myself, but I find it difficult to employ in 5e. All ranges and area of effects specified in feet make me constantly feel like I'm getting it wrong. Something like zones or range bands from other games make it a lot easier to deal with.




Those sort of systems can work, but feet are fairly intuitive.


----------



## Kurviak

Parmandur said:


> Those sort of systems can work, but feet are fairly intuitive.




Not for people that grew up in countries that uses metric system


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> I'm not too sure how representative game store play is: I've played the game for over 15 years, and never played in a store or convention, and that's true of most of the players I know.



So you've got a smaller sample size.   But, yes, you do get a lot more new & casual gamers in-store than at conventions, for instance, and stable groups are quite another story.

In my area the last play-in-store what we'd now call an FLGS, The Game Table, closed in, I think '87, yeah, that sounds right. In that one there was D&D, Champions, & Traveler being played regularly (among many other things irregularly - and wargames were still significant, M&M, SFB &c - I didn't pay that much attention, but M&M's hard to miss, they take up a lot of space), and only Traveler was run TotM, D&D was painted minis on a grid, Champions! cardboard heroes (standies, I think we'd call 'me now) on a hex battlemat.  
It started coming back in the oughts, but just outside my stomping grounds - I worked conventions with a club that was centered round a shop like that in Oakland (cheaper rent, I guess), for instance, but nothing to speak of in the South Bay.  By the time I joined Encounters, 2010, there were three FLGSs in the area - two running Encounters, one Warhammer & PF(S? I think it was a thing by then?).  One of those closed, but Isle split off from Illusive in early 2014 because gaming had outgrown the space (we'd have one or two tables of Encounters overflow outside) in what was originally a comics shop.



> When I started playing in earnest in College, we only ever did theatre if the mind, busting out minis for one single large fight in years of play. And that was 3.X, albeit with a healthy dose of Handwavium to keep things running (in practice similar to what 5E assumes as basic).



In college the groups I was in also tended towards TotM, for one compelling reason: no space.  I even ran Champions! without a battlemat. 




> (I do shop at the local stores, however, and I'd lay odds that the one you run in is one of those, actually).



Isle of Gamers, Santa Clara!  I'm actually back to gaming more or less regularly (not quite every week) after a pretty terrible year, health-wise.


----------



## Parmandur

Kurviak said:


> Not for people that grew up in countries that uses metric system




Divide by three.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Parmandur said:


> Divide by three.




Oh really? Thanks. I thought the point was about feet being intuitive or not.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> So you've got a smaller sample size.   But, yes, you do get a lot more new & casual gamers in-store than at conventions, for instance, and stable groups are quite another story.
> 
> In my area the last play-in-store what we'd now call an FLGS, The Game Table, closed in, I think '87, yeah, that sounds right. In that one there was D&D, Champions, & Traveler being played regularly (among many other things irregularly - and wargames were still significant, M&M, SFB &c - I didn't pay that much attention, but M&M's hard to miss, they take up a lot of space), and only Traveler was run TotM, D&D was painted minis on a grid, Champions! cardboard heroes (standies, I think we'd call 'me now) on a hex battlemat.
> It started coming back in the oughts, but just outside my stomping grounds - I worked conventions with a club that was centered round a shop like that in Oakland (cheaper rent, I guess), for instance, but nothing to speak of in the South Bay.  By the time I joined Encounters, 2010, there were three FLGSs in the area - two running Encounters, one Warhammer & PF(S? I think it was a thing by then?).  One of those closed, but Isle split off from Illusive in early 2014 because gaming had outgrown the space (we'd have one or two tables of Encounters overflow outside) in what was originally a comics shop.
> 
> In college the groups I was in also tended towards TotM, for one compelling reason: no space.  I even ran Champions! without a battlemat.
> 
> 
> Isle of Gamers, Santa Clara!  I'm actually back to gaming more or less regularly (not quite every week) after a pretty terrible year, health-wise.




I'm sorry to hear that about your health: hope things are looking up.

I live equidistant between Isle of Gamers and Game Kastle, and I usually get stuff at Game Kastle due to my good experiences with them from when I lived in the East Bay: tend to get my comic material at Treasure Island, though, and I did get Curse of Strahd and Tome of Beasts at Isle of Gamers. Good store.

Honestly, any one person's experience is a woefully limited data set: that's where big data can come in. I have been fairly surprised by what WotC has claimed they found about playstules, preferences,and how people get onto the game even though it does match my personal experience. But the rising popularity does seem to bear out the hypothesis. It seems that, actually, way more people are buying the Starter Set at Target and starting with some friends than going even to FLGS...


----------



## Parmandur

Matrix Sorcica said:


> Oh really? Thanks. I thought the point was about feet being intuitive or not.




You are welcome.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> I'm sorry to hear that about your health: hope things are looking up.



Thank you, yes. 



> Honestly, any one person's experience is a woefully limited data set.



True, and whatever one of us puts forth, another can usually come up with the exact opposite.  




Campbell said:


> I'm a big fan of theater of the mind myself, but I find it difficult to employ in 5e. All ranges and area of effects specified in feet make me constantly feel like I'm getting it wrong. Something like zones or range bands from other games make it a lot easier to deal with.



 A map, even a very crude one on graph paper, behind the DM screen helps.  
(OK, and it pushes my nostalgia buttons because that's how I ran D&D back in the day.)

But 5e works just fine on a 5'=1" grid using 3e/4e prepainted plastic, or old-school minis (if you have the good, real lead ones from back in the day, like Ral Partha's, more power to you), or any other kind of token.  Just divide by 5.




Parmandur said:


> Divide by three.



Or, if you're using a game with a scale, like 1"=10' or 1sq=5' or 1 hex=2m, multiply.

Scales that facilitate play on a surface in no way prevent TotMing in feet (or other unit of choice), just come up with a simple enough conversion.  

Non-scaled Zones/Range Bands, abstract 'engaged' conditions, and the like, OTOH, actually do facilitate TotM…


So, you can get:

"How far away is he?"

"He's 'Close'"

"OK, I cast..."



... instead of:

"How far away is he?"

"About 30 feet."

"Like almost, or like just over."

"Like, you don't have a laser rangefinder or anything."

"I ask because my spell has a range of 25,' but I can up-cast it to 50, do I need to up-cast?"

"Nah, let's just say 25, then.  Close enough."

"OK, I cast..."


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> Those sort of systems can work, but feet are fairly intuitive.



Amen. I grew up with American Imperial. But having lived in Continental Europe for four years and gaming with people who grew up with metric, dear lord, I would prefer games in metric.



Parmandur said:


> Divide by three.



Use metric.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> Amen. I grew up with American Imperial. But having lived in Continental Europe for four years and gaming with people who grew up with metric, dear lord, I would prefer games in metric.
> 
> Use metric.




I would agree, actually: and for maps, use metric hexagons. It just makes more sense. Still, a foot is a fairly easy to use measurement, no more difficult to divide in three to figure out meters on the fly than most overhead in D&D.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> I would agree, actually: and for maps, use metric hexagons. It just makes more sense. Still, a foot is a fairly easy to use measurement, no more difficult to divide in three to figure out meters on the fly than most overhead in D&D.



IME, this is easier said than done.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> IME, this is easier said than done.




Maybe by 6E, Metric will have reached the US of A.


----------



## Kurviak

Aldarc said:


> IME, this is easier said than done.




And with spells that talks about square feet for area or cubic feet for volume ....


----------



## Aldarc

Kurviak said:


> And with spells that talks about square feet for area or cubic feet for volume ....



I know people don't like the "gamist" feeling of squares and hexes, but at least people could pretend that a square represented their preferred unit of measurement.


----------



## Parmandur

Kurviak said:


> And with spells that talks about square feet for area or cubic feet for volume ....




Simple hack, even if it is improper math: make every five feet a meter, so 50 square feet becomes 10 square meters. Close enough for government work, and a square meter tile actually makes more sense than five foot square anyways.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> I know people don't like the "gamist" feeling of squares and hexes, but at least people could pretend that a square represented their preferred unit of measurement.




If we want to go with a gamist abstraction, then distance bands are preferable to "squares" as a unit of measurement.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> If we want to go with a gamist abstraction, then distance bands are preferable to "squares" as a unit of measurement.



Distance bands? As in "near, close, far, etc."? The problem is when you encounter a tactical skirmish game, like D&D, where spells often care about things like the width of the cone or the diameter of the circle. I think that Index Card RPG (a d20 derivative) uses a banana / the distance between pinky tip and thumb tip as its tabletop measure.


----------



## Kurviak

Parmandur said:


> Simple hack, even if it is improper math: make every five feet a meter, so 50 square feet becomes 10 square meters. Close enough for government work, and a square meter tile actually makes more sense than five foot square anyways.




Are we still talking about intuitive? I can do unit transformations, in fact I'm not that bad at it... but that's far from intuitive


----------



## zztong

Parmandur said:


> All TTRPGs are still in the "Stone age," many of the first people to ever play an RPG are still playing.




Whoa now, or I'll drag my club, and my knuckles, out of here. We finally got Geico to drop the "so easy a caveman can do it" and now you say this. Sheesh.


----------



## generic

Square meters do make more sense, as a meter represents a more "believable" area of space that a combatant might be able to control, but it doesn't work in all cases.

Also, WotC is an American company, and the U.S. does not use Metric units as the standard.

Furthermore, in some fights (duels and skirmishes) 5-foot squares make more sense, but in others, they seem silly.


----------



## zztong

Parmandur said:


> Simple hack, even if it is improper math: make every five feet a meter, so 50 square feet becomes 10 square meters. Close enough for government work, and a square meter tile actually makes more sense than five foot square anyways.




I'm waiting on a game to standardize on the 37.5 inch (95.25 cm) "meter-yard" or "yard-meter" that makes everyone equally happy and uncomfortable at the same time.  Settings like Golarion can have their own standard.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> Distance bands? As in "near, close, far, etc."? The problem is when you encounter a tactical skirmish game, like D&D, where spells often care about things like the width of the cone or the diameter of the circle. I think that Index Card RPG (a d20 derivative) uses a banana / the distance between pinky tip and thumb tip as its tabletop measure.




Yes, exactly: many games, such as 13th Age and the newer Star Wars use that approach. I'd rather see that or feet/meters than gamist "squares" any day of the week (even Tuesday).


----------



## Parmandur

Kurviak said:


> Are we still talking about intuitive? I can do unit transformations, in fact I'm not that bad at it... but that's far from intuitive




I would figure using one's own measurements is intuitive, yes, and division can be done very quickly, and preppoahead if time with no effort.


----------



## Parmandur

Aebir-Toril said:


> Square meters do make more sense, as a meter represents a more "believable" area of space that a combatant might be able to control, but it doesn't work in all cases.
> 
> Also, WotC is an American company, and the U.S. does not use Metric units as the standard.
> 
> Furthermore, in some fights (duels and skirmishes) 5-foot squares make more sense, but in others, they seem silly.




WotC calculates everything in increments of 5 feet, for their own mathematical sanity, so that's a good unit to just make a meter for game running purposes.


----------



## generic

Parmandur said:


> WotC calculates everything in increments of 5 feet, for their own mathematical sanity, so that's a good unit to just make a meter for game running purposes.




True, but then, doors will be closer to the right size on maps.

I'm not sure if I'm willing to give up the idea of five-foot wide doors quite yet.


----------



## Parmandur

Aebir-Toril said:


> True, but then, doors will be closer to the right size on maps.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm willing to give up the idea of five-foot wide doors quite yet.




My little conspiracy theory is that the art orders are all in metric, and they just replace the meters with "5 feet" in the legend. Future proofed. It's the only rational explanation.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Aldarc said:


> Distance bands? As in "near, close, far, etc."?



Yes.  They work very smoothly for enabling TotM, 13A uses them, for instance. 


> The problem is when you encounter a tactical skirmish game<Classic TTRPG>, like D&D, where spells often care about things like the width of the cone or the diameter of the circle.



Well, that's /a/ problem, certainly.  In the Next playtest a wizard wanted to know how far back in a group of kobolds he could target his fireball while still catching all the ones in the front (blocking a 15' opening) - obviously the wizard could center his fireball as much as 18 feet behind the lead kobold and still catch his buddies on either side.  Ok, it wasn't obvious to the player who was thinking he might need to drop it right on the leader (I guess he confused radius & diameter), so good thing he asked.

Oh, so the solution to that problem of running TotM when the game uses geometric areas in feet:  
game with engineers.







Aebir-Toril said:


> Square meters do make more sense, as a meter represents a more "believable" area of space that a combatant might be able to control, but it doesn't work in all cases.



Apropos of nothing, but GURPS used a 'hex' that was 3' across, but 6' high, which seemed odd, at first, but it was, what our local GURPS enthusiast called "a people tube!" so it was actually pretty easy to visualize/estimate relative sizes/areas/distances in hexes, because the size/proportions of a person is pretty familiar.



> Also, WotC is an American company, and the U.S. does not use Metric units as the standard.



Oh, but we're in the process of transitioning!  Eventually everyone will use the Metric System.  I mean, like, no later than 1984... Certainly in the far-flung future of the 21st century, we'll all be driving flying cars with speedometers in kph!



Parmandur said:


> Yes, exactly: many games, such as 13th Age and the newer Star Wars use that approach. I'd rather see that or feet/meters than gamist "squares" any day of the week (even Tuesday).



 Range bands are hella gamist, by comparison.  

I mean, you're OK converting square feet to square meters, but multiplying or dividing by 5 is too much for you? 


Really, a fantasy RPG should use some archaic unit of measurement, like ells or rods or the Roman /passus/.  


...ooh, actually the standard units of length in D&Dland should be the Pole (10') and the Rope (50')  ;P


----------



## zztong

Tony Vargas said:


> Really, a fantasy RPG should use some archaic unit of measurement, like ells or rods or the Roman /passus/.




Yeh! And what's with these monetary systems that are divisible by 10? It should be 4 brass bits equals 1 silver, and 12 silver equals a gold. Starfinder should do everything in hexadecimal.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> And, compared to the prior ed, in no way a fix or improvement.



I think maybe it's time you played 5E, really played 5E, instead of just putting your foot in the mouth. 5E fixed 3E which people find interesting. 5E is maybe something else than 4E, but nobody cares.

You will certainly not listen to reason, so you'll have to see for yourself why 5E is so popular, and why Paizo definitely should have looked closer than you have.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes.  They work very smoothly for enabling TotM, 13A uses them, for instance.
> Well, that's /a/ problem, certainly.  In the Next playtest a wizard wanted to know how far back in a group of kobolds he could target his fireball while still catching all the ones in the front (blocking a 15' opening) - obviously the wizard could center his fireball as much as 18 feet behind the lead kobold and still catch his buddies on either side.  Ok, it wasn't obvious to the player who was thinking he might need to drop it right on the leader (I guess he confused radius & diameter), so good thing he asked.
> 
> Oh, so the solution to that problem of running TotM when the game uses geometric areas in feet:
> game with engineers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apropos of nothing, but GURPS used a 'hex' that was 3' across, but 6' high, which seemed odd, at first, but it was, what our local GURPS enthusiast called "a people tube!" so it was actually pretty easy to visualize/estimate relative sizes/areas/distances in hexes, because the size/proportions of a person is pretty familiar.
> 
> Oh, but we're in the process of transitioning!  Eventually everyone will use the Metric System.  I mean, like, no later than 1984... Certainly in the far-flung future of the 21st century, we'll all be driving flying cars with speedometers in kph!
> 
> Range bands are hella gamist, by comparison.
> 
> I mean, you're OK converting square feet to square meters, but multiplying or dividing by 5 is too much for you?
> 
> 
> Really, a fantasy RPG should use some archaic unit of measurement, like ells or rods or the Roman /passus/.
> 
> 
> ...ooh, actually the standard units of length in D&Dland should be the Pole (10') and the Rope (50')  ;P




I don't disagree that bands are a game construct, however, they are also sensible natural language constructs, same as using real measurements. I could get behind an Ell standard, however.


----------



## Parmandur

zztong said:


> Yeh! And what's with these monetary systems that are divisible by 10? It should be 4 brass bits equals 1 silver, and 12 silver equals a gold. Starfinder should do everything in hexadecimal.




Hexidecimal is bestidecimal.


----------



## CapnZapp

Arilyn said:


> I think you have missed Tony Vargas' point.
> 
> ..
> 
> Most new players aren't playing 5e because of the rules differences from prior editions.



I can only speak for myself, but my argument is indeed not that 5E is popular because LFQW is fixed or that NPC gen is quick and easy. After all, most 5E gamers have never experienced LFQW or complicated NPC building.

My argument is related, but different. It is:
1a) a game with LFQW approaching 3E levels is likely going to fail with the 5E crowd
1b) a game where creating high-level NPCs is drudgework is likely to be impopular with DMs
2) most of the customers Paizo needs to sustain its current status, size etc are 5E players, not Pathfinder players

Ergo

3) Paizo damn sure needed to make sure their new game addresses the issues 5E has comprehensively fixed in the 3E framework

Thx


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> I think maybe it's time you played 5E, really played 5E.



I /really/ have.  And every other edition back to 1e & the '79 basic set.  



> You will certainly not listen to reason



I do & I have. 



> so you'll have to see for yourself why 5E is so popular, and why Paizo definitely should have looked closer



I think the factors that contributed to the current resurgence in D&D's popularity have been pretty well hashed over - there's a lot of 'em, and really, only relative importance is left up in the air. 



CapnZapp said:


> I can only speak for myself, but my argument is indeed not that 5E is popular because LFQW is fixed or that NPC gen is quick and easy. After all, most 5E gamers have never experienced LFQW or complicated NPC building.
> 
> My argument is related, but different. It is:
> 1a) a game with LFQW approaching 3E levels is likely going to fail with the 5E crowd



1)a)_i_)"the 5e crowd" is not a viable target audience for PF2.
1)a)_ii_) Lack of LFQW has proven more detrimental the acceptance of D&D editions than even a profound excess of that issue.


> 1b) a game where creating high-level NPCs is drudgework is likely to be impopular with DMs



Any reason to think PF2 won't have several ways to handle creating NPCs, ranging from hand-waving, to condensed stat blocks, to monster-style stat blocks, before getting to full PC-style builds?  I mean, every version of D&D has done all of those, with the minor proviso that 3e monsters were hardly less complex than PCs - and even it had NPC classes that had less going on than PC classes.


> 2) most of the customers Paizo needs to sustain its current status, size etc are 5E players, not Pathfinder players



Prettymuch all of Paizos loyal customers for the last 10 years have been PF1 players.  There's likely a lot of crossover with 5e, in the sense that a lot of PF players also play or have converted to 5e, but /not/ in the sense than a large percentage of 5e players - 5e is growing rapidly, a growth fueled by new players who have never heard of PF - also pay any attention at all to PF.



> Ergo
> 3) Paizo damn sure needed to make sure their new game addresses the issues 5E has comprehensively fixed in the 3E framework



No one cares about those marginal improvement you keep calling 'fixes.'  Actual fixes were implemented, and did not go over well with Paizo's core PF audience - indeed, their rejection is part of /why/ Paizo has had a core audience for PF1 for the last 10 years.

...

As it relates to PF2 being like 4e, though, the critical aspect of 5e's popularity isn't /why/ it's popular, because no game has ever succeeded by simply copying the current D&D when it was at it's most popular.  Rather, it's that the simple fact of 5e's popularity (indeed, Dominance), and it's broad acceptance by the whole D&D fan base, _leaves PF2 no opportunity_ comparable to that enjoyed by PF1 at the height of the edition war.

Given that, it makes sense not to simply clone D&D again, but strike off on their own.  It'd make a lot more sense to return to supporting D&D as a 3pp, though, leveraging all that Golarion IP to make 5e adventures and supplements.


----------



## mewzard

CapnZapp said:


> I can only speak for myself, but my argument is indeed not that 5E is popular because LFQW is fixed or that NPC gen is quick and easy. After all, most 5E gamers have never experienced LFQW or complicated NPC building.
> 
> My argument is related, but different. It is:
> 1a) a game with LFQW approaching 3E levels is likely going to fail with the 5E crowd
> 1b) a game where creating high-level NPCs is drudgework is likely to be impopular with DMs
> 2) most of the customers Paizo needs to sustain its current status, size etc are 5E players, not Pathfinder players
> 
> Ergo
> 
> 3) Paizo damn sure needed to make sure their new game addresses the issues 5E has comprehensively fixed in the 3E framework
> 
> Thx




I mean, is LFQW as bad as it was in 3E in a game where your melee character can German Suplex the Tarrasque through a mountain, swim across an entire Ocean with very few breaks like they were Beowulf, and leap up directly into the Dragon's face and smash their skulls in? Where your great warrior of whatever class gives such a terrifying stare that the foe literally dies from fear? Where the Ranger can literally track their target even through planar teleportation? How does the final boss fare when you snuck up on him and stole the armor off his back before he noticed? 

Between impressive high level class feats and skill feats to boost skill abilities, Martials have more options than ever to hang with the Casters.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> Yes, exactly: many games, such as 13th Age and the newer Star Wars use that approach. I'd rather see that or feet/meters than gamist "squares" any day of the week (even Tuesday).



It's also part of the Cypher System and a few other games that I play. Not sure if I heard of them referenced that way before. I prefer distance bands as well, though not because of any glorification of one mode of play (theater of the mind) over another (square grids), but simply because it's less book keeping and work. Regardless of my preferences that does not mean that square grid play without merit or strengths.


----------



## Campbell

In general range bands just jive with how I think about relative distance. I tend to interact with the world more intuitively, and when improvising or describing things will tend to use relative distances like those supplied by range bands. I really need something like a battle map or graph paper to process measurements in feet. Also I do not tend to run many dungeon crawls or make detailed maps that often. When I use something like a grid or 5' based system I'm pretty much drawing maps as I go.

I think while it is far to say that 5e is a simpler game than Pathfinder and 4e it is still at heart a tactical game. It certainly is still mostly focused on overcoming challenges, rather than exploration of character.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> It's also part of the Cypher System and a few other games that I play. Not sure if I heard of them referenced that way before. I prefer distance bands as well, though not because of any glorification of one mode of play (theater of the mind) over another (square grids), but simply because it's less book keeping and work. Regardless of my preferences that does not mean that square grid play without merit or strengths.




Oh, for sure, it has benefits: we did use it in one game in college when things got bonkers. But forcing reliance on that method to the exclusion if going without can be a major turn-off.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> But forcing reliance on that method to the exclusion if going without can be a major turn-off.



Meh, no RPG really /forces/ reliance on a play surface.  Actually, it took me a while to divine why people were claiming 5e 'supports TotM,' - I mean, 13A /actually supports/ TotM, there are rules that specifically facilitate that mode of play, making it easier to run and taking advantage of it, and 5e doesn't have those sorts of rules.  
But I finally did manage to grok the claim:  

5e doesn't include rules that facilitate TotM, rather, it omits rules that leverage having a play surface.  For instance, in 3e, you had templates so you could easily (relatively) snap an AE to the grid and see who's in it - didn't work without a grid, but was darn convenient when you were using one.  5e doesn't.  It has AEs that are the same size and notional shape as they were in 5e, but no tools to facilitate using them on a grid - so grid or no grid, it's about the same:  ergo you don't need the grid.

So, like, if you go all SARN-FU on 4e, or - like I did in the 90s - run Champions! without a battlemat, you loose some precision & convenience, and things that are kinda cool, like slides or Knockback or the like when you have that precision are sidelined or de-emphasized, so you 'loose' that coolness.  5e, OTOH, omits such things more or less entirely (except for the odd spell, of course), so you don't miss them when you play TotM - because you also don't have them when you use the grid.  

Less is more! 

Ok, actually, it's less, but it's a less that isn't any less than the less you started with because you didn't have the more that becomes less when you don't use the thing that gives you more.  

More or less.  



So, to maintain the pretense that I have any business being in this thread:  how does PF2 handle using play surfaces or the lack thereof?  Scale inches? (like 1e)  People tubes? (like GURPS)  Trigonometry? (like 5e) Teseracts?  (j/k)  Range Bands?  (like 13A) ...
Or, oh, IDK - 5' Squares? (like PF1?  If so, how do you count diagonals?  I mean, that's, like a burning question, how do you count diagonals, the fate of your game could rest on the right answer...)


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Meh, no RPG really /forces/ reliance on a play surface.  Actually, it took me a while to divine why people were claiming 5e 'supports TotM,' - I mean, 13A /actually supports/ TotM, there are rules that specifically facilitate that mode of play, making it easier to run and taking advantage of it, and 5e doesn't have those sorts of rules.
> But I finally did manage to grok the claim:
> 
> 5e doesn't include rules that facilitate TotM, rather, it omits rules that leverage having a play surface.  For instance, in 3e, you had templates so you could easily (relatively) snap an AE to the grid and see who's in it - didn't work without a grid, but was darn convenient when you were using one.  5e doesn't.  It has AEs that are the same size and notional shape as they were in 5e, but no tools to facilitate using them on a grid - so grid or no grid, it's about the same:  ergo you don't need the grid.
> 
> So, like, if you go all SARN-FU on 4e, or - like I did in the 90s - run Champions! without a battlemat, you loose some precision & convenience, and things that are kinda cool, like slides or Knockback or the like when you have that precision are sidelined or de-emphasized, so you 'loose' that coolness.  5e, OTOH, omits such things more or less entirely (except for the odd spell, of course), so you don't miss them when you play TotM - because you also don't have them when you use the grid.
> 
> Less is more!
> 
> Ok, actually, it's less, but it's a less that isn't any less than the less you started with because you didn't have the more that becomes less when you don't use the thing that gives you more.
> 
> More or less.
> 
> 
> 
> So, to maintain the pretense that I have any business being in this thread:  how does PF2 handle using play surfaces or the lack thereof?  Scale inches? (like 1e)  People tubes? (like GURPS)  Trigonometry? (like 5e) Teseracts?  (j/k)  Range Bands?  (like 13A) ...
> Or, oh, IDK - 5' Squares? (like PF1?  If so, how do you count diagonals?  I mean, that's, like a burning question, how do you count diagonals, the fate of your game could rest on the right answer...)




I think that you are fundamentally right there: as I said, 5E plays how my friends played in College, but more smoothly. Based on what WotC has said based on their research, that leveraging the map is not popular in particular, but they didn't know that because it was popular with people at WotX and at conventions and forums. I always thought my group was weird, but nope.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> they didn't know that because it was popular with people at WotX and at conventions and forums



 And yer FLGS, yeah.  That makes perfect sense, actually.  At cons, stores, and the like, there'll be a play surface, even if you yourself don't have so much as a card table at home, /and/ you're there to wring everything you can out of the experience you're paying for.  

And, of course, Forumites are usually pretty deeply ensconced in the TTRPG rabbit-hole, anyway...   Can't trust a thing we go on about.

.







> I always thought my group was weird, but nope.



 Oh, don't worry, gaming & nerd culture still haven't msinstreamed to the point you can't count yourself as weird!


----------



## Mistwell

Aebir-Toril said:


> Yes, if by Paizo's 4e you mean the best edition of the game ever made.




Just like Highlander 2 was the best Highlander ever made?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Mistwell said:


> Just like Highlander 2 was the best Highlander ever made?




Highlander 2 was, ironically, truest to the books.
The books were just awful.

But, no, more like how Bella Lugosi was the best actor in Plan 9.

...no, better:  how ALIENS was the best action movie of a wet-horror franchise.  That really sums it up.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Highlander 2 was, ironically, truest to the books.
> The books were just awful.
> 
> But, no, more like how Bella Lugosi was the best actor in Plan 9.
> 
> ...no, better:  how ALIENS was the best action movie of a wet-horror franchise.  That really sums it up.




...

There were books???


----------



## Zardnaar

Parmandur said:


> ...
> 
> There were books???




The quote is there can be only one (ducks).


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> ...
> 
> There were books???




Unsubstantiated rumor.  

But it was funny.


----------



## Aldarc

There is something else that I don't think gets much discussion in regards to comparisons of Pf2 with 4e: GM relationship to the rules. Based upon what I have heard from Paizo, particularly statements from Jason Bulmahn, PF2 represents a shift away from PF1 towards empowering the GM with greater authority and latitude to make judgment calls. This is similar in many respects to the move that 5e made with GM authority. This most certainly ties into the decision to make encounter design easier for the GM to manage.


----------



## Noir le Lotus

I'm not sure this is really true for PF2.It may be one of the design goals fr the 2nd edition but I don't think they succeded on this one.

Take a look at skills by example : in PF2, what a PC can do with 1 skill depends on proficiency level and skill feats. And in a party of 4 or 5 PC, a GM can't possibly memorize all the whereabouts of skills of the party.

So when you will come to skill resolution, the only power of the GM is to determine the DC, but it's the players who will tell him what their PC can do ...


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> I do & I have.



No you are not listening.

If you had, you wouldn't be harping on about how 5E is going back to the old bad days of 3E, kept making comparisons to 4E, claimed 3E and 5E both have LFQW as if that's the relevant point (when in actuality it completely missed the point), and on and on.

You would instead have shown the tiniest inkling of discovery of how 5E really improves upon the 3E foundation in many many really smart and often subtle ways.

And you would have agreed with me when I say Paizo is about to miss the target if they release a game in 2019 which brings gamers back to the way wizards ran in circles around fighters fifteen to twenty years ago. Or if they release a game in 2019 where DMs spend hours to craft NPCs shot down in seconds, just like 15-20 years ago.

People accustomed to 5E simply won't accept a game like that, I fear.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> No one cares about those marginal improvement you keep calling 'fixes.'  Actual fixes were implemented, and did not go over well with Paizo's core PF audience - indeed, their rejection is part of /why/ Paizo has had a core audience for PF1 for the last 10 years.



This here is proof. I know 3E and 5E, the fixes aren't marginal. They are game changing.

And the "actual fixes" you speak of (4E) didn't go down well with *anyone*.

In sharp contrast 5E meaningfully fixes LFQW and more, all without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 

Several posters have been trying to make this message come across, not just me.

But you have not yet exhibited any signs of listening when we tell you your perception is clouded by your love for 4E to the extent you can't see  the improvements of 5E.

But no matter. This discussion is not about you, it's about Paizo. Unfortunately we are seeing signs Paizo did not see it either, but time will tell (=it's still not August 1 where I live).

Best regards


----------



## CapnZapp

Aldarc said:


> There is something else that I don't think gets much discussion in regards to comparisons of Pf2 with 4e: GM relationship to the rules. Based upon what I have heard from Paizo, particularly statements from Jason Bulmahn, PF2 represents a shift away from PF1 towards empowering the GM with greater authority and latitude to make judgment calls. This is similar in many respects to the move that 5e made with GM authority. This most certainly ties into the decision to make encounter design easier for the GM to manage.



Unfortunately there is a gulf between sales pitches/market speak and what the end product actually does.

By that I only mean that a designer can claim they had plenty of goals. That does not mean they met even a single one.

Of course it doesn't hurt the end product either, so my remark shouldn't be read as anything else than "let us see what the actual book ends up saying"...


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Unfortunately there is a gulf between sales pitches/market speak and what the end product actually does.



I certainly recall several failed sales pitches about 5e that never materialized.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Aldarc said:


> I certainly recall several failed sales pitches about 5e that never materialized.



Were they failed, or were they successful in defusing controversy?



CapnZapp said:


> harping on about how 5E is going back to the old bad days of 3E, kept making comparisons to 4E, claimed 3E and 5E both have LFQW as if that's the relevant point, and on and on.



 I would opine that 5e has returned us to the good old days of 1e, as it's given the game back to the DM, in stark contrast to 3e and (actually theoretically on topic) 4e.
LFQW is prominent in all eds of D&D, except 4e, it's a structural feature* of class designs, to imply otherwise is misleading. 



> 5E really improves upon the 3E foundation in many many really smart and often subtle ways.



I think part of the communication breakdown, here is that you think of 3e as difinitively D&D, when its just difinitively d20, while I consider 1e definitive. 



> I say Paizo is about to miss the target if they release a game in 2019 which brings gamers back to the way wizards ran in circles around fighters.



I can agree it'd be a mistake, because we already have 5e, PF1, and OSR for that - and that's just the D&D & clones currently in print, folks can also dig up the actual TSR era and 3.x games, themselves, if they want.  It's a crowded market with a 500lb gorilla totally dominating it.  It'd also be a mistake not to, because anything else is going to be very niche, and because PF1 even exists, as such, in part because their core fanbase rejected a version of D&D that didn't provide exactly that.

Ultimately, IMHO, putting out a new game instead of jumping on the D&D bandwagon is a mistake. There's just no opening for a d20 D&D clone or fantasy heartbreaker in the current market like there was in 2009.



> Or if they release a game in 2019 where DMs spend hours to craft NPCs shot down in seconds, just like 15-20 years ago.



 To be fair, we're talking last year, from the perspective of loyal PF1 customers.


> People accustomed to 5E simply won't accept a game like that, I fear.



Most of those currently into 5e won't even be aware of it, nor have any impetus to go looking.  













* indeed, for all the criticism it receives for making overall class balance impossible and confining functional play to a 'sweet spot' level range, LFQW is a feature - a necessary defining feature - of D&D.  That it's also a technical 'bug,' notwithstanding.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> LFQW is prominent in all eds of D&D, except 4e, it's a structural feature* of class designs, to imply otherwise is misleading.



My aim is to highlight the difference between 3E on one hand, and 5E on the other.

Your line is not merely irrelevant, it is actively unhelpful when it comes to meeting that aim.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> I think part of the communication breakdown, here is that you think of 3e as difinitively D&D, when its just difinitively d20, while I consider 1e definitive.



I simply cannot understand your desperate attempts to shift the discussion away from 3E and 5E.

All the things you say might we'll be true. 

They are also entirely irrelevant to the discussion of Pathfinder 2, when we're worried about they maybe not leaving Pathfinder 1 enough (=3E) and/or reaching the same "level of comfort" and the current standard and market leader (=5E).

In order to see my point, please lay down your 1E or 4E stories, if just for a moment.


----------



## CapnZapp

Tony Vargas said:


> Ultimately, IMHO, putting out a new game instead of jumping on the D&D bandwagon is a mistake. There's just no opening for a d20 D&D clone or fantasy heartbreaker in the current market like there was in 2009.



I can agree with this in general.

About the only real market opening I see is "more crunch for 5E". That is, not actual 5E, but 5E-like. With more playerside crunch.



> and because PF1 even exists, as such, in part because their core fanbase rejected a version of D&D that didn't provide exactly that.



If you think 4E failed simply because it wasn't exactly as before you don't get what people like about D&D.

4E failed because it had lost the soul of the game. You simply could not use it to tell the stories you were used to. At least I couldn't.

5E, in contrast, retains the soul of D&D but not the niggling peculiarities of d20.

You won't be able to see what Paizo needs to upgrade if you can't understand the value of the 3E-5E upgrade.

We'll soon see where PF2 ends up on this scale. Give me maybe a month and I might provide a first impressions.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> About the only real market opening I see is "more crunch for 5E". That is, not actual 5E, but 5E-like. With more playerside crunch.







> If you think 4E failed simply because it wasn't exactly as before you don't get what people like about D&D.
> 4E failed because it had lost the soul of the game. You simply could not use it to tell the stories you were used to. At least I couldn't.



Do you really want to get into re-treading tired edition-war ground?  I mean, you absolutely /could/ tell the same stories with 4e as with prior eds - it was just easier, and there were a lot of /other/ stories (or other gameplay agendas) you could go with, instead. 
4e "failed" because of a perfect storm of business disasters, and the fake controversy generated by the nerdrage of the edition war keeping new players from ever trying it.



> 5E, in contrast, retains the soul of D&D but not the niggling peculiarities of d20.



"Soul of D&D" is sure a grand way of saying LFQW, the 5MWD, and DM Empowerment. 



> You won't be able to see what Paizo needs to upgrade if you can't understand the value of the 3E-5E upgrade.
> We'll soon see where PF2 ends up on this scale. Give me maybe a month and I might provide a first impressions.



You can't omit the history of the game from 2008 to 2014 and expect to understand the differences between what it was then, and what it became, now. There was a war for the "soul" of D&D if you want to put it that way, and /WotC era D&D lost/.  Not just 4e, but 3e, as well.  The hallmarks of 3e are bowdlerized optional rules, 5e has nothing like it's customizability nor the associated lavish-to-gamebreaking rewards for system mastery, it does not foster dogmatic reverence for RaW, but gives the game - heart & soul - /to the DM/.  

5e /does/ retain a lot of the niggling (and even occasionally intuitive) little details of d20 - the d20, ascending AC, preference for bonuses over penalties, casters made less challenging to play by removing restrictions/limitations, contested checks, even 4e group checks, hiding rules, and the like - but they're details, the overall feel is very much back to that of the classic game, and, like Classic D&D of the TSR era, it belongs to the DM.  



CapnZapp said:


> I simply cannot understand your desperate attempts to shift the discussion away from 3E and 5E.



3e vs 5e isn't that important, they're not /that/ different, apart from 3.5 having a much higher stack of books.  
PF1 is a clone of 3e, with an even higher stack of books, but what 5e did is not that important.  

What PF1 fans will accept, /is/.  




> when we're worried about they maybe not leaving Pathfinder 1 enough (=3E) and/or reaching the same "level of comfort" and the current standard and market leader (=5E).
> In order to see my point, please lay down your 1E or 4E stories, if just for a moment.



The question is "will it become 4e?" The answer is "No, it better not, because the PF fanbase loathes 4e."  ;P   And, not that that's not serious, but more seriously, aping 5e will get PF2 nowhere - 5e is already there, being like 5e (and, with options turned on, a bit like toned-down 3.x, but, mostly, a lot like AD&D thanks to DM Empowerment), or worse, going /further/ than 5e from 3e (even if not as far afield 4e), would be disastrous.  And, focusing on non-issue Sacred Cows like LFQW (beloved, cherished, and venerated by fans of OSR, 3e & 5e alike), is a red herring.  How 5e tweaked the LFQW curve (starting casters farther along, and advancing it a bit more gently) is a pretty minor consideration, whether you're trying to be like the 500bl D&D gorilla (and vanish into obscurity like every other fantasy heartbreaker) or be differentiated from it (and maybe carve out a little market niche for yourself).  And, really, with an established fanbase of their own, neither of those is a good idea, maybe - maybe - an incremental evolution of PF1 would have been a good idea, something that lets fans feel like they're not just dinosaurs, without actually disrupting their Jurassic ecosystem too much.

But, just from a business perspective, jumping on the 5e 3pp bandwagon seems the smarter, safer, more profitable bet.


----------



## FowlJ

CapnZapp said:


> Or if they release a game in 2019 where DMs spend hours to craft NPCs shot down in seconds, just like 15-20 years ago.




This post really clarifies to me what I've found so _off_ about your weird doomsaying. You... don't actually seem to _know _very much about Pathfinder 2.

This is, for instance, literally not a thing. It wasn't a thing in the playtest. (It wasn't even a thing in Pathfinder Unchained, many of the rules from which eventually became the basis of 2E). Creatures/NPCs are not built using the PC rules by default, they use their own simplified creation process quite similar to D&D 5e unless the GM specifically wishes otherwise - there will be no spending hours to craft NPCs unless you get _really_ stuck on the creative details, which isn't something the system can really help with.

It's a similar thing to what you keep going on about with spellcasters. You keep acting like PF2 is trying to bring Martial/Caster balance back into the deep dark ages of 3.X, but they've actually made most of the same changes to spellcasting that 5e has, like removing automatic spell scaling, removing bonus spell slots for high stats, cutting durations, and bringing down the power of individual spells that could be problematic. On top of that, they've also given martial characters a lot of new toys of their own, like skill feats that increase their out of combat utility considerably, powerful high level class options that let them do extraordinary things without magic, and ritual spells that let any character with the right skills (and who gains access to the ritual) do powerful things like raising the dead or animating objects/corpses. Frankly, 'LFQW' is probably less of an issue in PF2 than it is in 5e, and if a martial character _really _starts feeling left out, the multiclassing system lets them get up to 8th level spellcasting (though with less slots per level than a normal caster) without sacrificing most of their combat ability to do so.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Tony Vargas said:


> But, just from a business perspective, jumping on the 5e 3pp bandwagon seems the smarter, safer, more profitable bet.




Better to starve free then be a fat slave?


----------



## Morrus

Tony Vargas said:


> But, just from a business perspective, jumping on the 5e 3pp bandwagon seems the smarter, safer, more profitable bet.




With DMsG out there, it’s worse for third parties than the d20 boom was. I’m excited about our TRAILseeker launching this week new PF2 material.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Morrus said:


> With DMsG out there, it’s worse for third parties than the d20 boom was.



I can see that, but part of the lack of appeal of DMsG is not just that it's not a book you can hold, but that you need to sift through it.  Paizo has a very solid reputation.  I could see DMs who wouldn't even look at DMsG material, at least open to evaluating something from a Paizo supplement. It'd be a lot closer to the "moar 5e crunch" that, ironically, Zap & I would both like to see.


----------



## Morrus

Tony Vargas said:


> I can see that, but part of the lack of appeal of DMsG is not just that it's not a book you can hold, but that you need to sift through it.  Paizo has a very solid reputation.  I could see DMs who wouldn't even look at DMsG material, at least open to evaluating something from a Paizo supplement. It'd be a lot closer to the "moar 5e crunch" that, ironically, Zap & I would both like to see.




I don’t know what that means; but as one of those 3PPs, I can assure you that the 5E bandwagon is not the obvious choice for a third party, as you said. It’s *tough* selling stuff in the crowded 5E market; either you’re lost on DMsG or you’re having a difficult conversation with distributors (and it was even tougher selling stuff in the crowded PF1 market). 

I’m excited to see how long the PF2 market remains a strong choice in comparison.

(And, obviously, being a 3PP isn’t necessarily the strongest choice, it’s just the known quantity  — I’ve made far more money selling my own system than I have supporting other systems).


----------



## Tony Vargas

Morrus said:


> I don’t know what that means



Just like no other RPG is in the position of D&D, no other 3pp is in quite the position of Paizo.


----------



## Parmandur

Morrus said:


> I don’t know what that means; but as one of those 3PPs, I can assure you that the 5E bandwagon is not the obvious choice for a third party, as you said. It’s *tough* selling stuff in the crowded 5E market; either you’re lost on DMsG or you’re having a difficult conversation with distributors (and it was even tougher selling stuff in the crowded PF1 market).
> 
> I’m excited to see how long the PF2 market remains a strong choice in comparison.
> 
> (And, obviously, being a 3PP isn’t necessarily the strongest choice, it’s just the known quantity  — I’ve made far more money selling my own system than I have supporting other systems).




I think that he is saying that Paizo has brand recognition and clout, so would have an opportunity to stand out compared to other third parties.


----------



## Zardnaar

To back up Morris a bit, I buy 3pp stuff but have mostly stopped. There's a lot of it and regardless of the quality I have more than I can process/use anytime soon. 

Anything third party I want would be more niche which means something I don't already have and want/need. Maybe an interesting campaign setting or sub system. If Paizo made 5E stuff the only thing I would buy us 5E conversions of 3 or 4 of their APs.

 If Pathfinder 2 tanks they can always go make 5E stuff then, Lisa is smart I doubt she has bet the business on PF2. 

 The main problem will be 5E and things like gamestores running 5E where PFS used to be a thing. PF2 isn't very casual friendly but it's aimed at a different niche perhaps 10 or 20% of the market.

 Realistically they can't compete that well in the other 80% regardless of what they do. The days of Pathfinder being number 1 are gone. Number 2 us still viable.


----------



## Morrus

Zardnaar said:


> To back up Morris a bit




Again? I’m starting to think this is deliberate, Zurdner.


----------



## robus

Morrus said:


> Again? I’m starting to think this is deliberate, Zurdner.




Well autocorrect does like to do it’s (god damn it, seriously?!) job... poorly


----------



## Tony Vargas

robus said:


> Well autocorrect does like to do it’s (god damn it, seriously?!) job... poorly



Once you get it trained, you better be careful if you ever want to send a letter to Morris Plains, NJ.

(A letter, who am I kidding...)


----------



## Zardnaar

Morrus said:


> Again? I’m starting to think this is deliberate, Zurdner.




Yeah I keep calling you a British car.

  Just checked it's auto correct on the phone. Type in Morrus and it becomes Morris.


----------



## zztong

Morrus said:


> With DMsG out there, it’s worse for third parties than the d20 boom was. I’m excited about our TRAILseeker launching this week new PF2 material.




What's is DMsG?

At first I thought it was a typo for DMGs, but it appears its not a typo.


----------



## Aldarc

zztong said:


> What's is DMsG?
> 
> At first I thought it was a typo for DMGs, but it appears its not a typo.



DMs' Guild.


----------



## eyeheartawk

MichaelSomething said:


> Better to starve free then be a fat slave?




You have to keep in mind Paizo's history. Pathfinder becoming a thing had more to do with how their business was dependent on WoTC and then was suddenly cut adrift. Controlling your own product and ecosystem gives you obviously more control over that. 

Plus, didn't they just crowdfund Kingmaker for 5e? I don't think they're ignoring the 5e market completely. It's not like they can't give that a bigger go if PF2 fails. This is of course also assuming that Paizo will make a killing in the 3PP which I'm not so sure of, given the glut of meeeehhhhhhh products currently floating in that DM's Guild ocean.


----------



## DM Howard

Pathfinder 2E might as well be Paizo’s 4E as far as I am concerned.  They went overboard (IMO) whilst opening up the patient for surgery and abandoned backwards compatibility at the same time.  I am not willing to buy a whole new set of books when my friends and I have already spent loads on 3.5/Pathfinder 1E compatible material.  Hopefully another company picks up the 3.X torch.


----------



## Tony Vargas

DM Howard said:


> .  Hopefully another company picks up the 3.X torch.



There's certainly no legal impediment to that...

...considering,  though that PF1 is already more lavishly-supported than any single ed of D&D, what, exactly, would they light with that torch?

I mean, for instance, is there any conceivable fantasy character concept you can't currently build within PF1?


----------



## Aldarc

Tony Vargas said:


> I mean, for instance, is there any conceivable fantasy character concept you can't currently build within PF1?



A grognard character who has something nice to say about a new system?


----------



## DM Howard

Tony Vargas;[URL="tel:7643671" said:
			
		

> 7643671[/URL]]There's certainly no legal impediment to that...
> 
> ...considering,  though that PF1 is already more lavishly-supported than any single ed of D&D, what, exactly, would they light with that torch?
> 
> I mean, for instance, is there any conceivable fantasy character concept you can't currently build within PF1?




I’m not sure, to be honest, but I feel that there is always something new that can come out for PF1.  New adventures, monsters, archetypes, settings, etc.

What I would say is that I would hope for a new torchbearer as once a game disappears from active publishing it becomes exponentially harder to find games or recruit new players.  Everything is anecdotal, of course, but I can’t remember the last time I saw a 4th Edition game or 4th Edition products being sold in store or games being actively played/recruited for.  The same can be said for virtually all discontinued editions.

*Edit:* All my railings against my perceptions of PF2 aside they are just that, perceptions, and I will be giving PF2 a fair shake as 5th Edition just doesn’t cut it for me.  I only hope that Paizo has thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water with their implementation of PF2.


----------



## Tony Vargas

DM Howard said:


> I’m not sure, to be honest, but I feel that there is always something new that can come out for PF1.  New adventures, monsters, archetypes, settings, etc.
> 
> What I would say is that I would hope for a new torchbearer as once a game disappears from active publishing it becomes exponentially harder to find games or recruit new players.



That's very true, out there in the organized play & game store communities, new product (however superfluous it may seem theoretically) is a major driver.  
But (also anecdotal), I've always seen discontinued games popping up at conventions, and home campaigns can go for many years past a game or edition's end of life.


----------



## CapnZapp

DM Howard said:


> *Edit:* All my railings against my perceptions of PF2 aside they are just that, perceptions, and I will be giving PF2 a fair shake as 5th Edition just doesn’t cut it for me.  I only hope that Paizo has thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water with their implementation of PF2.



Nooo... not the baby!!


----------



## The Crimson Binome

DM Howard said:


> Pathfinder 2E might as well be Paizo’s 4E as far as I am concerned.  They went overboard (IMO) whilst opening up the patient for surgery and abandoned backwards compatibility at the same time.  I am not willing to buy a whole new set of books when my friends and I have already spent loads on 3.5/Pathfinder 1E compatible material.  Hopefully another company picks up the 3.X torch.



Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?

The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.


----------



## DM Howard

Saelorn;[URL="tel:7643925" said:
			
		

> 7643925[/URL]]Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?
> 
> The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.




I, personally, included most behind the screen material ad hoc, but I will also say that I tended to bring character side content under much greater scrutiny.


----------



## amethal

Saelorn said:


> Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?
> 
> The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.



Nobody has ever asked to include 3.5 material in my Pathfinder game. 

I have no problem allowing 3rd party Pathfinder material, so logically I shouldn't have an issue with D&D 3.5 stuff, but if there was any overlap with / contradiction to official Pathfinder material I'd want to go with Pathfinder instead.

As the GM, I will of course use mind flayers and displacer beasts if I want to.


----------



## Remathilis

I'm not saying keyword hell is real, but 41 seems excessive...


----------



## Sadras

I will definitely be purchasing the PDF, but only to borrow and steal mechanics for our 5e game (which has hit level 11). A system with a lot of crunch and necessary system mastery intimidates me as a DM. If I enjoy the art within the PDF, I might consider getting the hardcover.

Personally I have not been following the playtest and seen any reviews, so I'm bound to be surprised with all the changes, but ambivalent best describes my feeling towards this edition. Like I said my primary purpose is to pilfer - detailed weapon traits/properties already seems interesting to me.


----------



## Mycroft

Sadras said:


> Like I said my primary purpose is to pilfer - detailed weapon traits/properties already seems interesting to me.




Me too, I am cannibalising it for my 3rd and 5th Ed campaigns (some cool monster actions, etc).


----------



## zztong

Saelorn said:


> Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?
> 
> The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.




The long-term game I'm in that transitioned from 3.5 to PF1 should have allowed this, but it didn't occur to us, I guess. We had a few characters that just didn't feel the same after they got converted. We didn't have that trouble converting from 2.0 to 3.0 to 3.5, so we didn't see it coming.


----------



## Remathilis

Saelorn said:


> Honest question for long-time fans of Pathfinder 1E: How often did you include material from 3.5, without significant revision?
> 
> The one time I asked to play a 3.5 class, in my previous Pathfinder group, it was flatly rejected as not being official. It definitely wasn't an issue of power imbalance. The GM just had a strong preference for official content.



Originally, I tried to use PF with Eberron, but found the rules weren't as flowing as predicted. (The artificer in particular was hard due to the changes to magic items rules). After that, it was mostly monsters and magic items, decreasing as PF grew their their own versions.


----------



## billd91

Remathilis said:


> I'm not saying keyword hell is real, but 41 seems excessive...




Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?


----------



## Remathilis

billd91 said:


> Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?



Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them. 

And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?


----------



## billd91

Remathilis said:


> Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.
> 
> And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?




Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## eyeheartawk

billd91 said:


> Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.




It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.


----------



## Imaro

billd91 said:


> Honestly, if people (or gamers, at least) weren't such pedantic asshats about stealth and other rules, those wouldn't be necessary.




Are they "necessary"??


----------



## Tony Vargas

billd91 said:


> Now, how many editions of D&D had most of the same conditions, just not as precisely defined?



Like 'observed' wasn't ever a condition in D&D, but you could only "become Hidden" if you weren't under direct observation? (A rule which goes all the way back to the Thief's /Hide in Shadows/ special ability in 0D&D's Greyhawk supplement I).

That would be 6.  Unless you count half-eds, two-pronged approaches, and Holms vs Mentzer vs Moldvay Basic and eXpert being totally different from Expert...

...call it 13, for luck.


----------



## Parmandur

eyeheartawk said:


> It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.




And yet people are sneaking around in 5E without issue. There are rules, and they have proven very useable in practice, even if not abstractly ironclad.


----------



## CapnZapp

eyeheartawk said:


> It seems Wizards agrees with you, as they didn't really bother baking a coherent set of stealth rules into 5e. Makes sense that Paizo would go the other way here.



I haven't seen Paizo's rules, but I already know they're better than Wizard's, since they were indecipherable and had to be ignored.

Of course making a decent Stealth rule shouldn't be freaking impossible, so I'm not ready to give Paizo a pass...


----------



## MerricB

Remathilis said:


> Well, the devil is in the details. I mean, there are plenty of spells and effects that cause a condition, but most either assign a single condition or spell out the effect in the write up. This seems geared toward a "save or suffer keyboard" syndrome that forces you to memorize them (a feat at 41) or constantly reference them.
> 
> And really, I know stealth is usually a mess, but do we need concealed, hidden, invisible, observed, undetected and unnoticed as separate conditions?




Strangely enough, it makes sense how Pathfinder define the stealth concepts. This one is just codifying what (basically) existed in 3E before it.

Unnoticed - you don't even know the monster is there. You're flat-footed against it, and some abilities it has work against you (assassination, I guess).
Undetected - you know the monster is there, but not which square it's in. You have to choose the right square to attack, and there's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Hidden - you know the monster is there and where it's standing, but you can't see it. There's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Observed - you can see the monster. Normal rules!

Meanwhile there's
Invisible - You're undetected until someone notices you (with Seek), then you become Hidden.
Concealed - You can't see the monster clearly. 20% miss chance.

Because Pathfinder like pinning down stuff, you also have Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly and Helpful for NPC attitudes.

Cheers!


----------



## kenada

Pathfinder also defines levels of precision for senses. By default, vision is a precise sense; hearing is an imprecise sense; and everything else is a vague sense. These levels of precision correspond to how well you can sense a creature (precise = observed, imprecise = hidden, vague = undetected). Of course, this can change from creature to creature. For example, scent could be an imprecise sense for dogs or hearing a precise sense for bats.


----------



## Parmandur

kenada said:


> Pathfinder also defines levels of precision for senses. By default, vision is a precise sense; hearing is an imprecise sense; and everything else is a vague sense. These levels of precision correspond to how well you can sense a creature (precise = observed, imprecise = hidden, vague = undetected). Of course, this can change from creature to creature. For example, scent could be an imprecise sense for dogs or hearing a precise sense for bats.




PF2 is occupying a weird space for me: that seems like an awful lot of detail, while still being fairly abstract. I could pick up a game like HURPS, Rolemaster or HERO that offers Fuller detail, or a less detailed system that exists in a more fluid space. This seems too mixed, neither fish nor fowl.


----------



## kenada

Parmandur said:


> PF2 is occupying a weird space for me: that seems like an awful lot of detail, while still being fairly abstract. I could pick up a game like HURPS, Rolemaster or HERO that offers Fuller detail, or a less detailed system that exists in a more fluid space. This seems too mixed, neither fish nor fowl.



I think the dissonance between detail and abstraction you’re seeing is due to a shift in rule intent. The rules in PF1 are a sort of crappy simulation. Historically, when people improve those rules, they try to improve the simulation (e.g., through more/better detail). PF2 seems to be going in a different direction. There’s still an element of verisimilitude, but instead of honing the simulation, the rules seem positioned now more as a framework for making rulings (via uniform core mechanics that create rich results when combined with the trait system).

Viewed through that lens, the Stealth rules can be seen as providing an intuitive framework for managing the various states of visibility. During the playtest, Paizo even made tweaks to improve flow (renaming the sensed condition to hidden). I also think they wanted to make sure scenarios like this one could be handled by the rules as written, since that wasn’t the case in PF1. Stealth as written in PF1 (before it was errata’d) had a lot of problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if no one ran it as written. I certainly didn’t.


----------



## miggyG777

Parmandur said:


> PF2 is occupying a weird space for me: that seems like an awful lot of detail, while still being fairly abstract. I could pick up a game like HURPS, Rolemaster or HERO that offers Fuller detail, or a less detailed system that exists in a more fluid space. This seems too mixed, neither fish nor fowl.




Most of what I am reading from you seems to be guesswork. Yet you seem to be interested in PF2. Therefore, I would highly encourage you to just play the game, so you get actual data about how the game runs, to base your opinions on facts rather than speculation.


----------



## CapnZapp

miggyG777 said:


> Most of what I am reading from you seems to be guesswork. Yet you seem to be interested in PF2. Therefore, I would highly encourage you to just play the game, so you get actual data about how the game runs, to base your opinions on facts rather than speculation.



The game has been out less than three days. Please adjust your expectations on what level of discourse you will find on these forums accordingly.


----------



## Mycroft

kenada said:


> The rules in PF1 are a sort of crappy simulation. Historically, when people improve those rules, they try to improve the simulation (e.g., through more/better detail). PF2 seems to be going in a different direction. There’s still an element of verisimilitude, but instead of honing the simulation, the rules seem positioned now more as a framework for making rulings (via uniform core mechanics that create rich results when combined with the trait system).




I don't see it that way, at all; it's a clinical, dense, byzantine system.


----------



## Parmandur

miggyG777 said:


> Most of what I am reading from you seems to be guesswork. Yet you seem to be interested in PF2. Therefore, I would highly encourage you to just play the game, so you get actual data about how the game runs, to base your opinions on facts rather than speculation.




My interest is fairly abstract: I'm not going to be in the position to play PF2 anytime soon, probably ever. I already have D&D 5E and DCC for the fantasy genre and if I wanted to try something different I'd go with Dungeon World, The One Ring, Dungeon Fantasy, W.O.I.N, Burning Wheel, or Fantasy Hero at this time. I've been looking at this game out if general hobby interest, in terms of design and business.


----------



## Parmandur

kenada said:


> I think the dissonance between detail and abstraction you’re seeing is due to a shift in rule intent. The rules in PF1 are a sort of crappy simulation. Historically, when people improve those rules, they try to improve the simulation (e.g., through more/better detail). PF2 seems to be going in a different direction. There’s still an element of verisimilitude, but instead of honing the simulation, the rules seem positioned now more as a framework for making rulings (via uniform core mechanics that create rich results when combined with the trait system).
> 
> Viewed through that lens, the Stealth rules can be seen as providing an intuitive framework for managing the various states of visibility. During the playtest, Paizo even made tweaks to improve flow (renaming the sensed condition to hidden). I also think they wanted to make sure scenarios like this one could be handled by the rules as written, since that wasn’t the case in PF1. Stealth as written in PF1 (before it was errata’d) had a lot of problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if no one ran it as written. I certainly didn’t.




I am not trying to be dismissive, but that first paragraph sounds more like a description of D&D 5E than anything I've seen out if PF2 so far.


----------



## Garthanos

CapnZapp said:


> It's easy to mistake 5E's approach as a "simplified" one. At first, I made that mistake too.
> 
> But 5E's approach isn't simple. I mean, yes it is, but more importantly it's the _correct_ approach.
> 
> That is, I have come to the conclusion the approach where move is "just extra" is the correct one:
> 
> §1 Liberal use of move means dynamic exciting cinematic battles.
> §1b Not moving around means static boring battles.
> 
> §2 Move needs to be free to be used liberally.
> 
> §3 The only way for movement to stay free is if there is zero ways to "cash it in" for something more minmaxed (like even a single extra point of damage, or healing, or attack or defense).
> 
> Ergo, it is not merely "simple" to offer no ways to spend your move on other things than positioning. _It is good game design._



Interesting I was thinking of an action where one gains the lay of the land ie analyzing the battlefield and it required movement not trading your move for benefit but gaining a well defined benefit tbd via it.


----------



## kenada

Parmandur said:


> I am not trying to be dismissive, but that first paragraph sounds more like a description of D&D 5E than anything I've seen out if PF2 so far.



No, I don’t think you’re being unfair. Let me expand on that a bit.

The actual core mechanics of PF2 are pretty simple. There are really only a handful: making checks (and rolling damage), the action economy, and traits. All kinds of checks resolve the same way. PF2 doesn’t have exceptions for attacks or saving throws or skills like PF1 or 5e have. The action economy also doesn’t either. The situations PF1 and 5e special case just fall out naturally because of of the way the action economy works. The complicating factor is the traits system, but I think it’s also the traits system that helps facilitate rulings. How I think it does that is by isolating the GM from the rest of the rules when making rulings.

As a GM, when the players do something that doesn’t fall under the game’s existing actions, I have to decide how that interacts with the rest of the system. Maybe I don’t decide everything right away, but I’ll have to make another ruling if it comes up later. Suppose the fighter does something that requires focus, and the barbarian wants to do it too, but he also wants to do it while raging. Without traits (e.g., PF1 or 5e), I have to make a ruling based on what I think the intent of the system is — or just whatever I think makes sense. With traits, I still have to make a ruling, but I now have the concentrate trait to help me with that. If I do decide the activity has the concentrate trait, then not only do we know whether the barbarian can do it while raging (no), but we also know other things like whether it can be done constantly while exploring (not without gaining fatigue). Being able to adjudicate once and letting the system take care of the rest strikes me as a helpful simplification for the GM when running the game.


----------



## kenada

Mycroft said:


> I don't see it that way, at all; it's a clinical, dense, byzantine system.



In what ways? The core mechanics are pretty simple and straightforward (having few exceptions). See my response to Parmandur for my thoughts on the traits system. Note that I’m not considering customization, since that’s outside the GM’s purview.


----------



## Remathilis

MerricB said:


> Strangely enough, it makes sense how Pathfinder define the stealth concepts. This one is just codifying what (basically) existed in 3E before it.
> 
> Unnoticed - you don't even know the monster is there. You're flat-footed against it, and some abilities it has work against you (assassination, I guess).
> Undetected - you know the monster is there, but not which square it's in. You have to choose the right square to attack, and there's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
> Hidden - you know the monster is there and where it's standing, but you can't see it. There's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
> Observed - you can see the monster. Normal rules!
> 
> Meanwhile there's
> Invisible - You're undetected until someone notices you (with Seek), then you become Hidden.
> Concealed - You can't see the monster clearly. 20% miss chance.
> 
> Because Pathfinder like pinning down stuff, you also have Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly and Helpful for NPC attitudes.
> 
> Cheers!




It seems like a lot of keywording for keywording's sake. Unnoticed, Invisible and Undetected are basically variants of Hidden with a minor adjustment to exactly how you try to find them. In specific, there is no difference in Undetected and Hidden except the guesswork of choosing a square to attack (either you have an educated guess and they are Hidden or you don't and they're Undetected). It appears a correct guess on an Undetected foe just makes them Hidden, and a fireball where you think they are ignores the difference completely. That is some fine-hairs to split, especially for something so corner-case that they 90% of the time play out the same. 

More importantly, I suspect there will be plenty of Unnoticed/Undetected mixups due to their similar names and very minor difference in effect; and I totally suspect some would-be assassin is going to think he gets death attack because his cloak of hiding gives them the undetected status (while death attack requires the unnoticed status) as an example. Hell, I played 3x for 10+ years and I can't tell you the mechanical differences in shaken, frightened, and panicked without the SRD open. 

I just feel that level of precision is maybe better suited to some sort of computerized play (either in the form of an hyperlinked SRD, a virtual TT, or a video game) because I couldn't fathom trying to keep those states straight using just my memory and a hardback book...


----------



## FrogReaver

So I've finally had a chance to look at a number of pathfinder 2e rules.  Many active feats have a d&d 4e at-will power style feel.  Many give you the ability to attack + do something slightly extra. 

That said I don't think the game evokes the same 4e feel as hp scaling and vanician casting are still intact.


----------



## CapnZapp

Unfortunately, therese at least one area where PF2 resembles 4E design.

Creating lots of choices that are minor variants of the same theme, and then putting the effort on giving them fanciful names.

For instance, instead of having just one generic feat that lets you use another skill bonus for a given action, each skill-action pair gets its own such feat.

To me, that's nothing short of spam. Yes, it allows you to fill up splatbook after splatbook with endless versions of essentially the same thing, but
1) it is a mechanical focus that doesn't meaningfully assist role-playing and personality characterization
2) it's clutter that is mostly hard to remember.

After all, it doesn't amount to more than a "bounded accuracy" bonus, since you get to use your better skill bonus in place of a worse one (but you can't improve upon your already best bonuses).

(cont'd)


----------



## CapnZapp

The same design idea also shows in some magic items, particularly so-called "talismans".

You gain an incredibly minor and circumstantial bonus, you gain it for a single turn only, AND you must prepare it in advance.

That's just... It means spending time on incredibly minor things.

I mean, a potion of invisibility that lasts a minute, or a potion of water breathing that lasts 10 minutes, that's something you can work with. It's something worthwhile to remember you have on your character sheet. It completely transforms some specific challenge from impossible to possible.

But getting some bonus to jump or extra speed or defense for a single turn?

That's clutter.

If Pathfinder 2 was a computer game, and there was a "equipper" AI that you could tell "please auto-equip my consumables prioritizing offense/defense/mobility" that let me forget about the particulars (whether I got +50% speed this turn or last), then just maybe.

Even then, you would likely just tell the AI to treat it as vendor trash, just auto-selling it all...


----------



## CapnZapp

Anyway, in this regard I see pages after pages cluttered up with incredibly small hyper-specific variants of essentially the same thing.

And that right there is the bland fussy design I remember as one of the things I liked the least about 4E.

So please, Paizo, please stop.

There's a reason people like individually powerful - fewer but discrete - items of d20 and 5E!


----------



## S'mon

CapnZapp said:


> Anyway, in this regard I see pages after pages cluttered up with incredibly small hyper-specific variants of essentially the same thing.




Yeah, going over my friend's PF2 corebook, this was also my impression. 
Anyway she's going to make all our PCs for our playtest, so hopefully we can just focus on learning the core mechanics.


----------



## Kaodi

Talismans just make no sense to me in general. I hardly understand why they even have gold prices, because you would have to be completely insane to craft or buy one. I think the only way they would make sense is if they were an exception to the rule about Assurance and bonuses, i.e. if you _knew_ what numerical result they would net you.


----------



## darjr

Looking at the Amazon chart of the PF1 core it seems to me that sales were steady until 5e dropped. Then they cratered. So it wasn’t Paizo bloating PF1. Or at least that bloat didn’t hurt the core book sales. And that sales rank at 5es release was about the same when 4e sales dived under Pathfinder sales.

I think 5e was the catalyst. Obvious? Shure.

Also, even out of stock, the new pathfinder setting guide is maintaining a decent sales rank. That to me says that non PF2 folks are buying it? Maybe?

Finally, at least for the last few days, the PF2 core seems to have stabilized at about 2200 in sales rank. I wonder if that’ll sustain there and if it’s enough to have a Paizo. I think so?

What do I know?


----------



## zztong

CapnZapp said:


> Creating lots of choices that are minor variants of the same theme, and then putting the effort on giving them fanciful names.




D&D 3/3.5 and PF1 has the same issue. Skill Focus was +3 to one kill (you pick), but all of the variations of "Two Skills are +2" had names and filled up pages in books and player/DM mind-space. (Example: "Stealthy Feat.")


----------



## Carmen Sbordone

darjr said:


> Looking at the Amazon chart of the PF1 core it seems to me that sales were steady until 5e dropped. Then they cratered. So it wasn’t Paizo bloating PF1. Or at least that bloat didn’t hurt the core book sales. And that sales rank at 5es release was about the same when 4e sales dived under Pathfinder sales.
> 
> I think 5e was the catalyst. Obvious? Shure.
> 
> Also, even out of stock, the new pathfinder setting guide is maintaining a decent sales rank. That to me says that non PF2 folks are buying it? Maybe?
> 
> Finally, at least for the last few days, the PF2 core seems to have stabilized at about 2200 in sales rank. I wonder if that’ll sustain there and if it’s enough to have a Paizo. I think so?
> 
> What do I know?



Yes. I know while i have no interest in P2 rules, i will pick up the setting book to mine for ideas. Settings and adventures are always of interest to me


----------



## GrahamWills

Kaodi said:


> Talismans just make no sense to me in general. I hardly understand why they even have gold prices, because you would have to be completely insane to craft or buy one.




Here's the effect of one talisman: "This knot of copper wire reshapes itself in a new pattern every time its affixed weapon deals damage. When you activate the coil, the damaged creature must succeed at a DC 31 Will save or be stunned 1. If it critically fails, it instead becomes stunned 2"

Seems pretty nice to me. Of course, it's high level, all the low level ones are basically small bonuses, but I guess I don't have a problem with having low-level items that aren't very powerful. I can see a logic that says just only list the higher level items, but honestly, I don't think I've ever expected a starting-level consumable to be terribly useful in any game in any system I've run.


----------



## CapnZapp

No, that to me is awful. You're talking about a level 14 item!

The Dazing Coil means the target loses a single action from a single round. That's hardly even perceptible. It's the weakest third of the monster's turn, for a single turn.

And that's not all. It isn't even automatic - the monster gets a save.

And that's not all. It even carries a fiddly restriction in that it only works of the target is flat-footed, as if there was some monumental imbalance if it could work on everything.

And that's not all. You can't even use it on the spur of the moment - you must deliberately spend time choosing this particular talisman to affix to your weapon instead of some other talisman.

And that's not all - it costs 900 gold! So, instead of going through this rigamarole you could just sell it for 450 gold. Or maybe throw it in the trash.

Not only would you then not have to write down and administer and remember to use this incredibly fiddly and minor little trifle, you could also buy _every single person in the entire town a beer_!

So, no, I would say there's nothing even remotely sane about talismans. Just discussing it as if there was any dimension where someone would actually go through the motions necessary* to *maybe* shave a third of a turn from a single monster makes me shudder.

*) To find it or buy it. To read up on what it does. To keep it. To spend time between encounters choosing it. To write down that choice! To remember having made the choice!! To do so at an appropriate time!?! To actually feel good about oneself as if it was worth the trouble!!??!!  ಠ_ಠ

I would say it is nothing short of nightmare of petty fiddliness that reminds me of 4th edition in the worst possible way, and I really need to wake up now...! But maybe that's just me.


----------



## GrahamWills

CapnZapp said:


> So, no, I would say there's nothing even remotely sane about talismans. Just discussing it as if there was any dimension where someone would actually go through the motions necessary* to *maybe* shave a third of a turn from a single monster makes me shudder.




OK. I'm convinced. I'll ignore talismans! Thanks for the detailed response!


----------



## Campbell

I agree. Talismans were a good idea, but they were entirely too conservative in the design of individual talismans. Really they should be as good or better than scrolls because you can only have two prepared and must spend 10 minutes preparing each one where you can just pull out a scroll.


----------



## DammitVictor

I haven't really examined enough PF2 to know if this is even still a fair shot... but would that be because scrolls are for casters, perhaps?


----------



## MockingBird

FaerieGodfather said:


> I haven't really examined enough PF2 to know if this is even still a fair shot... but would that be because scrolls are for casters, perhaps?




From my look throught he core rule book, the layout and feat structure has a very 4e feel to it. I cant speak for how it plays though.


----------



## CapnZapp

Consider this: 

Even if Talismans worked for a whole Encounter once activated, I still don't see how they would be more than actually useful. That is, still balanced and not overpowered, even if a Dazing Coil ends up shaving off a dozen enemy actions instead of just one!

If you ask for actual rulesy language, let's shoot from the hip and say that once you affix it, it automatically activates as soon as you use your weapon or armor. Once activated it burns out after one minute, and is then worthless. _(You would probably not walk around with it pre-affixed - you would want to keep it for use in a significant fight.)_

I haven't playtested it, but it sure seems much closer to something you would actually be *excited* to find! _(Note to magic item designers: create items that make a difference so they're worth the player's time and attention! Items should be an event, not just something that gives a short +1 bonus and then everybody shrugs)_

And no, I'm not suggesting any change in price. Yes, that is a massive boost in power. Yes, the point is to put it's current uselessness in perspective.


----------



## CapnZapp

MockingBird said:


> From my look throught he core rule book, the layout and feat structure has a very 4e feel to it. I cant speak for how it plays though.



You are definitely asked to make a lot of build choices that ultimately don't matter much as a player, which definitely gives a 4E feel. (That is, I don't consider being able to use my +9 skill instead of my +7 skill to accomplish a particular task meaningfully help me portray my character and its personality. Many if most feats busy themselves with precisely that kind of "small" and mechanical boosts)

Combat and action however, seems fine. Exciting even! Combats feel quick and lethal enough to not suck up play time. (4E combat was very fun. If you upped the difficulty level enough to make your tactics during encounters to actually matter, that is. But that meant combats took so long to resolve there was too little time for story and role-playing in-between combats that it ended up feeling like we played D&D the board game. PF2 combat plays out much more like 3E or 5E, which for our purposes is much more useful)

Still playing at low levels though. (It could be that hit points increase faster than damage, and/or conditions start to hit left and right so fast it makes administering them a real chore...  But we'll see if speed of combat resolution bogs down later)


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Thats not how the activation on talisman's work, I just handed out the bloodseeker beak talisman last night, you affix it to your weapon and then activate it with a free action "evision" (which is the word they chose for 'willing something") and then it applies on trigger. Which means its not the first attack after you affix it, you can keep it on your weapon permanently and never decide to trigger it.


----------



## CapnZapp

The-Magic-Sword said:


> Thats not how the activation on talisman's work, I just handed out the bloodbeak talisman last night, you affix it to your weapon and then activate it with a free action "evision" (which is the word they chose for 'willing something") and then it applies on trigger. Which means its not the first attack after you affix it, you can keep it on your weapon permanently and never decide to trigger it.



I believe you are referring to attempts to salvage the official Talisman rules.

Houserules, that is.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

CapnZapp said:


> I believe you are referring to attempts to salvage the official Talisman rules.
> 
> Houserules, that is.




-_- houserules huh? 

Look along the bottom of the feature on that page at the "activate" line, the hollow diamond is the "free" action symbol.


----------



## darjr

Uh... I don’t see how that changes his description? You still have to remember to do it.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

they mentioned something about firing from the hip on rulings and said it would fire off on their first attack, in reality, you can hold it for the most pivotal moment.


----------



## CapnZapp

The-Magic-Sword said:


> -_- houserules huh?
> 
> Look along the bottom of the feature on that page at the "activate" line, the hollow diamond is the "free" action symbol.



Why are you again responding as if I believe it is not a free action?

I said you were responding to houserules, not an erroneous belief of how the offical rules work.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

....you were complaining about a houserule nerfing talismans that you made up, in your post about how talismans aren't useful?


----------



## Campbell

darjr said:


> Uh... I don’t see how that changes his description? You still have to remember to do it.




I think the intention behind Talismans and how they generally work is a good one. I think the individual effects could do with some buffs.

Basically the intent was to provide some Wizard style fun to players of martial characters. You prepare just the right effect and it helps to turn the tide.

I think if you do not want that sort of operational play just do not use them. I think they should have more of an impact, but the structural design is good.


----------



## CapnZapp

There's no way to say this diplomatically so I'll just say it: I think the structural design is horrible.

The game asks you to devote brain power to some of the tiniest, littlest, most circumstantial effects I have ever come across in any game.

I see no reason whatsoever why magic items must be so utterly mundane. The real question is why Talismans weren't designed to be worthwhile and powerful and attractive and fun.

After all, they could just have cost more if there was a concern over balance.

But Talismans as written? You could easily just ignore all of them and not even realize you missed out.

Because, oh boy, you aren't missing out!

Spending time to write down their names and what they do, and then select which one to affix, and remembering to use it at the exact time... For what? The tiniest shittiest pathetic little one-time bonus? With a real risk of frustration over not spotting the perfect time to use it, or finding out you affixed the wrong one and just waited in vain the whole fight, or simply by realizing you JUST missed your shot at getting good use out of the annoying little bonus there was!

No, I am personally offended by the very thought anyone is expected to bother with a single Talisman, at all.

To me the designer is giving me a giant F U sign. I hate the design with every fiber of my being.

Especially since there was no reason to create them in that way, and every reason to not create anything that whiffs of 4th edition! I truly am flabbergasted anyone at Paizo thought the implementation to be a good idea.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Cap?


----------



## Rhianni32

As a GM I would love for my players to ignore these tiniest shittiest items that don't deserve the brain power needed to write the name of the item on their character sheet. 

There are two economies in the game that talismans fit into.

*Long term* multiple levels and dozens of battles:
Why would a PC use that level 14 consumable that you could sell it for 450 gold and get a lvl 8 permanent? 
They can buy a +1 resilient armor when they should be at +2 greater resilient armor (2 "steps" behind).
Or they could buy a greater staff of fire. Yeah the players got rid of that back at 10th level when they upgraded to the lvl 10 staff of evocation.
They could buy a wand of smoldering fireballs with money and get a truly free fireball that doesnt take recharging... now your 14th level caster can get spend actions to cast 1d6 persistent damage attacks once per day.

Players will be drowning in magic items in PF2.
The 14th level character on average out of a party of 4 will have based on what was given out from page 509...
Permanent Items: 15, 13, 13, 11, 11, 11, 9, 9, 7, 7...
Consumables: 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 11, 11, 9, 9, 9...
Gold on top of the above to go buy further permanent items: 7,043 not including the other permanent items above that they didn't want.

I'm not seeing the importance of getting that extra 450 gold / 8th lvl permanent item whose power level has been outdated for several levels. If anything I see the reverse happening. In the above scenario sell your outdated staff of fire to buy 4 Grim Trophies or 3 Murderer's Knots and you use them on elites and bosses.

*Short Term* single combat. You get 3 actions a round. You aren't going to be spending that on low level action items. You need to be as efficient as possible with them and that is what talismans improve upon. They arent intended to be powerful and worthwhile on their own. You might as well complain that non magic daggers aren't powerful.

Now a case could be made that the 31 DC at 14th level is too low. That's different though than a horrible system that offends you that others like it.


----------



## GrahamWills

So, I'm playing a rather difficult video game at the moment, and, for me, all the  consumables you pick up I mostly ignore. Because they are small effect and honestly, I'm better practicing deflect + punish to get better at the basics rather than spend the mental effort deciding whether to use a _Fistful of Ash_ on this boss.

But that's just me -- a boss I fight by practicing dodge and taking my time with, another player is blowing _snap seeds_ and _long sparks_ and using them. I don't really have a problem with other people caring about consumables when I usually don't. It's the same for me in role playing games. Talismans seem of minimal use to me, so I'm not excited to use them, but others will have fun getting that last possible bonus. It's not like once I decide not to bother with talismans I have to spend any more effort. I can just happily ignore them.


----------



## CapnZapp

GrahamWills said:


> So, I'm playing a rather difficult video game at the moment, and, for me, all the  consumables you pick up I mostly ignore. Because they are small effect and honestly, I'm better practicing deflect + punish to get better at the basics rather than spend the mental effort deciding whether to use a _Fistful of Ash_ on this boss.
> 
> But that's just me -- a boss I fight by practicing dodge and taking my time with, another player is blowing _snap seeds_ and _long sparks_ and using them. I don't really have a problem with other people caring about consumables when I usually don't. It's the same for me in role playing games. Talismans seem of minimal use to me, so I'm not excited to use them, but others will have fun getting that last possible bonus. It's not like once I decide not to bother with talismans I have to spend any more effort. I can just happily ignore them.



True dat.

I guess I can still GM Pathfinder since I can just... never hand out any Talismans, and nobody will ever bother to purchase 'em.

Mind you, I still harbor a deep grudge against the dev(s) that wasted not only half a dozen rulebook pages, but a cool concept too. Talismans could have been so cool - imagine if they were meaningfully connected to the Occult power source, and had some smidge of cool story background.

Even if they lasted a full minute I could buy their little fiddly powers, and how you must muck about beforehand setting them up. Getting 50% more speed or better pushes or fear bonus for a whole encounter is at least narratively perceptible. It's much more like a proper magic item, that provides a bonus that really changes something. It would definitely help me in not associating the game with the bland beige boring crap that was magic items in 4th edition.


----------



## S'mon

CapnZapp said:


> True dat.
> 
> I guess I can still GM Pathfinder since I can just... never hand out any Talismans, and nobody will ever bother to purchase 'em.
> 
> Mind you, I still harbor a deep grudge against the dev(s) that wasted not only half a dozen rulebook pages...




By RPG design standards, I think that's a pretty minor sin! I own hundreds of pages of 4e rules that no one will ever use - you mentioned 4e magic items, but 4e Martial Practices were a lot worse!


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> No, I am personally offended by the very thought anyone is expected to bother with a single Talisman, at all.



That describes the vast majority of magic items (and feats) in PF1. I remember playing through an adventure path, and finding countless magic weapons that made absolutely no sense why anyone would ever craft them in the first place. It was one of the major frustrations with trying to play the game.

I haven't read through PF2 yet, but I did just finish reading Starfinder, and it seems like they still don't understand why this sort of thing would be problematic.


----------



## CapnZapp

Saelorn said:


> That describes the vast majority of magic items (and feats) in PF1. I remember playing through an adventure path, and finding countless magic weapons that made absolutely no sense why anyone would ever craft them in the first place. It was one of the major frustrations with trying to play the game.
> 
> I haven't read through PF2 yet, but I did just finish reading Starfinder, and it seems like they still don't understand why this sort of thing would be problematic.



You will have to point to something specific, because in my mind there is a clear line between 3E (and PF) and 5E items on one hand, and 4E items on the other.

I mean, yes of course there was truckloads and truckloads of bizarre stuff in d20, a lot of it quite useless, but still, it is rare (in my mind) to find the miserly approach that dominated 4E PHB items. Those d20 items could well be of "what were they thinking?" variety - but there's a difference between individual items being crap, and entire classes of items being designed as "littlest" already from the get-go.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

CapnZapp said:


> You will have to point to something specific, because in my mind there is a clear line between 3E (and PF) and 5E items on one hand, and 4E items on the other.
> 
> I mean, yes of course there was truckloads and truckloads of bizarre stuff in d20, a lot of it quite useless, but still, it is rare (in my mind) to find the miserly approach that dominated 4E PHB items. Those d20 items could well be of "what were they thinking?" variety - but there's a difference between individual items being crap, and entire classes of items being designed as "littlest" already from the get-go.



I was mostly thinking of individual items being terrible, a la the _+1 thawing spear of dragonslaying_, which could only have been useful for melee combat against ice dragons by someone not proficient in martial weapons. That's the kind of thing which I take as a personal insult.

Most of the worthless expendables (aside from potions and scrolls) were added to 3.5 in much later supplements, and were safely ignored. I could have sworn that there was a huge list of one-shot elemental attack items, with different level variations in case you really wanted to spend thousands of gold on a 10d6 lightning grenade, in the Magic Items Compendium. 

Since you mention it, though, that might actually be from early 4E. The only thing about 4E magic items that I clearly remember is how a +2 item with a dumb gimmick was always priced between a +2 item and a +3 item, which makes perfect sense.


----------



## Remus Lupin

I think the big difference is the 4e took a relatively unified market and fragmented it. PF2 is entering an already fragmented market, and hoping to revitalize its existing fan base. Folks who switched out from PF when 5e came out might come back. Folks who just aren't so fond of 5e might be looking for something else. Meanwhile, if they're seeing declining sales on PF1, it only makes sense to try and renew the market for themselves.

The big problem with 4e was that it became a really divisive inflection point for gaming and gave Paizo an entry point to the market. Now it's just one of several players on the same field, so it's got a different set of incentives and goals.


----------



## MockingBird

I dunno, yeah you do have some PF1 folks who dont care for 5e but the majority overwhelming like 5e. PF2 isn't really coming into a divided market like we saw with 4e and 3.5e. If anything it seems as if Paizo has divided it's own market.


----------



## Imaro

Remus Lupin said:


> I think the big difference is the 4e took a relatively unified market and fragmented it. PF2 is entering an already fragmented market, and hoping to revitalize its existing fan base. Folks who switched out from PF when 5e came out might come back. Folks who just aren't so fond of 5e might be looking for something else. Meanwhile, if they're seeing declining sales on PF1, it only makes sense to try and renew the market for themselves.
> 
> The big problem with 4e was that it became a really divisive inflection point for gaming and gave Paizo an entry point to the market. Now it's just one of several players on the same field, so it's got a different set of incentives and goals.




Yeah I'm a little confused by what market exactly is fragmented?? I would argue 5e has already done what you are claiming PF2 is trying to do and has, by all accounts, succeeded beyond all expectations...


----------



## CapnZapp

Remus Lupin said:


> I think the big difference is the 4e took a relatively unified market and fragmented it. PF2 is entering an already fragmented market, and hoping to revitalize its existing fan base. Folks who switched out from PF when 5e came out might come back. Folks who just aren't so fond of 5e might be looking for something else. Meanwhile, if they're seeing declining sales on PF1, it only makes sense to try and renew the market for themselves.
> 
> The big problem with 4e was that it became a really divisive inflection point for gaming and gave Paizo an entry point to the market. Now it's just one of several players on the same field, so it's got a different set of incentives and goals.



Yeah, well, the market is probably more unified than ever since you have 5E, then nothing, then still nothing, THEN maybe other games all combined...


----------



## Campbell

What preexisting need did Original Dungeons and Dragons fill? What about Vampire - The Masquerade? What about Starfinder? What about Edge of the Empire?

When it comes to product design there are very few instances like Pathfinder First Edition or Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition where there is a market already sitting there waiting for you. Often you have to show people something they have not seen before and never knew they wanted until they see it. The answer to where is the market is that they are attempting to create it.

They have created a meaningfully differentiated game that is fun to play designed specifically to tell the kinds of stories they want to tell. When you open the spine of Pathfinder Second Edition you see a piece of fiction that portrays the iconic heroes holding off undead hordes empowered by The Whispering Tyrant. There is a specific call out to the death of Aroden, God of Prophecy whose demise started The Age of Lost Omens. The games introduction starts like this:



			
				 Pathfinder Core Rulebook said:
			
		

> Pathfinder adventures take place in the Age of Lost Omens, a perilous fantasy world rife with ancient empires; sprawling city-states; and countless tombs, dungeons, and monster lairs packed with plunder. A Pathfinder character’s adventures might take them to forsaken underwater ruins, haunted gothic crypts, or magical universities in jungle cities. A world of endless adventure awaits!




I also find this telling:



			
				 Age of Lost Omens World Guide Back Cover said:
			
		

> The god of humanity is dead and prophecy is broken, leaving adventuring heroes like you to carve out your own destinies out of an uncertain future!




Uncertainty looms large over Pathfinder Second Edition.  The game has been fundamentally restructured to be focused on risk vs reward. Everything you do has a range of success that dramatically shapes the outcome of the narrative. Spells have been made more uncertain. You largely cannot build characters to auto succeed anymore. Secret rolls are used to create a fog of war that mirrors the uncertainty of the characters. Many spells have become rituals that have significant consequences for failure.

While it is very modern in some respects in a lot of ways it rejects many modern "advancements" in favor of the primordial history of Dungeons and Dragons. Wizards are definitely Vancian. Fighters are better at fighting than other martial classes. Class features make it even more Vancian. It utilizes B/X style exploration turns and secret rolls. Its new Bulk system doubles down on encumbrance. It doubles down on Alignment, even adding specific Anathema to some classes. Some spells can only be acquired through adventuring. Long term consequences like poisons, diseases, and curses are common. Monsters are designed like puzzles to be solved. The roleplaying advice for classes in the Core Rulebook suggest that a fighter might build a stronghold, a rogue might create a thieve's guild, a wizard might start a school, and a cleric might establish a temple.

It cares about more than adventuring.  It is a game that cares about what you do outside of your adventures. Many classes have specific ties to the world. Your first level fighter might hold down shifts as a bartender when she is not fighting monsters. Your wizard might track down Uncommon and Rare spells to add to their spell book. Your ranger might seek out a mentor to learn a unique technique. You might be part of an organization. You might cast rituals that require the assistance of secondary casters that you need to track down. The game makes it clear that it is about the individual stories of the player characters as much as it is about the adventures they go on.

Lost Omens looms large. It's telling that the majority of the supplemental content we are seeing is heavily stepped in the lore of the game. It's not just for reading either. They want player characters to become part of the setting and actively engage with the world, its organizations, and gods. There is a lot of embedded story in the archetypes available like taking your Hell Knight Test to join an order or how the Living Monolith needs to undergo the Ka Stone Ritual. Gods and Magic will have rules for divine intercession. They intend for The Age of Lost Omens to be an active part of your game if you so choose.

So none of this was something I was like looking for, but I find it very compelling. That's the bet - that people will find it compelling. They have done a year long open play test and significant focus group testing with new players. They are absolutely taking a risk, but I think they kind of had to. Pathfinder had fallen to #5 on the icv2 charts and was bleeding off sales to Fifth Edition. They had to do something.

Really the underlying question here seems to be why didn't they just start supporting Fifth Edition? My guess is they see more potential in what they have created. I am also going to guess the other answer is that they just do not want to. Paizo is a company that is largely run by creatives who have a strong vision of their setting and the types of stories they want to tell. It is easy to forget that the creation of Pathfinder First Edition was motivated as much by being dissatisfied by the narrative structures of Fourth Edition as an analysis of market needs. They might feel the same way about Fifth Edition.

I mean so far they have definitely reclaimed the #2 spot and sales look pretty good. They aren't competing with Fifth Edition, but I do not think that was ever on the radar. They are building their audience and regrowing the brand. Time will tell if their risks will pay off. I do not think we should be shaming them for attempting to innovate and create a compelling new experience that is more compatible with the stories they have always wanted to tell.


----------



## CapnZapp

I completely believe you are making these suggestions in good faith, and that you yourself believe what you say.

Problem is, I don't see it. At all.

I don't see anything in their stories that require a game that hews dangerously close to 4E if not in actual execution then in presentation. 

I don't see the value of a million littlest feats that mostly give off the illusion of deep charbuilding while in reality just hiding the fact the game strictly controls the math.

And I definitely don't see why their stories require a brand new game engine that will come off as nothing less than alienatingly complex to the overwhelmingly vast prospective audience, namely, 5E gamers.

If we believe the simplest explanation is also likely the true explanation, I offer the following alternative:

That Paizo can't bring themselves to the realization their existence depends on D&D, and that they could not bring themselves to biting the bullet, making a game accessible to the only really big market out there.

Instead, to me it is painfully obvious they thought they did not need to even _look_ at 5th editions and what made it so spectacularly popular. Their offering might have seemed reasonable in a world where the alternatives are either Pathfinder 1 or 4th edition.

But we don't live in that world.


----------



## amethal

CapnZapp said:


> Instead, to me it is painfully obvious they thought they did not need to even _look_ at 5th editions and what made it so spectacularly popular.



 It seems staggeringly unlikely to me that professional game designers who specialise in d20 products did not even look at the current version of Dungeons and Dragons.

I appreciate that you find it difficult to comprehend how Paizo could look at the same situation as you did and not come to the same conclusion as you did, but that is what has happened.

Incidentally, I am not saying you are wrong when you say Paizo have made a mistake. The role-playing game industry has many examples of gaming companies completely misreading the market. Time will tell in this case.


----------



## CapnZapp

amethal said:


> It seems staggeringly unlikely to me that professional game designers who specialise in d20 products did not even look at the current version of Dungeons and Dragons.



Sure, but let's not discuss this in terms of generics, since that doesn't lead anywhere. 

Please have a look at PF2 and tell me if you can find a single element that hints at Paizo understanding and learning from what made 5E great. I'm sure there is one, I just haven't found it yet.


----------



## amethal

CapnZapp said:


> Sure, but let's not discuss this in terms of generics, since that doesn't lead anywhere.



Ok, let's be less generic.

It seems to me to be staggeringly unlikely that Paizo staff did not even look at the current version of Dungeons and Dragons.



> Please have a look at PF2 and tell me if you can find a single element that hints at Paizo understanding and learning from what made 5E great. I'm sure there is one, I just haven't found it yet.



Why on earth would I want to do that?  I'm perfectly happy to take your word for it.


----------



## Green Onceler

CapnZapp said:


> what made 5E great.




Perhaps not everybody finds 5e to be great?

If I want an easy to run option, I'd  choose Shadow of the Demon Lord over 5e. Every time.


----------



## CapnZapp

Green Onceler said:


> Perhaps not everybody finds 5e to be great?
> 
> If I want an easy to run option, I'd  choose Shadow of the Demon Lord over 5e. Every time.



I honestly don't think targeting your game to the SotDL customer base over the 5E customer base is a sound business decision. 

That said, good luck with your gaming!


----------



## Green Onceler

CapnZapp said:


> I honestly don't think targeting your game to the SotDL customer base over the 5E customer base is a sound business decision.




Perhaps not. I am just suggesting that perhaps not everyone enjoyed 5e. I didn't. Maybe Paizo's designers didn't either.


----------



## Remathilis

Paizo is reacting to the vocal group of players who thinks 5e is too simple and want (at least the illusion of) customization and depth. They also want to fix the inherent flaws of 3e that have plagued the game, such as magic item math and attack/save scaling. If you want to fix the inherent math problems but also keep the game with multiple choice points per level, you end up with something similar to 4e. Paizo us hoping that avoiding ADEU and including vancian magic is enough to thread the needle.


----------



## Arilyn

Green Onceler said:


> Perhaps not. I am just suggesting that perhaps not everyone enjoyed 5e. I didn't. Maybe Paizo's designers didn't either.



Actually they do like 5e, and have played it at their office. Paizo staff play a variety of games during their breaks including Call of Cthulhu and Shadow ofthe Demon Lord. 

In total agreement with you, however. Paizo doesn't need to do a 5e clone. Even if PF2 fails, redoing  a crunchier version of 5e would fail even more. We already have a thriving D&D.


----------



## Kaodi

You do not really even have to play PF2 with Vancian casting if you do not want to, given that the Sorcerer can "do it all" at least sort of, not to mention the Bard, and possibly the Oracle when it is released.


----------



## Retreater

Here's my microcosm of experience. I was working as a freelance module writer in the 3.5 era. I had published a campaign adventure with Necromancer Games, which was pretty well received. I was about 60% complete on what would've been a massive hardcover setting /campaign book I was going to submit to NG when 4e was announced.
I started updating it to PF when that system was released. But then fast forward to "real life" happening, and I lost most of the work. Then 5E was announced.
I started rewriting it for 5E, play testing, etc. And something just felt off. I am sure I can make it fit into 5E, but honestly the OGL for 5E is so limiting that I'm going to have to build a lot of the content from scratch. And if you don't set it in the Forgotten Realms and sell on DMs Guild, you can use even less content from WotC.
Perusing PF2 and the wealth of content they have open to designers, I'm now thinking this might be the system to use to publish this adventure. There's so much more to work with than 5e from a open content perspective. And it seems a little more streamlined than PF1.


----------



## Garthanos

S'mon said:


> , but 4e Martial Practices were a lot worse!



They take more than a little fixing but I think can be quite worth it (I have a thread around here).  Had they been given appropriate attention and paid attention to DMG2 skill challenge guidelines in the first place instead of left as rituals lesser cousins with no development at all.


----------



## GrahamWills

Remathilis said:


> Paizo is reacting to the vocal group of players who thinks 5e is too simple and want (at least the illusion of) customization and depth. They also want to fix the inherent flaws of 3e that have plagued the game, such as magic item math and attack/save scaling. If you want to fix the inherent math problems but also keep the game with multiple choice points per level, you end up with something similar to 4e. Paizo us hoping that avoiding ADEU and including vancian magic is enough to thread the needle.




Yup; exactly this.  In fact, I talked to two  players who I met at a PF2 table yesterday and they both said essentially this. They liked 5E, but found it a little too simple and were looking for something more in the 3.5 style but better -- exactly where Paizo want to be. They cannot compete with 5e, so they need to offer something that is similar, but offers an advantage 5e does not.


----------



## Remus Lupin

As to the question of market fragmentation. I don't think the issue is, "Is the market MORE fragmented than it was when 4e was introduced." I think the issue is "Is the market more fragmented than when 3.5 was prominent," and 5e notwithstanding, I think the answer is clearly yes, and there is a market segment that will be attracted to PF2.

As to the relative virtues of 5e vs. PF2, I have to say that I find 5e to be _really_ anemic with regard to class and character options. Every character is pretty much a minor variation on a core, with little opportunity for customization. What I like about PF2 is that it offers me lots more genuine options for customization right out of the box. There are LOTS of ways to be a rogue, whereas in 5e there are three or so. I like that. 

I understand others may prefer it the way 5e is doing it. That's why I'm glad there are more options out there to play than just 5e.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Remus Lupin said:


> As to the relative virtues of 5e vs. PF2, I have to say that I find 5e to be _really_ anemic with regard to class and character options. Every character is pretty much a minor variation on a core, with little opportunity for customization. What I like about PF2 is that it offers me lots more genuine options for customization right out of the box. There are LOTS of ways to be a rogue, whereas in 5e there are three or so. I like that.



Just for the rogue -> Factor in the 5e backgrounds and this is clearly not true. Factor in the subclasses from Xanathar's and your claim is patently untrue and disingenuous.


----------



## Remus Lupin

Yeah, I don't use Xanathar's guide. Don't want to. Haven't read it. Don't want to. Furthermore, I was just pulling rogue out as an example. I could have picked any other class. It really doesn't matter, because it still stands that the PF core offers me a great deal more in terms of options and customization, and I don't need to buy another book.

But sure, go ahead and throw around terms like "disingenuous." Because its impossible for someone to disagree with you without being dishonest, oh you paragon of virtue!


----------



## Campbell

Xenonnonex said:


> Just for the rogue -> Factor in the 5e backgrounds and this is clearly not true. Factor in the subclasses from Xanathar's and your claim is patently untrue and disingenuous.




Obviously he is trying to express something about his preference. He might not have stated his case in the best way. That does not mean he is not being earnest.

When one looks at Pathfinder Second Edition it is obvious that the developers made being able to play exactly the character you want to play a high priority. It has extremely modular character design. Some regard this as a virtue.

Fifth Edition has a less modular approach to character design. The vast majority of what defines your character resides in class and subclass. Some people also consider this a virtue.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Remus Lupin said:


> Yeah, I don't use Xanathar's guide. Don't want to. Haven't read it. Don't want to. Furthermore, I was just pulling rogue out as an example. I could have picked any other class. It really doesn't matter, because it still stands that the PF core offers me a great deal more in terms of options and customization, and I don't need to buy another book.
> 
> But sure, go ahead and throw around terms like "disingenuous." Because its impossible for someone to disagree with you without being dishonest, oh you paragon of virtue!



When you refuse to engage with the material and then claim that 5e is _really_ anemic with class and character options that is disingenuous. And is completely and utterly untrue. 
It is the same as having come to an unchangeable and stubbornly unshakable position with only a small fraction of evidence.


----------



## Remus Lupin

*Xenonnonex, ignored.*

By all means, use the ignore function to avoid escalating tempers with other posters.  HOWEVER, *announcing *you’re ignoring someone is a classic method of subverting the intent of the system.  
_DON’T DO THIS.  _


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> Obviously he is trying to express something about his preference. He might not have stated his case in the best way. That does not mean he is not being earnest.
> 
> When one looks at Pathfinder Second Edition it is obvious that the developers made being able to play exactly the character you want to play a high priority. It has extremely modular character design. Some regard this as a virtue.
> 
> Fifth Edition has a less modular approach to character design. The vast majority of what defines your character resides in class and subclass. Some people also consider this a virtue.




Rather, the vast majority of what defines a 5E PC is divorced from mechanics, and resides in personality and background detail. The mechanics bits are Race, Class, Subclass and Background (Feats, if you like that optional rule: I personally dislike Feats and prefer to never use them). The use of broad archetypes for the mechanical aspect allows for freedom on the narrative side.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Remus Lupin said:


> *Xenonnonex, ignored.*



All the best.


----------



## Campbell

Parmandur said:


> Rather, the vast majority of what defines a 5E PC is divorced from mechanics, and resides in personality and background detail. The mechanics bits are Race, Class, Subclass and Background (Feats, if you like that optional rule: I personally dislike Feats and prefer to never use them). The use of broad archetypes for the mechanical aspect allows for freedom on the narrative side.




Personally one of the things I like Pathfinder Second Edition is the way the class feats embed the mentality of the class into play. The mechanics help your Barbarian feel arrogant, reckless, and angry. The Ranger feels like a determined hunter who will seek their prey to the ends of the earth. The fighter feels disciplined and adaptable. To me it really delivers on the fantasy of each class.

At the same time I like how within the conceptual space of each class there is room to refine the kind of character I want to play. My Barbarian is a displaced noble Chelaxian noble who submerged in the blood of a red dragon as a baby. He has the social skills to back that concept up. This is backed up by his choice of Raging Intimidation which allows him to intimidate his foes with just a stare even when in the throes of his dragon rage. He has the red dragon instinct which means if he lets a personal insult go unchallenged he loses the power of the instinct temporarily. He blames the dragon for his cruel fate so it is also Anathema to him to fail to defeat any red dragon who crosses his path.

While I do not find it to be the best way to analyze play here is the result of a Robin Laws Player Type Quiz I recently took:

Method Actor 92%
Storyteller 83%
Tactician 83%
Power Gamer 58%
Casual Gamer 21%
Butt Kicker 17%
Specialist 17%​
I feel the following capture my play preferences better:








						My Gamer Motivation Profile: Action-Oriented, Proficient, Relaxed, Social, Deeply Immersed, and Creative
					

Want to know your profile? Take the survey!




					apps.quanticfoundry.com
				




When playing role playing games the feeling of sitting inside my character's skin is paramount to me. I want to feel what my character is feeling and see the world as they see it. This is what The Gamer Motivation Profile calls Fantasy. However it very important to me to get a chance to handcraft the sort of character I want to play. This includes personality and connections to the setting (I despise the term backstory - this should not be back matter). It also includes a chance to handcraft what they are capable of doing, especially outside of combat. This is what the Gamer Motivation Profile calls Design. I want to take ownership of the whole of my character.



			
				 Gamer Motivation Profile said:
			
		

> *Fantasy (92%): *Gamers who score high on Fantasy want their gaming experiences to allow them to become someone else, somewhere else. They enjoy the sense of being immersed in an alter ego in a believable alternate world, and enjoy exploring a game world just for the sake of exploring it. These gamers enjoy games like _Skyrim, Fallout,_ and _Mass Effect_ for their fully imagined alternate settings.
> 
> *Design (90%): *Gamers who score high on this component want to actively express their individuality in the game worlds they find themselves in. In games like _Mass Effect_, they put a lot of time and effort in the character creation process. In city-building games or space strategy games, they take the time to design and customize exactly how their city or spaceships look. To this end, they prefer games that provide the tools and assets necessary to make this possible and easy to do.




I personally find that as long as the mechanics are firmly grounded in the fiction these mechanical choices can help me feel like my character more fully and think about who I want them to be. Engaging with them in play can help reinforce the feel of my character, helping me feel the emotions my character should be feeling.

That might not be the case for you personally, but that's why it is a good thing we have a wealth of choices.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Remus Lupin said:


> As to the question of market fragmentation. I don't think the issue is, "Is the market MORE fragmented than it was when 4e was introduced." I think the issue is "Is the market more fragmented than when 3.5 was prominent," and 5e notwithstanding, I think the answer is clearly yes, and there is a market segment that will be attracted to PF2.



There was a lot of bandwagon-jumping as open-source d20 recaptured market & headspace leadership in the early oughts, so I suppose that's not entirely unfair. The hobby, though, once you start looking beyond D&D and whatever challenger is had at the time, has long been quite fragmented & very 'niche.'  There's absolutely a niche out there for PF2, and it's unlikely to be a small one (relative to non-D&D RPGs, relative to D&D, of course, they're all small).  Of course, PF1 /was/ D&D for a few years, there, so that 5e has reclaimed the D&D mantle might be an adjustment...



> As to the relative virtues of 5e vs. PF2, I have to say that I find 5e to be _really_ anemic with regard to class and character options. Every character is pretty much a minor variation on a core, with little opportunity for customization. What I like about PF2 is that it offers me lots more genuine options for customization right out of the box. There are LOTS of ways to be a rogue, whereas in 5e there are three or so. I like that.



 The basic three ways to be a rogue - sneaky DPR, sneaky DPR & half-caster, and …  OK, IDK, what you consider the third one (Thief & Assassin don't /seem/ that different, Mastermind is helpful DPR, I guess... there  are other sub-classes out there).  But, whatever the three flavors of Rogue 5e has goin', what are some additional ones PF2 offers?



Quoting from another thread, but...


Xenonnonex said:


> And my point was that Paizo overcorrected their wizards. To the point where you are having more fun emulating a martial.
> The traditional wizard has been overshadowed by martials and casters trying to be martial lites.



 ….replace 'Paizo' with WotC...
and...


Campbell said:


> Arcane casters used to be on top of the caster hierarchy with spells that were demonstrably better than what other casters could provide. With the new curated spell lists that is no longer the case. Bards are now full casters who have access to some of the arcane caster's best stuff when it comes to buffs, debuffs, and disabling mental effects. Druids now have access to the same elemental spells that wizards have. I think the arcane casters are fine, but they are no longer top dogs.



...we could be discussing 4e in Sept 2008.

So, yes, it seems PF2 may have touched the same third rail as 4e did.

But, PF2 doesn't need to pull in $50 mil to win 'core brand' status, and PF is no longer carrying the real-D&D torch, so it might, like many a like-D&D-but-better FRPG before it, actually get away with it.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Remus Lupin said:


> *Xenonnonex, ignored.*




They were absolutely right though, it's pretty screwy to refer to a game as options-anemic when you ignore major sources of options.


----------



## Remus Lupin

The-Magic-Sword said:


> They were absolutely right though, it's pretty screwy to refer to a game as options-anemic when you ignore major sources of options.




I didn't ignore them for disagreeing with me. I ignored them for being a jerk about it.


----------



## Remus Lupin

And just for the record: I still disagree. The way that options are parsed in 5e feels paltry to me even when you take account of supplementary sources. Meanwhile, I think that Paizo's options are robust right out of the box, without me having to go out and invest in supplementary sources just to have the kind of flexibility in character creation that should be baseline.

And, I'll also add that when we discussed this around my 5e table, everyone agreed. You basically get three flavors of every kind of character with 5e. With PF2, the default provides many more options.

Some people prefer it one way, some the other, but it's a genuine issue, not "disingenuous" to express. I've never said anyone should do anything other than play the game they prefer. And PF2 certainly has a ready market in those of us who are less than fulfilled by 5e's approach.


----------



## Imaro

Remus Lupin said:


> And just for the record: I still disagree. The way that options are parsed in 5e feels paltry to me even when you take account of supplementary sources. Meanwhile, I think that Paizo's options are robust right out of the box, without me having to go out and invest in supplementary sources just to have the kind of flexibility in character creation that should be baseline.
> 
> And, I'll also add that when we discussed this around my 5e table, everyone agreed. You basically get three flavors of every kind of character with 5e. With PF2, the default provides many more options.
> 
> Some people prefer it one way, some the other, but it's a genuine issue, not "disingenuous" to express. I've never said anyone should do anything other than play the game they prefer. And PF2 certainly has a ready market in those of us who are less than fulfilled by 5e's approach.




Hey no one can argue with how you feel about the options in 5e... the issue is when you start making definite statements like the "3 flavors" comment and it's demonstrably false.  thief, assassin, swashbuckler, mastermind, spellthief, etc are all different archetypes that play differently and feel differently in the game. That's the issue some are having with your statements (which you restated in the above post), the fact that they are outright false.

EDIT: Well that and the fact that you chose to ignore option sources while making a general statement about the lack of options in the game.


----------



## Remus Lupin

Having played the game bi-weekly for several years now, and having created dozens of characters, and having watched the other players in my game create dozens of characters, and having seen, repeatedly, the same three flavors of every class, with only the occasional exception, I stand by my statement.


----------



## Imaro

Remus Lupin said:


> Having played the game bi-weekly for several years now, and having created dozens of characters, and having watched the other players in my game create dozens of characters, and having seen, repeatedly, the same three flavors of every class, with only the occasional exception, I stand by my statement.




And your statement is provably wrong,


----------



## Parmandur

Imaro said:


> Hey no one can argue with how you feel about the options in 5e... the issue is when you start making definite statements like the "3 flavors" comment and it's demonstrably false.  thief, assassin, swashbuckler, mastermind, spellthief, etc are all different archetypes that play differently and feel differently in the game. That's the issue some are having with your statements (which you restated in the above post), the fact that they are outright false.
> 
> EDIT: Well that and the fact that you chose to ignore option sources while making a general statement about the lack of options in the game.




For me, the bigger thing is...Backgrounds. There are hundreds of thousands of characters in the PHB based on Race/Subclass/Background combinations, before you even consider the totals for Ideals/Bonds/Flaws. That stuff is more interesting for making different characters to me.


----------



## Remus Lupin

Imaro said:


> And your statement is provably wrong,




I disagree.


----------



## Imaro

Remus Lupin said:


> I disagree.




Doesn't change facts.


----------



## Remus Lupin

Parmandur said:


> For me, the bigger thing is...Backgrounds. There are hundreds of thousands of characters in the PHB based on Race/Subclass/Background combinations, before you even consider the totals for Ideals/Bonds/Flaws. That stuff is more interesting for making different characters to me.




Sure. That's there. It really doesn't do much for me. Again, I'm thinking here primarily of what's available in terms of class options. I'll agree with respect to backgrounds there's a lot to work with there, but I'm just not fond of the implementation.


----------



## Remus Lupin

Imaro said:


> Doesn't change facts.




That's right, and I still disagree.


----------



## Imaro

Parmandur said:


> For me, the bigger thing is...Backgrounds. There are hundreds of thousands of characters in the PHB based on Race/Subclass/Background combinations, before you even consider the totals for Ideals/Bonds/Flaws. That stuff is more interesting for making different characters to me.




Yep more ways the "3 flavors" can be expanded.  Apparently @Remus Lupin has a group that all play the exact same 3 characters in every class with the same 3 subclasses, the same backgrounds, the same skill selections, the same weapon/spell choices, the same race, the same... well you get the idea... oh and some options just aren't considered because...well because


----------



## Remus Lupin

I'm sorry the fact that I am not fond of the way 5e handles this, and the fact that it provides what I consider to be limited and unexciting options causes you so much personal angst. But the fact remains that this is how I feel about it. I'm always at a loss as to how people think they can sarcasm their way into changing someone's mind on such things.


----------



## Parmandur

Remus Lupin said:


> Sure. That's there. It really doesn't do much for me. Again, I'm thinking here primarily of what's available in terms of class options. I'll agree with respect to backgrounds there's a lot to work with there, but I'm just not fond of the implementation.




That's fair, I suppose. Feats do nothing for me in terms of establishing a character, so different strokes.


----------



## Imaro

Remus Lupin said:


> I'm sorry the fact that I am not fond of the way 5e handles this, and the fact that it provides what I consider to be limited and unexciting options causes you so much personal angst. But the fact remains that this is how I feel about it. I'm always at a loss as to how people think they can sarcasm their way into changing someone's mind on such things.




Again, as I stated before... it's not about how you feel... it's about you making false statements.  And it's no angst for me I was just trying to educate you in case you honestly thought there were only 3 flavors of every class in 5e...


----------



## Remus Lupin

Parmandur said:


> That's fair, I suppose. Feats do nothing for me in terms of establishing a character, so different strokes.




Exactly.


----------



## Remus Lupin

*Imaro, ignored.*


----------



## billd91

Imaro said:


> Yep more ways the "3 flavors" can be expanded.  Apparently @Remus Lupin has a group that all play the exact same 3 characters in every class with the same 3 subclasses, the same backgrounds, the same skill selections, the same weapon/spell choices, the same race, the same... well you get the idea... oh and some options just aren't considered because...well because




You know, PF2 has all of those options as well - backgrounds, races, skills, weapons. Mayyyybe you should cotton on to the idea that Remus Lupin was specifically focusing on a specific variable in the mix - class options offered by the respective games - and using the fact that PF2 and 5e both offer those other options to eliminate them from the equation.


----------



## Parmandur

billd91 said:


> You know, PF2 has all of those options as well - backgrounds, races, skills, weapons. Mayyyybe you should cotton on to the idea that Remus Lupin was specifically focusing on a specific variable in the mix - class options offered by the respective games - and using the fact that PF2 and 5e both offer those other options to eliminate them from the equation.




I don't think anybody is claiming PF2 doesn't have options, just the idea that PF2 has obviously more _meaningful & significant_ options than 5E.


----------



## Imaro

billd91 said:


> You know, PF2 has all of those options as well - backgrounds, races, skills, weapons. Mayyyybe you should cotton on to the idea that Remus Lupin was specifically focusing on a specific variable in the mix - class options offered by the respective games - and using the fact that PF2 and 5e both offer those other options to eliminate them from the equation.




I'm not sure what this has to do with my point...I was arguing against the assertion that there are only 3 flavors in any one class in 5e.  Do you believe that to be the case?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Remus Lupin said:


> *Imaro, ignored.*



That's just pathetic.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> I don't think anybody is claiming PF2 doesn't have options, just the idea that PF2 has obviously more _meaningful & significant_ options than 5E.



More, at least, is potentially quantifiable. 

In the 5e PH there are 9 races, each with a sub-race or few, 12 classes & 80 sub-classes, 16 backgrounds, 40+ feats, and three or four _hundred_ spells.  
A given character chooses a race, sub-race, background, class, sub-class, a few skills, 4 to 6 feats, and 0 to 40 or so spells.
Seems like a lotta choices. 
How does PF2 stack up?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Xenonnonex said:


> When you refuse to engage with the material and then claim that 5e is _really_ anemic with class and character options that is disingenuous. And is completely and utterly untrue.



A game is not its supplements. The combination of 5E+Xanathar is not the same as 5E alone, and nothing they add in another book will change the contents of 5E.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> More, at least, is potentially quantifiable.
> 
> In the 5e PH there are 9 races, each with a sub-race or few, 12 classes & 80 sub-classes, 16 backgrounds, 40+ feats, and three or four _hundred_ spells.
> A given character chooses a race, sub-race, background, class, sub-class, a few skills, 4 to 6 feats, and 0 to 40 or so spells.
> Seems like a lotta choices.
> How does PF2 stack up?




Don't forget Ideals/traits/bonds/flaws, which balloon the possible Background combos into the thousands (and extra tables for certain Backgrounds, like Guild Artisan, Outlander, or Folk Hero). My experience is that these fluffy bits are often as important at the table as crunchy bits.

PF2 has numerically more options, primarily through the proliferation of Feats. These are mostly granular and crunchy differences, rather than character focused.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Don't forget Ideals/traits/bonds/flaws



I didn't forget them, so much as dismissed them out of hands as they are:
strictly optional
totally arbitrary (you can just make 'em up)
all do the same thing, mechanically (the DM gives you 'inspiration' if he wants to)
and, of course, are something I don't care for, personally, so I let my opinion override my objectivity...

...so, yeah, go ahead and count those up, too.  



> PF2 has numerically more options, primarily through the proliferation of Feats. These are mostly granular and crunchy differences.



 Granular & crunchy certainly counts. 
I would be curious to hear actual counts, even just approximate.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Granular & crunchy certainly counts.
> I would be curious to hear actual counts, even just approximate.
> 
> I didn't forget them, so much as dismissed them out of hands as they are:
> strictly optional
> totally arbitrary (you can just make 'em up)
> all do the same thing, mechanically (the DM gives you 'inspiration' if he wants to)
> and, of course, are something I don't care for, personally, so I let my opinion override my objectivity...
> 
> ...so, yeah, go ahead and count those up, too.




I find those tools in the Backgrounds section important to getting into a character as distinct.

PF2 Core Rulebook has:

6 Ancestries (No "Subrace" package equivalent, just Feat trees)
35 Backgrounds (basically a Feat selection, without much in the way of RP tools)
12 Classes (no "Subclasses" as such, just Feat trees)
12 "Archetypes" (optional Feat trees that replace multi-classing and Prestige Classes, the 12 in COre just repeat the 12 Classes as Feat trees)

Aaaaaand Feats. Many Feats. Ancestry Feats, Skill Feats, Blue Feats, Red Feats, Big Feats, Small Feats, Fuzzy Fur Feats. Feats, Feats, Feats. (by which I mean, I'm not going to count those, they are Legion)

The Feats are where the rubber meets the road for customization in PF2. Personally, my biggest criticism of 5E is that WotC didn't kill Feats with a stake and burn the body, sooooo yeeeeeaaaaah.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> PF2 Core Rulebook has:
> 6 Ancestries
> 35 Backgrounds
> 12 Classes
> 12 "Archetypes"



So, at a high level, pretty comparable, it sounds like....



> Aaaaaand Feats. Many Feats. Ancestry Feats, Skill Feats, Blue Feats, Red Feats, Big Feats, Small Feats, Fuzzy Fur Feats. Feats, Feats, Feats. (by which I mean, I'm not going to count those, they are Legion)



 ...and spells, I assume?  Or do the folks complaining about the wizard /really/ have something to complain about?


----------



## Retreater

Those of you who don't think there are enough options in 5e, I really recommend the 5e Masterclass Codex from ENWorld. Lots of great options in there to spice up your game.
Once the reviews feature comes back, I plan on doing a detailed dive for everybody.


----------



## Vael

I don't think either edition has really nailed feats. 5e, at least, has a strong idea, let's make feats bigger and more impactful to the character and also make them optional. I don't think they quite nailed that execution, a lot of them are pretty small.

But I'm even less a fan of Pathfinder 2's approach to feats. It's like 4e, so many tiny annoying feats. The feat bloat was a serious problem at the end of 4e's lifespan, and just looking at the SRD lists of feats, I'm already out on Pathfinder 2's feat bloat.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> So, at a high level, pretty comparable, it sounds like....
> 
> ...and spells, I assume?  Or do the folks complaining about the wizard /really/ have something to complain about?




Oh, yes, Spells as well.

including only the big "ABCs" of Ancestry/Race-Background-Class, and ignoring Ideals/Bonds/Flaws, Feats (and any Feat chains), multi-classing and spells:

5E in Core has 14 Race options * 16 Backgrounds * 80 Class options = 17,920 basic characters.

PF2 Core has 6 race options * 35 Backgrounds * 12 Classes = 2,520 basic characters.

Now, both provide tools to create more specific characters beyond the basic: and PF2 comes ahead in the crunch variation due to the multiple overlapping Feat chains, which include what are essentially equivalents to subraces and subclasses (you just have to work for them). The difference is that 5E provides more pre-set packages for players to choose from rather than building blocks, and focuses more on narrative tools like the Ideal/Bonds/Flaws (which really help make different characters different) and so on. I don't see how anybody could realistically accuse either game of lacking options.

Now, not having options that float one's boat, sure. PF2's Feat falls flat for me.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> including only the big "ABCs" of Ancestry/Race-Background-Class, and ignoring Ideals/Bonds/Flaws, Feats (and any Feat chains), multi-classing and spells:



Ignoring feats but counting sub-races & sub-classes does not sound right to me, so:

5E in Core has 9 Races * 16 Backgrounds * 12 Classes  = 1,728 basic characters.

PF2 Core has 6 race options * 35 Backgrounds * 12 Classes = 2,520 basic characters.

Still seems pretty comparable, at the high level.

5e's next level down sounds less granular, is all.  A sub-race or sub-class is maybe comparable to a whole feat-tree, or at least, one branch thereof.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Ignoring feats but counting sub-races & sub-classes does not sound right to me, so:
> 
> 5E in Core has 9 Races * 16 Backgrounds * 12 Classes  = 1,728 basic characters.
> 
> PF2 Core has 6 race options * 35 Backgrounds * 12 Classes = 2,520 basic characters.
> 
> Still seems pretty comparable, at the high level.
> 
> 5e's next level down sounds less granular, is all.  A sub-race or sub-class is maybe comparable to a whole feat-tree, or at least, one branch thereof.




Essentially, yes.

This can be viewed as a pro or a con in either direction, as taste dictates. For me, having the package ready to go makes it a viable option, rather than a pile of bricks.


----------



## Arilyn

Either game allows you to make fun characters. PF2 gives options for backing up personality characteristics with a wealth of small feats. 5e paints with  broader brush strokes, with less chance there'll be a mechanical option to fine tune your concept. In exchange, 5e has a lighter system.

You can prefer one over the other or enjoy both games for bringing different things to the table. But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?


----------



## Campbell

Let's engage in a little nuance here.

In Pathfinder Second Edition a feat is simply something you choose. Ancestries and Classes have very few bundled features, usually only the bare minimum required to realize it conceptually. Instead players design what their fighter or their dwarf looks like. Some classes are particularly good at this.  You get to decide how mystical, how athletic, or how kung fu focused your Monk is by selecting only the features you want. Some classes have subclass like options, but you generally get to decide how deep you want to lean into your subclass. A dragon instinct Barbarian could have a breath weapon, grow wings, and eventually transform into a dragon. They could also just have a flaming sword and have fire resistance and resistance to piercing weapons.

Archetypes allow to venture away from the themes of your class, although the thematic core stays with you. You never stop being a Fighter or a Barbarian. You also get to choose exactly what you want from them although you cannot invest in another archetype until you have invested 3 class feats in the archetype.

The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you buy the whole cow. In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach. 

The whole cow approaches provides a compelling package of thematically appropriate abilities designed to work in tandem. It also makes character creation much simpler. 

The select cut approach allows the individual player the ability to design exactly what they want, but it's up to them to make it all work together in play. 

At the table things tend to work out largely the same. You have the abilities you have and must face the opposition in front of you. So far the at the table the table complexity when it come to combat feels pretty similar to me. Pathfinder Second Edition has a lot more defined noncombat abilities so it feels more complex there.


----------



## darjr

I think it has fewer “choices”


----------



## Parmandur

Arilyn said:


> Either game allows you to make fun characters. PF2 gives options for backing up personality characteristics with a wealth of small feats. 5e paints with  broader brush strokes, with less chance there'll be a mechanical option to fine tune your concept. In exchange, 5e has a lighter system.
> 
> You can prefer one over the other or enjoy both games for bringing different things to the table. But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?




5E has the same amount of narrative "Stuff," it's just not Lego-bricked out. Which isn't a knock against PF2, it's a different approach (just like buying Lego bricks and action figures are different toy experiences, even if creative play is creative play).

TBH, if I wanted to put that much effort into PC Gen, I would go for GURPs or HERO, not a Class based system.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Campbell said:


> The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you _buy the whole cow_.



Or d/l the basic pdf, and get the milk for free. 







> In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach.



For instance, in PF2, the cow is necessarily dead. 
I'm not sure what that extended metaphor implies, I just liked the sound of it.


> The *whole cow* approaches provides a compelling package of thematically appropriate abilities.



Plus, y'know, it's _Sacred_.


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> Let's engage in a little nuance here.
> 
> In Pathfinder Second Edition a feat is simply something you choose. Ancestries and Classes have very few bundled features, usually only the bare minimum required to realize it conceptually. Instead players design what their fighter or their dwarf looks like. Some classes are particularly good at this.  You get to decide how mystical, how athletic, or how kung fu focused your Monk is by selecting only the features you want. Some classes have subclass like options, but you generally get to decide how deep you want to lean into your subclass. A dragon instinct Barbarian could have a breath weapon, grow wings, and eventually transform into a dragon. They could also just have a flaming sword and have fire resistance and resistance to piercing weapons.
> 
> Archetypes allow to venture away from the themes of your class, although the thematic core stays with you. You never stop being a Fighter or a Barbarian. You also get to choose exactly what you want from them although you cannot invest in another archetype until you have invested 3 class feats in the archetype.
> 
> The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you buy the whole cow. In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach.
> 
> The whole cow approaches provides a compelling package of thematically appropriate abilities designed to work in tandem. It also makes character creation much simpler.
> 
> The select cut approach allows the individual player the ability to design exactly what they want, but it's up to them to make it all work together in play.
> 
> At the table things tend to work out largely the same. You have the abilities you have and must face the opposition in front of you. So far the at the table the table complexity when it come to combat feels pretty similar to me. Pathfinder Second Edition has a lot more defined noncombat abilities so it feels more complex there.




That's about the long and the short of it.


----------



## Campbell

Parmandur said:


> 5E has the same amount of narrative "Stuff," it's just not Lego-bricked out. Which isn't a knock against PF2, it's a different approach (just like buying Lego bricks and action figures are different toy experiences, even if creative play is creative play).
> 
> TBH, if I wanted to put that much effort into PC Gen, I would go for GURPs or HERO, not a Class based system.




Although to be fair character creation does not feel exactly like building bricks. There are strong themes to each class. Class feats are strongly designed towards those themes. You can build more towards one theme or another, but your Rogue will still be a Rogue and your Monk will still be a Monk. It's a different experience than what games like HERO provide. It feels a little bit like deck building to me.

There is a very strong sense of ancestry and class identity that is hard to get away from. Archetypes like the Hellknight Armiger, Living Monolith and Aldori Duelist have their own thematic identities that help shape your character's identity. The game is definitely designed for how things feel.

Personally this attention to themes and identity is important to me in game design. Aesthetics are important to me even in CCGs and board games. My favorite role playing games all have strong ties to theme. Games like Exalted, Legend of the Five Rings, Apocalypse World, and Masks.


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> Although to be fair character creation does not feel exactly like building bricks. There are strong themes to each class. Class feats are strongly designed towards those themes. You can build more towards one theme or another, but your Rogue will still be a Rogue and your Monk will still be a Monk. It's a different experience than what games like HERO provide. It feels a little bit like deck building to me.
> 
> There is a very strong sense of ancestry and class identity that is hard to get away from. Archetypes like the Hellknight Armiger, Living Monolith and Aldori Duelist have their own thematic identities that help shape your character's identity. The game is definitely designed for how things feel.




Well, LEGO sets these days are pretty tightly themed, but the deck-building analogy works, too. For both games, really, just that 5E has a strongly railroaded deck-building system in place geared towards larger choices.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Remus Lupin said:


> And just for the record: I still disagree. The way that options are parsed in 5e feels paltry to me even when you take account of supplementary sources. Meanwhile, I think that Paizo's options are robust right out of the box, without me having to go out and invest in supplementary sources just to have the kind of flexibility in character creation that should be baseline.
> 
> And, I'll also add that when we discussed this around my 5e table, everyone agreed. You basically get three flavors of every kind of character with 5e. With PF2, the default provides many more options.
> 
> Some people prefer it one way, some the other, but it's a genuine issue, not "disingenuous" to express. I've never said anyone should do anything other than play the game they prefer. And PF2 certainly has a ready market in those of us who are less than fulfilled by 5e's approach.



I urge you to try to create characters in 5e. You will find with backgrounds alone you will get more than three flavors of characters. With ideals, bonds, flaws, personalities your also creating a more nuanced character. And a different character. With that alone you already have customization of your character. 
Absolutely your opinion is valid but it is disingenuous to make the claim your making. Unless you are trying to ignore the choices in character creation 5e gives you.

With PF2 I am finding sure there is a lot of choice. But a lot of that choice should have been part and parcel of the either ancestry itself or a class feature. It wants you to invest in what are actually false choices.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Tony Vargas said:


> I didn't forget them, so much as dismissed them out of hands as they are:
> strictly optional
> totally arbitrary (you can just make 'em up)
> all do the same thing, mechanically (the DM gives you 'inspiration' if he wants to)
> and, of course, are something I don't care for, personally, so I let my opinion override my objectivity...
> 
> ...so, yeah, go ahead and count those up, too.
> 
> Granular & crunchy certainly counts.
> I would be curious to hear actual counts, even just approximate.



Backgrounds give ways to meaningfully engage the world in the form of skills and tools proficiencies. And help provide a context for your character in it in the form of your personality. And the items you gain from it. 
Sure they can be optional. But they are absolutely a choice.


----------



## darjr

False choices? Maybe. But I think that isn’t objective but subjective?


----------



## Xenonnonex

Arilyn said:


> Either game allows you to make fun characters. PF2 gives options for backing up personality characteristics with a wealth of small feats. 5e paints with  broader brush strokes, with less chance there'll be a mechanical option to fine tune your concept. In exchange, 5e has a lighter system.
> 
> You can prefer one over the other or enjoy both games for bringing different things to the table. But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?



That is not the issue. The issue is claiming that 5e is _really_ anemic with character options and choice when that is untrue.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Xenonnonex said:


> Backgrounds ...



Were not what I was dissing, it was the bonds/raits/flaws/quirks/beignets/whatevers that are used to buck for inspiration (which as a DM, annoys me, so yeah, I conceded the point, already).


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Were not what I was dissing, it was the bonds/raits/flaws/quirks/beignets/whatevers that are used to buck for inspiration (which as a DM, annoys me, so yeah, I conceded the point, already).




Oh, man, that's easily one of my favorite parts of the game. I had a player turn the rolled-for Trait "There's nothing I like more than a good mystery" into her PC's spoken-out loud catchphrase. Good times.


----------



## Arilyn

Xenonnonex said:


> That is not the issue. The issue is claiming that 5e is _really_ anemic with character options and choice when that is untrue.



We have to account for differing tastes, and tendency to exagerrate features of a system we don't like. I know, I know, that never happens. 

I find it frustrating when players complain that PF is all about power builds and dpr, because I enjoy PF, and I'm as far off a power gamer as you can get. 

The frustration for some players is 5e feels like there are less character options. Archetypes only have a few points to add in alternate character options, for example. Personally, I have made a wide variety of 5e characters. They don't feel anemic, but I get players wanting more choice. PF2 offers that because of its more modular character design system. You can get into more nitty gritty detail.

I think that was poster's point before it spiralled into "my game is better than your game." (from both sides)


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Oh, man, that's easily one of my favorite parts of the game. I had a player turn the rolled-for Trait "There's nothing I like more than a good mystery" into her PC's spoken-out loud catchphrase. Good times.



I'm just not gonna either (a) remember 6 of these descriptors /per PC/, and give out attaboys everytime someone fluffs one of 'em, or (b) put up with players constantly pointing out, "hey, I just did something dumb, because it matches this sentence on my character sheet, can I have another free re-roll, pls?"  

More generally, I find carrot/stick RP incentives, where the DM must judge RP like a theatre critic - (let me just put on my Hat of Understatement, no attunement required, for a sec) _less than satisfactory_, from either side of the screen.

But, hey, that's just me.  
They exist, go ahead and count 'em as choices.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm just not gonna either (a) remember 6 of these descriptors /per PC/, and give out attaboys everytime someone fluffs one of 'em, or (b) put up with players constantly pointing out, "hey, I just did something dumb, because it matches this sentence on my character sheet, can I have another free re-roll, pls?"
> 
> More generally, I find carrot/stick RP incentives, where the DM must judge RP like a theatre critic - (let me just put on my Hat of Understatement, no attunement required, for a sec) _less than satisfactory_, from either side of the screen.
> 
> But, hey, that's just me.
> They exist, go ahead and count 'em as choices.




They are important enough to my experience of D&D that it was disappointing when PF2's implementation was just a Feat choice with none of that sort of flavor...


----------



## darjr

I ask for them at the table in AL games.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> They are important enough to my experience of D&D that it was disappointing when PF2's implementation was just a Feat choice with none of that sort of flavor...



Let's just say I'm glad they're so clearly optional in 5e.  Feats & MCing, too, for that matter.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> I ask for them at the table in AL games.




As well you ought.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Let's just say I'm glad they're so clearly optional in 5e.  Feats & MCing, too, for that matter.




Beauty of a modular system.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Beauty of a modular system.



Yes, being able to snap out modules that don't do what you're after is an advantage of modular systems.
5e being such a system is, at best, a polite exaggeration.  5e has some official variants and some explicitly optional rules.  But you can't decide "hey, I don't like traints/bonds/flaws/wwhatevertheotherthreeare," and replace that module with an equally functional alternative, for instance.  Rather, you can just go 'meh' and not opt into them.  Which is slightly more convenient than having to go 'ick' and banhammer them.  So there's that.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, being able to snap out modules that don't do what you're after is an advantage of modular systems.
> 5e being such a system is, at best, a polite exaggeration.  5e has some official variants and some explicitly optional rules.  But you can't decide "hey, I don't like traints/bonds/flaws/wwhatevertheotherthreeare," and replace that module with an equally functional alternative, for instance.  Rather, you can just go 'meh' and not opt into them.  Which is slightly more convenient than having to go 'ick' and banhammer them.  So there's that.




Sure, you can replace it easily enough: Xanathar's Guide goes so far as to offer a whole lifepath system.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Sure, you can replace it easily enough: Xanathar's Guide goes so far as to offer a whole lifepath system.



To replace Backgrounds or to replace //// the inspiration-fodder system?


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> To replace Backgrounds or to replace //// the inspiration-fodder system?




The latter, though it can be a replacement or supplement.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> The latter, though it can be a replacement or supplement.



So, not a module.

Sorry, I get persnickety about the meaning of 'modular.'  There was noise during the playtest that 5e might be modular, there was never any development to indicate it was going in that direction, and it ultimately wasn't modular.  It was DM-Empowering,. put some rules in the option ghetto/enshrined others as somehow non-optional, and it is clearly very open to variants, including presenting some official variants.  Which does not add up to the same thing as 'modular.'


----------



## Remus Lupin

Arilyn said:


> But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?




It seems some folks are arguing that it both has less stuff AND even more stuff!


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> So, not a module.
> 
> Sorry, I get persnickety about the meaning of 'modular.'  There was noise during the playtest that 5e might be modular, there was never any development to indicate it was going in that direction, and it ultimately wasn't modular.  It was DM-Empowering,. put some rules in the option ghetto/enshrined others as somehow non-optional, and it is clearly very open to variants, including presenting some official variants.  Which does not add up to the same thing as 'modular.'




It is modular in that there are multiple variants of many rules (see much of the DMG), and changing one thing usually has limited repercussions to the whole.


----------



## Parmandur

Remus Lupin said:


> It seems some folks are arguing that it both has less stuff AND even more stuff!




5E has fewer decision points, and more pre-built packages.


----------



## Remus Lupin

Campbell said:


> The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you buy the whole cow. In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach.




I like this way of expressing it, and it does a better job of expressing what I'm trying to say than I have. I've never denied it's a question of preferences, with some preferring 5e and others PF2. What seems strange to me is that this conversation seemed to begin with the idea that PF2 is unnecessary (and ill advised) because we already had 5e. My argument is that, even with 5e, there's an important niche in the ecology that PF2 will fill. I happen to inhabit that niche.


----------



## Eric V

Campbell said:


> The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you buy the whole cow. In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach.




Having said that, PF2 does provide the whole cow, at least at first level.  For each class, there are examples along the lines of "If you want to play a swashbuckler, choose the following..." and voila!  Toon is ready to go.

Both options are present in PF2.


----------



## Zardnaar

Xenonnonex said:


> That is not the issue. The issue is claiming that 5e is _really_ anemic with character options and choice when that is untrue.




It is anemic compared to PF2 Ina core book to core book comparison.

There's only 2 or 3 options for most classes you make very few decisions you just pick from a preselected package of stuff.

5 years in no new official classes, 3pp ones tend to be terrible, 3pp archetypes are a lot better.

Xanathars is more of the same but with a lot of power creep.

I still prefer 5E but yeah relative to 3.5, 4E, SWSE, or core book to core book it does lack a lot of stuff.

There's a lot more depth when you get into it more but I'm sure that's the same as PF2 plus you get a lot more moving parts at a first glance type scenario.

5Es good, it's not perfect has some if its own problems and doesn't do some things very well (grittiness, low powered setting etc).

Personally not a fan of PF2 but yeah it has more moving parts than 5E.


----------



## CapnZapp

Those claiming 5E has many build choices clearly have never played previous editions.

Getting to pick a Background there, a subclass here, is not even close to the customization available in d20.

Backgrounds is a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.

Most if not all subclasses added in supplements only reshuffle existing abilities and mechanics already offered by the PHB.

Claiming this is "much choice"? Please.


----------



## CapnZapp

That said, the subject here is PF2.

Does it offer any real choices, or is it just an illusion of choice?

Talking charbuild here - if the wall of feats only offer choices that don't give any meaningfully impact, then, yes it reminds me of 4E.

In the way the philosophy seems to be that it is how you choose to play your playing piece in action that matters.

Don't get me wrong, 4E offered a wonderful tactical experience. Thing is, if PF2 does the same (emphasis on what your character does , not what it is) how can we NOT say Pathfinder 2 isn't Paizo's 4E?

The trouble, you see, is that many people don't like or want this philosophy! (I'd argue most people even, but that's neither here nor there)

People are distracted from discussing the core issue.

The core issue is this: why on Earth did Paizo think the time was right for a game with ANY influences from 4E?


----------



## CapnZapp

Specifically: far too many PF2 feats are of the "use this bonus instead of that bonus for this specific action".

From a 5E point of view (which the vast majority of presumptive customers will have): "why not simply assume the character can apply his best bonuses in any given instance?"

Bluntly speaking: loads and LOADS of PF2 feats could have just been done away with if the game just assumed the simple and straightforward stance of saying yes.

From a perhaps less charitable viewpoint: all those feats just try to divert you away from the fact you can't transcend the devs view of what your character class can accomplish. Each class presents a box, and you cannot reach outside of that box.

For instance (and this is most baffling): once you select your character class (at level 1) your core proficiencies are locked in: weapon (offense), armor and saves (defense). There is no meaningful multiclass (in the sense that you actually become something of the other class) - a Fighter with Wizard dedication remains 100% a fighter, only with a smattering of spells.

This is MILES APART from Pathfinder 1, where every single knob or lever was in the power of a crafty player to adjust.

In a very strange way, PF2 comes across as even more bounded than 5E. (It's just that the boundary is tied to level.)

I haven't found a single feat that meaningfully lets one character do something others cannot. They're all carefully constructed to only allow things the game considers balanced in the first place. You might think you open new boxes when you pick various feats, but really all you do is release constraints that prevented you from achieving nominal performance.

It's still early days (and so I am not yet a master of the rules), but spells seems to be the chief candidate for a true outlet (of achieving things "outside the norm"). As opposed to 4E, that is, where spells were just regular actions in disguise.

Feats arent. Magic items sure doesn't seem to be. There's no multiclassing (in the 3E/5E) sense.


----------



## Zardnaar

My main problem with PF2 is presentation. I need a book but the PDF is enough to make me not want to fork out to buy said book.

It's something I would need to be able to blob out on the couch with and digest over several weeks.

I'm not convinced PF2 execution was right. Something like 5E math with Star War Saga Edition classes could help and achieve a lot of what PF2 does.

Still it might work for them if it's still around in 5 years or so it's a success.


----------



## Xenonnonex

In my experience with building PF2 characters I am finding the system corridors me into certain paths. Some choices are much better than others and I am choosing these options. I can certainly try the other choices but they seem to achieve little in game. This is of course my experience and YMMV.


----------



## Xenonnonex

CapnZapp said:


> Backgrounds is a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.



I would hardly call gaining skill proficiencies, gaining tool proficiencies, gaining equipment, gaining spells in certain backgrounds as just a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.


----------



## Zardnaar

Xenonnonex said:


> In my experience with building PF2 characters I am finding the system corridors me into certain paths. Some choices are much better than others and I am choosing these options. I can certainly try the other choices but they seem to achieve little in game. This is of course my experience and YMMV.




Modern D&D kind of does that as well.


----------



## Remathilis

CapnZapp said:


> Those claiming 5E has many build choices clearly have never played previous editions.
> 
> Getting to pick a Background there, a subclass here, is not even close to the customization available in d20.
> 
> Backgrounds is a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.
> 
> Most if not all subclasses added in supplements only reshuffle existing abilities and mechanics already offered by the PHB.
> 
> Claiming this is "much choice"? Please.



I played Basic and AD&D and 5e clearly has more choice points than either.


----------



## Imaro

Xenonnonex said:


> With PF2 I am finding sure there is a lot of choice. But a lot of that choice should have been part and parcel of the either ancestry itself or a class feature. It wants you to invest in what are actually false choices.




Ok I thought I was the only one who was thinking this, especially when it comes to ancestries.  It takes multiple levels and choices to basically get everything that's handed to you at level 1 in D&D 5e.  And to be fair I guess there are a small number of variant options but overall it left me with the impression people were lauding deep customization when in fact it was just spreading out of the same abilities over more levels... Like you said, false choices.


----------



## CapnZapp

Xenonnonex said:


> I would hardly call gaining skill proficiencies, gaining tool proficiencies, gaining equipment, gaining spells in certain backgrounds as just a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.



Then you don't know choices that bring crunch.

They can make up new Backgrounds all day long, and it changes absolutely nothing: you're just recombining existing choices.

No new crunch at all.


----------



## Rhianni32

Its always interesting to read discussions of people saying a system is broken because ABC choices in character building are the best and XYZ is useless because a different system that has a class with the same name is the preferred choice.
Course then others end up saying no they feel XYZ is too OP and needs nerfing because nobody would pick ABC.


----------



## CapnZapp

Remathilis said:


> I played Basic and AD&D and 5e clearly has more choice points than either.



You are deliberately skipping multiple decades worth of D&D just to make a cheap point.


----------



## CapnZapp

Imaro said:


> Ok I thought I was the only one who was thinking this, especially when it comes to ancestries. It takes multiple levels and choices to basically get everything that's handed to you at level 1 in D&D 5e. And to be fair I guess there are a small number of variant options but overall it left me with the impression people were lauding deep customization when in fact it was just spreading out of the same abilities over more levels... Like you said, false choices.



False and false... But yes, choices that merely remove restrictions that needn't have been there in the first place.

As opposed to choices that actually let you branch out to do stuff outside of the box.

5E's Great Weapon Fighting is a brutally crude but also brilliantly obvious example: it basically gives you +50% damage.

Not saying this differential is balanced or desired. Just holding it up to those unsure what I mean by "more bounded than 5E" and "reaching outside the box".

In sharp contrast, PF2 feats seems to be carefully curated to never give you anything extra, always only giving you the bounded ability. 

A feat never gives you an actual edge, it only ever gives you the ability to use this other bonus in place of this here bonus. It means you get to be as good as someone who was good at it all along; but it never lets you minmax, it never gives, say, that +2 bonus that would have allowed you to "climb outside the box"...


----------



## Retreater

CapnZapp said:


> The core issue is this: why on Earth did Paizo think the time was right for a game with ANY influences from 4E?




5e, though highly successful, seems like largely a reaction against 4e (and to a lesser extent, the 3.x/PF model of game design). Paizo had several choices to make when it came to designing Pathfinder 2 while keeping a "D&D flavor." 
1. They could try to mimic 5e D&D, though without the name recognition, market presence, corporate status, and 5 years of design that goes with 5e. Against that juggernaut, how could they compete with that?  
2. They could go OSR, with streamlined mechanics and fewer options - think Castles and Crusades, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, Forbidden Lands, et al. These games have their niche audiences and place in the gaming space, but none have the traction of D&D or PF.
3. They could have just done a "soft reboot" of PF and made it very similar to 3.x/PF1. They would be competing against themselves and the massive amount of material they released.
4. Or they can address the crunch and tactical combat of 3.x/4e, try to make a game that people are wanting and that they (the designers) wanted to make. Try to streamline it. Try to make a game that feels more like the classic D&D experience (as opposed to 4e).

So I think they made a game that they could enjoy, their fans could enjoy. If it's not for you, just ignore it, like I ignore Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Numenera.


----------



## Remathilis

CapnZapp said:


> You are deliberately skipping multiple decades worth of D&D just to make a cheap point.



1974 - 1999: less than 5e
2000 - 2014: more than 5e

25 > 14

Assuming your just counting core rules only; else the Player's Options era of 2e dwarfs them all.


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> Then you don't know choices that bring crunch.
> 
> They can make up new Backgrounds all day long, and it changes absolutely nothing: you're just recombining existing choices.
> 
> No new crunch at all.




Fluff choices are important to character creation in an RPG, possibly more important than crunch in my experience. And as has been pointed out, 5E has more crunch knobs than most of D&D throughout the history of the game.


----------



## CapnZapp

Retreater said:


> 5e, though highly successful, seems like largely a reaction against 4e (and to a lesser extent, the 3.x/PF model of game design). Paizo had several choices to make when it came to designing Pathfinder 2 while keeping a "D&D flavor."
> 1. They could try to mimic 5e D&D, though without the name recognition, market presence, corporate status, and 5 years of design that goes with 5e. Against that juggernaut, how could they compete with that?
> 2. They could go OSR, with streamlined mechanics and fewer options - think Castles and Crusades, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, Forbidden Lands, et al. These games have their niche audiences and place in the gaming space, but none have the traction of D&D or PF.
> 3. They could have just done a "soft reboot" of PF and made it very similar to 3.x/PF1. They would be competing against themselves and the massive amount of material they released.
> 4. Or they can address the crunch and tactical combat of 3.x/4e, try to make a game that people are wanting and that they (the designers) wanted to make. Try to streamline it. Try to make a game that feels more like the classic D&D experience (as opposed to 4e).
> 
> So I think they made a game that they could enjoy, their fans could enjoy. If it's not for you, just ignore it, like I ignore Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Numenera.



Please don't try to dismiss my concerns with "if not for you, try..."

What fans do you speak of? 4E fans who somehow prefer the Lost Age world?

Obviously approach #1 could have worked for them. A) they're not supposed to compete with 5E, they would supplement it! B) like it or not, unless they stay in WotC's orbit, Paizo is just another wannabe heartbreaker publisher.


----------



## CapnZapp

Remathilis said:


> 1974 - 1999: less than 5e
> 2000 - 2014: more than 5e
> 
> 25 > 14
> 
> Assuming your just counting core rules only; else the Player's Options era of 2e dwarfs them all.



Good job!

Doubling down on your insistence to completely miss the point!  

I guess I have to tell you the obvious: multiply each year with number of gamers and you'll see the true relevance of your posts...


----------



## darjr

CapnZapp said:


> False and false... But yes, choices that merely remove restrictions ....
> 
> A feat never gives you an actual edge, it only ever gives you the ability to use this other bonus in place of this here bonus. It means you get to be as good as someone who was good at it all along; but it never lets you minmax, it never gives, say, that +2 bonus that would have allowed you to "climb outside the box"...



Could you give a concrete example?


----------



## Parmandur

CapnZapp said:


> Good job!
> 
> Doubling down on your insistence to completely miss the point!
> 
> I guess I have to tell you the obvious: multiply each year with number of gamers and you'll see the true relevance of your posts...




That amplifies @Remathilis  point, though, as BD&D is the biggest pre-5E edition by players (which had Race as Class, reducing character build decisions to one).


----------



## Retreater

CapnZapp said:


> Please don't try to dismiss my concerns with "if not for you, try..."
> 
> What fans do you speak of? 4E fans who somehow prefer the Lost Age world?
> 
> Obviously approach #1 could have worked for them. A) they're not supposed to compete with 5E, they would supplement it! B) like it or not, unless they stay in WotC's orbit, Paizo is just another wannabe heartbreaker publisher.




I run for several groups who would like more tactical options than what 5e presents, while still maintaining the basic feel of the d20 mechanics. 4e was a little on the bloated side for us, and it's no longer supported. Which is a real issue, as WotC really drove home the need for the online character generator. While trying to run a 4e campaign with a homebrewed online character generator, it really just fell apart. 

So this is a good balance between 5e and 4e for my groups. 

And I try to avoid arguing online, but yeah, I'll dismiss your concerns. Unless you're an employee of Paizo, a stakeholder in their company, you have exactly 0% of a right to complain about what direction they take their company. This is a hobby - not your job, not your career, not your family, not your personal health or well being. If it's not fun for you, do something else. Find another game. Continue to play whatever you like.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Retreater said:


> Unless you're an employee of Paizo, a stakeholder in their company, you have exactly 0% of a right to complain about what direction they take their company. This is a hobby - not your job, not your career, not your family, not your personal health or well being. If it's not fun for you, do something else. Find another game. Continue to play whatever you like.



You can't be serious. He's a _consumer_. Consumers complain about choices companies make constantly. In fact, go on any social media and it seems it's all consumers do.


----------



## Parmandur

Matrix Sorcica said:


> You can't be serious. He's a _consumer_. Consumers complain about choices companies make constantly. In fact, go on any social media and it seems it's all consumers do.




I'm pretty sure that @CapnZapp complains about things that he cares about, he has every right to do so.


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> Those claiming 5E has many build choices clearly have never played previous editions.
> Getting to pick a Background there, a subclass here, is not even close to the customization available in d20.
> Backgrounds is a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.



The 5e backgrounds gives you a couple/few proficiencies - might be weapon, skill or tool - and a social perk of some sort.  That's better than /some/ 2e Kits did (and not nearly as good as others, because, well, 2e Kits were wildly inconsistent, that way).  And, it's more than 4e backgrounds (just a benefit with one skill, for the most part), if less than 4e Themes, and more than 3e backgrounds, on account of they didn't exist - which isn't fair, 3e Professional/Craft skills could step in and pass for backgrounds.



> Most if not all subclasses added in supplements only reshuffle existing abilities and mechanics already offered by the PHB.



5e has been cautious about adding anything that can't be neatly ignored, yes.



CapnZapp said:


> Thing is, if PF2 does the same  how can we NOT say Pathfinder 2 isn't Paizo's 4E?



4e did a /lot/ of things that the D&D fanbase nerdraged about:  it balanced casters & martials, it presented clearer, more consistent rules that were less familiar to established players but easier for new players to jump in with, it emphasized out of combat challenges that engaged the whole party instead of turning on a single roll or spell from a specialist, it made DMing phone-it-in-easy with encounter guidelines that were easy to use and delivered more dependable challenge, it sidelined magic items as an only-moderately-important character build resource, it opened up concepts the game had never done or never done well through new classes, backgrounds, themes/PP/EDs, and virtually-unrestricted player-side re-skinning.  

PF2 seems to have done a couple of those things, it's gotten the same XOMG! The WIzard's Been NERFED! reaction 4e did, initially, (even though the wizard remained the most versatile & sysetem-mastery-abuseable class even in 4e), so maybe it's tilted towards class balance relative to 3.5/PF1 or 5e.  It has introduced some rules around skills that might make them more significant in & out of combat.  ...and that's really about it.



> The core issue is this: why on Earth did Paizo think the time was right for a game with ANY influences from 4E?



I think Paizo is looking at a very different market.  In 2009, PF1 only had to pick up the real-D&D crown that WotC had thrown in the mud and trampled on, and it was guaranteed stunning financial success for a non-D&D game.  In 2019, D&D is really-D&D again, and enjoying a resurgence in popularity not seen since the initial fad flopped, a full-bore come-back.  It's choices were really to jump on that bandwagon and go back to making supplements for D&D, or strike out on their own with Golarion & PF... but, to do that, they'd have to actually make PF2 /a better game/ than PF1.  Since PF1 is so much like 3.5, and since 4e was also a (largely successful) attempt to make a technically better game to follow 3.5, PF2 happens to have improved on PF1 in some of the same ways.


IMHO, jumping on the bandwagon would've been the better call.  The history of the hobby is written on the bones of games that thought being better than D&D would mean success.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> IMHO, jumping on the bandwagon would've been the better call. The history of the hobby is written on the bones of games that thought being better than D&D would mean success.




In strictly business terms, I think you are right. Like previous heartbreakers, though, if they are enjoying themselves and meeting their ownership's goals, all power to them.


----------



## Xenonnonex

CapnZapp said:


> Then you don't know choices that bring crunch.
> 
> They can make up new Backgrounds all day long, and it changes absolutely nothing: you're just recombining existing choices.
> 
> No new crunch at all.



Dismissing them as crunch does not mean they are not crunch.


----------



## Garthanos

Tony Vargas said:


> That's better than /some/ 2e Kits did (and not nearly as good as others, because, well, 2e Kits were wildly inconsistent, that way).  And, it's more than 4e backgrounds (just a benefit with one skill, for the most part),



4e did have a subset of backgrounds approximately on the same order as a feat ... Additionally you could pretty much give them the benefits of 3 generic ones instead of the Forgotten Realms or the other potent group and allow any just fine.  (which is my preference though others might restrict to one or the other)  - Themes really are basically super backgrounds of even greater scope with multi-classing swap outs which worked very very well.


----------



## Parmandur

Garthanos said:


> 4e did have a subset of backgrounds approximately on the same order as a feat ... Additionally you could pretty much give them the benefits of 3 generic ones instead of the Forgotten Realms or the other potent group and allow any just fine.  (which is my preference though others might restrict to one or the other)  - Themes really are basically super backgrounds of even greater scope with multi-classing swap outs which worked very very well.




4E Themes were pretty cool, that's something I'd like to see make a comeback in 5E (maybe replacing the ASI slots like Feats).  PF2 does have Archetypes, which fill much of the same role, too.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Garthanos said:


> 4e did have a subset of backgrounds approximately on the same order as a feat ... Additionally you could pretty much give them the benefits of 3 generic ones instead of the Forgotten Realms or the other potent group and allow any just fine.  (which is my preference though others might restrict to one or the other)  - Themes really are basically super backgrounds of even greater scope with multi-classing swap outs which worked very very well.



The original FR backgrounds seemed excessive, and one or two were even demonstrably broken and Updated with extreme prejudice. 
I'm not sure what you mean by the same order as a feat reference?

And, yes, Themes were like Backgrounds turned up from trivial to modestly important - really, 4e Backgrounds were like 5e backgrounds, but less so, and 4e Themes were like 5e backgrounds, but more so.  And both were nominally optional, anyway (even PP/ED were nominally optional).



Parmandur said:


> 4E Themes were pretty cool, that's something I'd like to see make a comeback in 5E (maybe replacing the ASI slots like Feats).  PF2 does have Archetypes, which fill much of the same role, too.



 It'd be as simple as giving Backgrounds a few perks that are level gated.  They could be Feats, or they could, like feats, take the place of an ASI, without actually invoking the feat rules, thus being useable w/o them.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> The original FR backgrounds seemed excessive, and one or two were even demonstrably broken and Updated with extreme prejudice.
> I'm not sure what you mean by the same order as a feat reference?
> 
> And, yes, Themes were like Backgrounds turned up from trivial to modestly important - really, 4e Backgrounds were like 5e backgrounds, but less so, and 4e Themes were like 5e backgrounds, but more so.  And both were nominally optional, anyway (even PP/ED were nominally optional).
> 
> It'd be as simple as giving Backgrounds a few perks that are level gated.  They could be Feats, or they could, like feats, take the place of an ASI, without actually invoking the feat rules, thus being useable w/o them.




Now that you mention it, the Guilds in Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica are that already: Backgrounds, with Tier based upgrades.


----------



## Garthanos

Tony Vargas said:


> The original FR backgrounds seemed excessive, and one or two were even demonstrably broken and Updated with extreme prejudice.
> I'm not sure what you mean by the same order as a feat reference?



Same order of potency...  a feat provides anything from +3 (stackable) to a skill to 5/10/15 hitpoints (very like using a primary for hit points instead of a tertiary) and Scales of War is the other one with significant backgrounds it has a +3 to intimidation for Wandering Duellist  - I consider those two sets of backgrounds on par with gaining a feat.


----------



## Eric V

Tony Vargas said:


> IMHO, jumping on the bandwagon would've been the better call.  The history of the hobby is written on the bones of games that thought being better than D&D would mean success.




As long as it doesn't tank the company, I'm glad they didn't.  We already have one company producing a game to be popular; I'd rather they take their best shot at what they think the best play experience would be, even if it doesn't quite get there.


----------



## Imaro

Eric V said:


> As long as it doesn't tank the company, I'm glad they didn't.  We already have one company producing a game to be popular; I'd rather they take their best shot at what they think the best play experience would be, even if it doesn't quite get there.




You act as if being popular and providing what one thinks the best play experience would be are mutually exclusive... they aren't.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> You act as if being popular and providing what one thinks the best play experience would be are mutually exclusive... they aren't.



They needn't be.   Depends on how close "what one thinks the best play experience" potentially might be is to what the market turns out to demand, at the moment. 
If the market demands banging your head against a brick wall, and that's not your idea of a fine play experience, they're mutually exclusive.  There's no accounting for taste.

...but...



Eric V said:


> As long as it doesn't tank the company, I'm glad they didn't.  We already have one company producing a game to be popular; I'd rather they take their best shot at what they think the best play experience would be, even if it doesn't quite get there.



 Jumping on the 5e bandwagon wouldn't be producing a game to be popular, it'd be producing supplements for a game that's already popular - and could even be producing said supplements /with the hope of providing the best play experience/ possible under that game.


----------



## Campbell

Here's the thing - I do not think Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford designed a game to be popular. Fifth Edition is not a direct distillation of feedback and focus groups because that's a horrible way to design a game or do anything creative. I think like all creative professionals they designed something they wanted to play that they believed would be acceptable. Based on a lot of commentary I have seen from Mike Mearls I firmly believe this was always the game he wanted to play and hoped others would too. There's a fairly direct line between Essentials and Fifth Edition.


----------



## Eric V

Campbell said:


> Here's the thing - I do not think Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford designed a game to be popular. Fifth Edition is not a direct distillation of feedback and focus groups because that's a horrible way to design a game or do anything creative. I think like all creative professionals they designed something they wanted to play that they believed would be acceptable. Based on a lot of commentary I have seen from Mike Mearls I firmly believe this was always the game he wanted to play and hoped others would too. There's a fairly direct line between Essentials and Fifth Edition.




You're reading it differently from me, I guess.  From the ideas in the test packets to what we have now, a _lot _of sway was given to feedback; they've said so themselves.  There are even times where they have said they thought an idea was good but the feedback was negative so they nixed it.

Because they have a new business goal with D&D (to be evergreen like Monopoly, Risk, etc.) they approached it differently...and they succeeded, without a doubt.  The success is because they paid attention to what was popular and what wasn't.  I don't see how that's a particularly controversial statement, tbh.


----------



## Eric V

Tony Vargas said:


> Jumping on the 5e bandwagon wouldn't be producing a game to be popular, it'd be producing supplements for a game that's already popular - and could even be producing said supplements /with the hope of providing the best play experience/ possible under that game.




Yeah, I guess...but the designers may not have wanted to handcuff themselves that way if they felt the actual product of 5e wasn't as good as their own stuff.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Eric V said:


> Yeah, I guess...but the designers may not have wanted to handcuff themselves that way if they felt the actual product of 5e wasn't as good as their own stuff.



As good (or better) doesn't necessarily sell like as popular.

PF2 is very likely, by some valid criteria or for some set of preferences, a better game than 5e.  Possibly much better.  Heck, I might end up playing PF2 in preference to 5e, if given the chance (of course, I've felt that way about Savage Worlds before I finally tried it, and about 13A though the chance rarely presents itself).  
But the 5e bandwagon is getting a lot more money thrown at it.  Jumping on wouldn't've been a bad business idea for Paizo, given that their rep would have given them a strong position producing adventures & supplements.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Campbell said:


> Here's the thing - I do not think Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford designed a game to be popular. Fifth Edition is not a direct distillation of feedback and focus groups because that's a horrible way to design a game or do anything creative.



They sure painted it as a direct distillation of feedback.  I agree it's not, or not just that.  But popular, at least in the sense of broadly acceptable, was clearly a prime goal.

And it's not like anyone wants to produce a product that no one buys.  Well, anyone actually running a company for profit.



> I think like all creative professionals they designed something they wanted to play that they believed would be acceptable. Based on a lot of commentary I have seen from Mike Mearls I firmly believe this was always the game he wanted to play and hoped others would too. There's a fairly direct line between Essentials and Fifth Edition.



Essentials was also very much a response to 'feedback.'  (If more of the ear-splitting screech sort.)


----------



## Eric V

Tony Vargas said:


> As good (or better) doesn't necessarily sell like as popular.




No, it certainly doesn't.

As I wrote, I wouldn't want the company to go down, but barring that, I am glad they gave it their best creative shot.


----------



## Garthanos

Eric V said:


> You're reading it differently from me, I guess.  From the ideas in the test packets to what we have now, a _lot _of sway was given to feedback; they've said so themselves.



The questions always seemed targetted to get the results they were after to me. At least in the first few till I got tired of it pretty fast being obvious that 4e fans were not actually welcome or their target audience. This is indeed pretty subjective we can suppose but I see it more like Campbell


----------



## Campbell

I think the idea that an independent publishing house could survive or even thrive off of becoming a third party publisher for another company's game is not necessarily a valid assumption to make. Fifth Edition makes Wizard of the Coast a lot of money. However, unless Matt Mercer or Matthew Colville are attached it has not proven to make anyone else a lot of money. Being #2 in the market, even if it remains a distant #2 provides Paizo with a good chunk of revenue.

Would they really be selling more books or get more prominent shelving space if they were selling source books and adventures for Fifth Edition?

Would they have to plan their release cycle around Fifth Edition? Paizo is already planning well into 2021.

If they start selling really well what does Wizards do to respond? What happens if there is an edition change?

I think the only way this would ever work is some sort of exclusive deal to make D&D branded products and given their history Paizo is loathe to attach themselves to anyone else's ship. They had to scramble and drastically change their business model because of decisions made by Wizards of the Coast before. Being independent to formulate business plans and steer their own ship might be worth it even if revenue is not as strong as it could be (I do not think that is the case anyway).


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> Here's the thing - I do not think Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford designed a game to be popular. Fifth Edition is not a direct distillation of feedback and focus groups because that's a horrible way to design a game or do anything creative. I think like all creative professionals they designed something they wanted to play that they believed would be acceptable. Based on a lot of commentary I have seen from Mike Mearls I firmly believe this was always the game he wanted to play and hoped others would too. There's a fairly direct line between Essentials and Fifth Edition.




Thing is, Mearls has detailed what he would do differently if he had his way rather than following through with making what people wanted (making the game a dice-pooling system, for instance). They really did go out of their way to figure out what the public wanted, and designed for it. To this day, surveys have veto power over new material, which is why there was no mass combat system published until Ghosts of Saltmarsh.


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> I think the idea that an independent publishing house could survive or even thrive off of becoming a third party publisher for another company's game is not necessarily a valid assumption to make. Fifth Edition makes Wizard of the Coast a lot of money. However, unless Matt Mercer or Matthew Colville are attached it has not proven to make anyone else a lot of money. Being #2 in the market, even if it remains a distant #2 provides Paizo with a good chunk of revenue.
> 
> Would they really be selling more books or get more prominent shelving space if they were selling source books and adventures for Fifth Edition?
> 
> Would they have to plan their release cycle around Fifth Edition? Paizo is already planning well into 2021.
> 
> If they start selling really well what does Wizards do to respond? What happens if there is an edition change?
> 
> I think the only way this would ever work is some sort of exclusive deal to make D&D branded products and given their history Paizo is loathe to attach themselves to anyone else's ship. They had to scramble and drastically change their business model because of decisions made by Wizards of the Coast before. Being independent to formulate business plans and steer their own ship might be worth it even if revenue is not as strong as it could be (I do not think that is the case anyway).




On the contrary, there are several companies who focus on making third party 5E content. Kobold Press and Goodman Games are prime examples (Into the Borderlands is the best-selling product in Goodman Games history).


----------



## Tony Vargas

Campbell said:


> Would they really be selling more books or get more prominent shelving space if they were selling source books and adventures for Fifth Edition?



I suspect they could.  WotC has shown a clear unwillingness to go certain places with 5e.  Paizo, with the rep they earned doing PF1, could have gone those places, taking 5e there for those who wanted it.  It might have been lucrative, it might even have turned them into a headspace leader, even though market leader was doubtless off the table.



> Would they have to plan their release cycle around Fifth Edition? Paizo is already planning well into 2021.



Yes, but the 5e pace of releases is so slow, that hardly seems a burden.



> If they start selling really well what does Wizards do to respond?



 Throw them a party? Farm out more stuff to them?  They'd essentially be on the same team, at that point, Paizo supplements selling super-well would only further drive sales of the 5e core and further cement the dominance of the D&D brand. 

Might not be best for the hobby or all the fans or artistically inspiring, but from a business PoV, what's not to like about success?



> What happens if there is an edition change?



What happened time before last?  The market is WotC's to lose, not Paizo's to win. Each time WotC changes direction, rolls a rev, there's a chance they'll blow it.



> I think the only way this would ever work is some sort of exclusive deal to make D&D branded products and given their history Paizo is loathe to attach themselves to anyone else's ship. They had to scramble and drastically change their business model because of decisions made by Wizards of the Coast before.



But, ultimately, those decisions hurt WotC, why would they repeat such mistakes when they're doing so well?


----------



## Campbell

Parmandur said:


> On the contrary, there are several companies who focus on making third party 5E content. Kobold Press and Goodman Games are prime examples (Into the Borderlands is the best-selling product in Goodman Games history).




I am talking about publishers who print books and get them to game stores and book stores here. There is a massive difference in terms of scale. Paizo currently publishes the #2 and #3 game on the market. They sell game branded game aids and miniatures. They have a large number of full time employees. The only other publisher who comes close is Fantasy Flight Games.

I am not saying that becoming a Dungeons and Dragons third party publisher would have never worked, but I think it would have been at least as risky. I am also not talking about it merely working, but working better than what they are doing. I do not feel that this is a safe assumption to make.

I admit I have a bias here, but not the one you would probably think. I believe the hobby is better off with more games that are meaningfully differentiated from each other. I think it is important for us to have choice and diversity in the hobby.


----------



## Arilyn

And from what I can see Paizo is happy with sales. They are also doing well with Starfinder. Why attach your fortunes to another game company if you can thrive doing your own thing?

Lisa Stevens is smart and has been successfully managing Paizo for many years now. She knows the business and the market. Paizo takes risks but they are always calculated risks.


----------



## Campbell

Parmandur said:


> Thing is, Mearls has detailed what he would do differently if he had his way rather than following through with making what people wanted (making the game a dice-pooling system, for instance). They really did go out of their way to figure out what the public wanted, and designed for it. To this day, surveys have veto power over new material, which is why there was no mass combat system published until Ghosts of Saltmarsh.




Of course they took feedback under consideration in design changes were made because of it. However, the shape of the game did not fundamentally change because of feedback. That's a good thing by the way. It is good for designers to have a vision and execute on it. They used targeted surveys for acceptance testing and to see how players actually playing the game were experiencing it. They never said what kind of game do you want us to design because they knew what kind of game they were going to design.

There were creative professionals designing a game - not marketing professionals. It would not be nearly as good if the game were designed by committee.


----------



## Parmandur

Campbell said:


> Of course they took feedback under consideration in design changes were made because of it. However, the shape of the game did not fundamentally change because of feedback. That's a good thing by the way. It is good for designers to have a vision and execute on it. They used targeted surveys for acceptance testing and to see how players actually playing the game were experiencing it. They never said what kind of game do you want us to design because they knew what kind of game they were going to design.
> 
> There were creative professionals designing a game - not marketing professionals. It would not be nearly as good if the game were designed by committee.




Well, it kind of did fundamentally change over time. Not from being D&D into Monopoly or something, but fundamental parts of their vision did not survive. And honestly, the game is better for it.

They are not marketing professionals, but they brought those in to help design and run the feedback process. Oftentimes, committees produce superior products, if the process is managed well.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Tony Vargas said:


> I suspect they could.  WotC has shown a clear unwillingness to go certain places with 5e.  Paizo, with the rep they earned doing PF1, could have gone those places, taking 5e there for those who wanted it.  It might have been lucrative, it might even have turned them into a headspace leader, even though market leader was doubtless off the table.
> 
> Yes, but the 5e pace of releases is so slow, that hardly seems a burden.
> 
> Throw them a party? Farm out more stuff to them?  They'd essentially be on the same team, at that point, Paizo supplements selling super-well would only further drive sales of the 5e core and further cement the dominance of the D&D brand.
> 
> Might not be best for the hobby or all the fans or artistically inspiring, but from a business PoV, what's not to like about success?
> 
> What happened time before last?  The market is WotC's to lose, not Paizo's to win. Each time WotC changes direction, rolls a rev, there's a chance they'll blow it.
> 
> But, ultimately, those decisions hurt WotC, why would they repeat such mistakes when they're doing so well?



Where Paizo is astronomically ahead of Wizards is their willingness to go darker. Wizards made Hell goddamn sanitized.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Xenonnonex said:


> Where Paizo is astronomically ahead of Wizards is their willingness to go darker. Wizards made Hell goddamn sanitized.



 Maybe that's just a matter of perspective, too.  Compared to the way TSR caved with 2e, WotC doesn't seem too reticent.



Campbell said:


> Of course they took feedback under consideration in design changes were made because of it. However, the shape of the game did not fundamentally change because of feedback.



 The feedback for the preceding several years had been "put the game back in the shape you found it in."
So, yeah.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Arilyn said:


> Paizo takes risks but they are always calculated risks.



What about the collapse of Goblinworks and Pathfinder Online? 
What about the crowdfunded miniatures fiasco where a lot of Paizo customers were left out of pocket from the fallout?


----------



## darjr

I dunno. Friends were writhing about even driving a soul consuming vehicle. Not kidding. The mod was burn souls or lose.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> I dunno. Friends were writhing about even driving a soul consuming vehicle. Not kidding. The mod was burn souls or lose.




Yeah, Decent into Avernus is plenty edgelord as-is.


----------



## Imaro

Eric V said:


> The success is because they paid attention to what was popular and what wasn't.  I don't see how that's a particularly controversial statement, tbh.




Another way of stating this is that they paid attention to what people wanted their play experience to be like...


----------



## Arilyn

Xenonnonex said:


> What about the collapse of Goblinworks and Pathfinder Online?
> What about the crowdfunded miniatures fiasco where a lot of Paizo customers were left out of pocket from the fallout?




First of all, calculated risk does not mean nothing fails! Paizo has tried many things that didn't work. That's perfectly normal.

Secondly, Goblinworks is not owned by Paizo. They just paid to use PF license. And weren't the miniatures a third party company as well?

I'm getting the sense you're just wanting to bash Paizo.


----------



## darjr

Wait? Goblin works wasn’t Paizo but it sure as shingles was owned by the owners of Paizo.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Arilyn said:


> First of all, calculated risk does not mean nothing fails! Paizo has tried many things that didn't work. That's perfectly normal.
> 
> Secondly, Goblinworks is not owned by Paizo. They just paid to use PF license. And weren't the miniatures a third party company as well?
> 
> I'm getting the sense you're just wanting to bash Paizo.



The point was these risks were taken but they were not at all calculated. In fact these risks seem to have been taken naively. 

Lisa Stevens is the CEO of Paizo. And the CEO of Goblinworks.

With the miniatures fiasco Paizo were warned and cautioned repeatedly to not to engage that company. They still chose to go ahead and make the deal. Causing lots of their customers to be out of pocket. Causing that crowdfund to collapse. But Paizo did not lose anything. So no skin off their teeth right?

Not all the risks they take are considered or thoughtful. Especially after having been warned and cautioned repeatedly against something.


----------



## GameOgre

I have played 5E since it's release after finally changing from Pathfinder 1E. I didn't play the playtest mostly because I was playing 5E.

So far Pathfinder 2E is wonderful! It isn't what I would have wanted for a second edition back when I played Pathfinder 1E BUT it's exactly what I want after playing 5E for the past five years.


----------



## Arilyn

darjr said:


> Wait? Goblin works wasn’t Paizo but it sure as shingles was owned by the owners of Paizo.



And they made it a separate company because it was a risky endeavor. Calculated risk.


----------



## S'mon

Parmandur said:


> On the contrary, there are several companies who focus on making third party 5E content. Kobold Press and Goodman Games are prime examples (Into the Borderlands is the best-selling product in Goodman Games history).




Yes. My gut instinct is that 5e branded Paizo material would sell very well. Their APs run a lot better in 5e than in PF. Their typical potential customer rejected 4e for PF but then went to 5e. And newbies all want to play 5e. Paizo brand strength plus 5e system would be the strongest combo imo.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Arilyn said:


> Secondly, Goblinworks is not owned by Paizo. They just paid to use PF license.



Oh, sweet Summer child...


----------



## Jadeite

Xenonnonex said:


> What about the collapse of Goblinworks and Pathfinder Online?
> What about the crowdfunded miniatures fiasco where a lot of Paizo customers were left out of pocket from the fallout?



Well, that's more the risk of their fans.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Matrix Sorcica said:


> Oh, sweet Summer child...



Be careful. That might be considered Paizo bashing


----------



## CapnZapp

Talk about thread drift...

To help the thread go back to the topic I'm interested in discussing (which is "why would Paizo ever want to make a game that in any way shape or form resembles the least successful edition of D&D???") here's the OP again 



Mercurius said:


> I'm not really sure if this belongs in the Pathfinder or D&D forums, so put it here in General as it touches upon a variety of topics and is more meta than system-specific.
> 
> I don't know a lot of details about Pathfinder 2 and haven't been following whatever discussions might have happened over the year, but upon doing a cursory browse, I'm reminded of what happened with 4E. Like 4E, P2 seems to be annoying traditionalists; like 4E, the big danger is that rather than having the intended effect of unifying and adding to the fan-base, it will only fraction it (e.g. of 10 P1 players, 4 stay with P1, 4 go with P2, and 2 go to 5E or elsewhere out of frustration).
> 
> I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for? Are they hoping that 2nd edition is a huge success, that the majority of 1st edition players migrate over and they begin a fresh edition cycle?
> 
> I'm honestly trying to understand. I have no horse in the race - I don't play Pathfinder, although buy the occasional setting book (and am intrigued by the "Lost Omens" world guides line and will check that out). Nor am I a traditionalist or think that game companies should just re-hash the old. From what I've seen of P2 (mostly just scanning the playtest book at Barnes & Noble), I like the vibe of it more than P1. It just seems like a head-scratcher to me, that they would diverge substantially from 1st edition considering that the whole impetus behind Pathfinder in the first place was to keep 3.5 alive and well. From what I've read, P2 does more than clean up P1...it seems like a significantly different new edition.
> 
> I mean, it almost seems like Paizo saw their base diminishing with the surging popularity of 5E and realized that they had to take a risk. Maybe they're accepting a smaller base, but are going all in on something newish rather than just the diminishing returns of "P1.1" and more of the same type of books.
> 
> Anyone have any insight into the thoughts behind Pathfinder 2? Is it Paizo's 4E?



PF2 is indeed a complete new game, and yes I can see how it will annoy both Pathfinder holdouts and 5E gamers curious to see if Paizo offers more.

The real head-scratcher is that it doesn't do everything in its power to stay away from 4E comparisons.

On the contrary - here are three areas we can identify resemblances:
*1) layout and presentation*
PF2 reads bone dry. It features walls of feats. (It actually sets an astonishingly high bar for basic understanding so I can definitely see quite a lot of newbies being scared off)

Why didn't Paizo understand that a class description should be self-contained, that is, everything about your Rogue or Barbarian should be explained right in the Class chapter? (With the exception of spells, I guess)

*2) choice - impact or illusion*
This is one of the biggest bugbears of 4E, and it unfortunately seems PF2 comes from the same design school.

Yes, you get a lot of choice as you build your character and as you level it up.

But most choices lack impact; they merely allow you to reach nominal levels of bonuses (like +4 for ability, +2 for trained, +1 for level giving +7 at first level. You can very well have worse bonuses, and use feats to "unlock" that +7 potential. But you cannot transcend the "invisible box": the best score of any character at any level is tightly reined in.)

Core fundamentals can't be changed at all: like your weapon, armor and save proficiencies. 

There's no 3E/5E style multiclassing at all.

It seems you're asked to make a heck of a lot of choices that ultimately don't matter much at all, when it comes to making your character tread new ground, go in new directions.

*3) magic items*
Unfortunately I see a clear resemblance between 4E and PF2 magic items, in stark contrast to how items in both 3E and 5E are fun, atmospheric; items with real power.

In 4E I often found that even when I combined two items into one (giving it both powers) they regularly got ignored by the players, who was up to their ears trying to control all the little bonuses and effects.

A PF2 item can be a Bronze Bull Pendant that gives a measly +2 bonus to a single Shove action once. 
Not only that it can be used only once and is then consumed, the devs have the gall to
1) require you to prepare it well in advance (you must "affix" it to your armor)
2) put requirements on it (it doesn't work if you're not trained in Athletics)
3) its price in gold pieces is actually significant

So there you have it. A Talisman you must write down what it does, and then remember to affix (you can only have one Talisman affixed to your armor at any given time), and then remember to actually use. For what? A +10% chance of succeeding at one (1) Shove action, that moves an enemy back five feet(!)


----------



## Tallifer

It is weird to me that PF2 has such similar weak points to 4E but without many of the things I loved about 4E: class equality; simple monster and encounter design; AEDU powers; rôles; epic destinies; reskinning and refluffing


----------



## Lucas Yew

Personally, I think PF2 will never become a second 4E (commercially-wise) because of one reason; *its crunch is completely OGL compliant* (except Product Identity, of course).

As both 5E and PF2 gave up on my preferred level of granuality for Simulationist play (such as unequal Prof. bonus scaling for PCs and NPCs for 5E), which is my second point of consideration in picking RPGs to financially support and try out anyway, I backed off of 5E when it became clear that post-Core official 5E rules (like Xanathar's and SCAG) are super likely to never ever end up on the new SRD, violating my first and paramount point...

----

P.S. Just in case, my third point (which only matters in a class/archetype extant ruleset) is having all playable archetypes having a roughly equal amount of mechanical spotlight in a typical play; in other words, the closer to having LFQW solved the better...


----------



## ikos

Xenonnonex said:


> Where Paizo is astronomically ahead of Wizards is their willingness to go darker. Wizards made Hell goddamn sanitized.




I'm not certain today's Paizo content is all that "dark," especially when compared to that of yesteryear. APs containing themes of incest, cannablism, and various forms of abuse are no longer printed with the eagerness that they were at the company's inception. Every once in a while something slips by, but the content has been heavily curated for years now. The most obvious examples being their take on an "evil" campaign (which was just as Disney in scope) or their take on Hell in Hell's Rebels (which, despite the printed trigger warnings, likely disturbed very few with access to cable tv). Contrast either of these against Nicholas Logue or Richard Pett's work for the company when they were going full tilt "dark" and the difference is quite stark.


----------



## Garthanos

Tallifer said:


> It is weird to me that PF2 has such similar weak points to 4E but without many of the things I loved about 4E: class equality; simple monster and encounter design; AEDU powers; rôles; epic destinies; reskinning and refluffing



Yeh its certainly possible to not pick the best parts (5e's optional rules that are akin to 4e elements are almost all misfires on what made things work in 4e).
That said...  a paradigm where the magic items are not as significant as the one who wields them is very trope friendly and I like it. A very popular rule for many in 4e was the inherent bonuses rule which arguably made that more so.


----------



## Garthanos

Lucas Yew said:


> P.S. Just in case, my third point (which only matters in a class/archetype extant ruleset) is having all playable archetypes having a roughly equal amount of mechanical spotlight in a typical play; in other words, the closer to having LFQW solved the better...



^^This


----------



## billd91

S'mon said:


> Yes. My gut instinct is that 5e branded Paizo material would sell very well. Their APs run a lot better in 5e than in PF. Their typical potential customer rejected 4e for PF but then went to 5e. And newbies all want to play 5e. Paizo brand strength plus 5e system would be the strongest combo imo.




It would be strong, just like it was when Paizo was doing Dragon and Dungeon magazines and publishing modules for 3e as a major 3rd party. And also just like it was when WotC pulled the licenses and left them hanging on half-baked plans for 3pp licensing and support, threatening Paizo's existence. 

The 5e environment may not be looking so dangerous, but they're understandably leery of getting tied too closely to IP they can't control or rely on.


----------



## dave2008

I doubt PF2e will be their 4e, I think the fan base that moved to them is more loyal now.  Of course that sounds idiotic now that I’ve typed it!


----------



## Parmandur

billd91 said:


> It would be strong, just like it was when Paizo was doing Dragon and Dungeon magazines and publishing modules for 3e as a major 3rd party. And also just like it was when WotC pulled the licenses and left them hanging on half-baked plans for 3pp licensing and support, threatening Paizo's existence.
> 
> The 5e environment may not be looking so dangerous, but they're understandably leery of getting tied too closely to IP they can't control or rely on.




Um, the OGL is there for 5E. They wouldn't have to use WotC IP at all. They've already done just that for a decade.


----------



## billd91

Parmandur said:


> Um, the OGL is there for 5E. They wouldn't have to use WotC IP at all. They've already done just that for a decade.




That literally is WotC IP - it's just WotC IP that they have reliable access to because WotC has willingly ceded most of their ability to gatekeep it. 

But the other element of this is WotC's future plans. Paizo had the ability to continue to support 3.5 thanks to the OGL and SRD when WotC decided to shift gears and put out 4e. But thanks to licensing changes, they didn't have as much access to 4e and the IP wasn't necessarily reliably available and 3.5 was going out of print -  hence the gamble that was Pathfinder. What happens if WotC changes direction *again* in the wake of 5e? Granted, that would be dumb, particularly after their 4e experience and lessons learned and the rollicking success of 5e. But, it's not like stupidity hasn't been a recurrent and pervasive thing in the late 2010s decade...


----------



## Aldarc

CapnZapp said:


> Talk about thread drift...
> 
> To help the thread go back to the topic I'm interested in discussing (which is "why would Paizo ever want to make a game that in any way shape or form resembles the least successful edition of D&D???") here's the OP again



The OP asked if PF2 is Paizo's 4e. After actually reading the OP and responses in the thread: TL;DR It's not.*

*...unless one applies an extraordinarily shallow, superficial comparison of the two systems for the purposes of pushing some other agenda or narrative. But such readings that claim that they are similar based on superficial things such as layout (a skin-deep comparison), choice (mostly out of context), and magic items (mostly going off feelings and vague impressions) should probably be dismissed.


----------



## dave2008

Aldarc said:


> The OP asked if PF2 is Paizo's 4e. After actually reading the OP and responses in the thread: TL;DR It's not.*
> 
> *...unless one applies an extraordinarily shallow, superficial comparison of the two systems for the purposes of pushing some other agenda or narrative. But such readings that claim that they are similar based on superficial things such as layout (a skin-deep comparison), choice (mostly out of context), and magic items (mostly going off feelings and vague impressions) should probably be dismissed.



Been a bit since I read the OP, but I don’t think he/she was talking about game design.  Instead it is the idea will PF2e fracture the PF1 base and the resultantibg financial ramifications from that


----------



## Aldarc

dave2008 said:


> Been a bit since I read the OP, but I don’t think he/she was talking about game design.  Instead it is the idea will PF2e fracture the PF1 base and the resultantibg financial ramifications from that



It seems like the OP's question was answered fairly early in the thread, though it's still mostly speculation and conjecture.


----------



## Parmandur

billd91 said:


> That literally is WotC IP - it's just WotC IP that they have reliable access to because WotC has willingly ceded most of their ability to gatekeep it.
> 
> But the other element of this is WotC's future plans. Paizo had the ability to continue to support 3.5 thanks to the OGL and SRD when WotC decided to shift gears and put out 4e. But thanks to licensing changes, they didn't have as much access to 4e and the IP wasn't necessarily reliably available and 3.5 was going out of print -  hence the gamble that was Pathfinder. What happens if WotC changes direction *again* in the wake of 5e? Granted, that would be dumb, particularly after their 4e experience and lessons learned and the rollicking success of 5e. But, it's not like stupidity hasn't been a recurrent and pervasive thing in the late 2010s decade...




....?

The same thing they did in 2008?

You realize that 5E is open game content, right?


----------



## BryonD

I think it is worth pointing out that at this stage of 4E it was considered a massive success.  "New York Times Bestseller"  etc etc.  Yes, there was the split base issue before the release even happened.  But the tone, early on, was not "gee, is this bad?" but rather "see, we told you so".  And even as Essentials and other revitalization efforts were rolled out (many months later) there was still a steadfast base that did not agree that anything was failing.

So, first, I think you need to ignore both extremes in terms of personal opinion.  The middle is a resounding "meh" at best.  Not nearly the same place as 4E stood early on.

And if you consider that less than ten weeks in there is a serious question as to how PF2E compares to the 20/20 hindsight on 4E , then you will find that quite telling in its own right.


----------



## darjr

So here is what I think will happen, and what I think Paizo will actually do.

PF2 has sold really well and continues to sell well, Paizo will hunker down if they have too and work on thier con, GenCon, and PFS. PF2 will slow burn and because it looks to be a good game, with hard work, it’ll gain in popularity as people play it and the initial inertia against it bleeds off.

I think key to this is live streams, especially if they can get one of the big online games to give it a swing, especially if it’s Critical Role.

They did give Matt Mercer a deluxe copy signed by a great many cool people.

I think this will happen even if they had planned for better sales or worse sales. Just the details and how much pain it’ll take to get there will differ.

I also think it’s possible because there IS a continuous low level buzz about the game and I see new people picking it up.

but what do I know?


----------



## Tony Vargas

CapnZapp said:


> Talk about thread drift...
> To help the thread go back to the topic I'm interested in discussing (which is "why would Paizo ever want to make a game that in any way shape or form resembles the least successful edition of D&D???") here's the OP again



Y'know, it's funny, that's exactly what the OP /isn't/ asking.  Rather, he was more curious about Paizo's intent, and the fanbase's reaction. 







			
				Mercurious said:
			
		

> Like 4E, P2 seems to be annoying traditionalists; like 4E, the big danger is that rather than having the intended effect of unifying and adding to the fan-base, it will only fraction it (e.g. of 10 P1 players, 4 stay with P1, 4 go with P2, and 2 go to 5E or elsewhere out of frustration). I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for?



 That is, would the marketing and fan acceptance (unreasoning nerdrage, edition warring) for PF2 be analogous to 4e, not whether the PF2 might superficially or mechanically resemble 4e in content.

Afterall, the market has changed, and PF2 does not have the option of being More Authentically D&D than the current ed of D&D, because, let's face it, 5e is hella authentic. 

The reaction to PF2 has been similar to 4e in a few instances:  There's the reactionary horror at the prospect of casters being taken down any pegs at all, no matter how they may mesh with the new system, for instance.  But nothing's yet risen to the level of systematic edition warring we saw so quickly with 4e.

So, TL/DR:   No.


----------



## dave2008

darjr said:


> So here is what I think will happen, and what I think Paizo will actually do.
> 
> PF2 has sold really well and continues to sell well, Paizo will hunker down if they have too and work on thier con, GenCon, and PFS. PF2 will slow burn and because it looks to be a good game, with hard work, it’ll gain in popularity as people play it and the initial inertia against it bleeds off.
> 
> I think key to this is live streams, especially if they can get one of the big online games to give it a swing, especially if it’s Critical Role.
> 
> They did give Matt Mercer a deluxe copy signed by a great many cool people.
> 
> I think this will happen even if they had planned for better sales or worse sales. Just the details and how much pain it’ll take to get there will differ.
> 
> I also think it’s possible because there IS a continuous low level buzz about the game and I see new people picking it up.
> 
> but what do I know?



Not sure where you are, but the buzz I am getting is on line (and in particular this forum).  I am having a hell of time finding anyone locally who will play


----------



## darjr

Local convention has a Paizo guest coming. Several tables at some stores. And friends posting about thier games.

I know the local stuff is really anecdotal but the online buzz counts too.


----------



## darjr

I have found that the best way to get people to play your game is to run that game in public. Even if you sit there a few times at an empty table.
A good game will with a willing DM will attract players.

after that the devil is in the details. Behave politely, be positive about your game, don’t put down other games, run a decent game

and keep showing up regularly.

sometimes it’ll take people a bit to trust you.

and I dont mean trust as in if your a decent human, but trust you won’t flake out.


----------



## Zardnaar

Xenonnonex said:


> Where Paizo is astronomically ahead of Wizards is their willingness to go darker. Wizards made Hell goddamn sanitized.



Ok


darjr said:


> I have found that the best way to get people to play your game is to run that game in public. Even if you sit there a few times at an empty table.
> A good game will with a willing DM will attract players.
> 
> after that the devil is in the details. Behave politely, be positive about your game, don’t put down other games, run a decent game
> 
> and keep showing up regularly.
> 
> sometimes it’ll take people a bit to trust you.
> 
> and I dont mean trust as in if your a decent human, but trust you won’t flake out.




This, problem is finding a PF2 game to play.


----------



## darjr

Zardnaar said:


> Ok
> 
> 
> This, problem is finding a PF2 game to play.



Run them. Play will happen.


----------



## darjr

Sorry man, not sure what you meant.


----------



## Zardnaar

darjr said:


> Run them. Play will happen.




You can't try before you buy is the point. 

 I'm not gonna go and drop north of $100 on a game I might not like.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Zardnaar said:


> You can't try before you buy is the point.
> 
> I'm not gonna go and drop north of $100 on a game I might not like.



Their pdfs are a lot cheaper. 
The PF2SRD is free. 
You would not need to drop that amount of money.


----------



## JeffB

I'd like to see a real quickstart (self contained) or at least something like Hollow's Last Hope (which was tons of fun)

But with the 2RD and the pre-gens in the free encounter they released (I have a hard time calling that thing an adventure) you can probably just purchase a pdf of the new  introductory adventure/s  and try for a minimal expense.


----------

