Pathfinder 2e vs. D&D 5e

[Eisenheinrich]

No interest in discussing which system is/will be better in the long run. It's more about the overall performance in business and the future of Paizo. If Pathfinder 2nd edition will not be a suprise hit with a lot of attention to it's release, Paizo and Pathfinder will be done. It was always hard competing with WotC as a clone of the original, but as long as D&D 4e existed, Paizo had a pretty good niche-spot to sell their products. With D&D 5e being such a juggernaut, Paizo is already struggling. Maybe they misinterpreted the entertainmet-factor of RPGs, while WotC managed to make all the right decisions and branching out into entertainment (Critical Role, AI, etc.) A streamlined ans more easy accesible system works much better for those purposes than the crunch heavy behemoth that is Pathfinder. Any thoughts?

 

[Night Goat]

I would like an improved version of Pathfinder, one that keeps what I like about the system while fixing its many and serious flaws. Paizo won't be the company that makes it though. It's been several years since they've produced any remotely worthwhile content, and the response to 2e's playtest has been overwhelmingly negative. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this, but considering who we're dealing with that's extremely unlikely.

 

[Fairfax]

The Kingmaker anniversary edition with a 5E bestiary was a good move by Paizo, and could be a sign of things to come. WotC's releases are very slow, and only one book added a significant amount of new options. Although that strategy helped ensure all books sold well, there's a decent portion of 5E's huge audience that's starved for more content. Paizo could carve their own niche selling 5E splatbooks, modules, and monster manuals while still supporting their own game.

 

[nikolokolus]

I think Paizo seized an opprtunity when WotC stubbed its toe with 4e, but basing their entire business model on "D&D 3.5, but moar!" Always felt like it had a limited run, particularly once WotC got its shit together.

That said there are tons of other companies in the business filling other unserved niches. Paizo's biggest problem is going to be finding another niche; it's tough sledding trying to outcompete WotC at their own game, when most people think tabletop RPGs and D&D are synonymous.

In the end i suspect they will contract quite a bit, and if they do survive it will be because they are offering something that no other publisher can match, and that fills a void in the market.

 

[Morblot]

Whoever designed PF 2e is out of touch with reality. It's clunky as all hell, perhaps even more so than 1e, despite all the supposed "streamlining" that just managed to make everything banal, shit and boring. I fucking hate 2e with a passion and will (apparently!) never tire of telling people how bad it is.

But Paizo seem to be clever businesspeople, which is why I, too, think they'll be around for a good while yet. They'll find some tit to suck on even when 2e ultimately fails.

Personally I think I'm through with giving them my money... but all it takes is a sweet new pawn collection or somesuch and I'm a customer again. Fuck being this weak.

 

[deuxhero]

It's been several years since they've produced any remotely worthwhile content, and the response to 2e's playtest has been overwhelmingly negative.

We talking mechanics or APs? APs have been pretty meh after Strange Aeons in 2016. Mechanics wise the Player's Companion line has actually gotten a better grasp on balance since then, including a lot of options that were actually fun and effective and an increased willingness to break arbitrary barriers in the system. Reminds me a bit of 3.5 where the late books (ToB, PHBII, Magic Item Compendium) had some of the best stuff in the system, many of which admitted earlier content was badly made, but also had some really awful 4E tests hidden in there.

I suspect this was a result of their worst mechanics people starting work on second edition (Unchained was released in 2015 and Starfinder in 2017, and both of those were clearly prototypes of 2e). As far as I can tell, a lot of the good stuff is from secondary employees and freelancers.

edit: Ultimately though we had what 4E should have been back in 2007 with Saga Edition. It took 3.5 and fixed most of its problems (wealth only brought you gadgets or better holdings, characters automatically scaled so better equipment was mandatory, low level enemies are still threats in great numbers due to autofire and wounds, all five classes could be built in vastly different ways so two characters of the same class could wildly differ, all classes had out of combat options) and its only problem was the martial/caster discrepancy (and that closes with more books, it's just the best stuff is concentrated in core for force users but not martials).

 

[Night Goat]

It's been several years since they've produced any remotely worthwhile content, and the response to 2e's playtest has been overwhelmingly negative.

We talking mechanics or APs?

I'm talking about "core" books like Ultimate Wilderness and Bestiary 6, which have little or no content that will ever see use in an actual campaign.

 

[Zero Credibility]

I would like an improved version of Pathfinder, one that keeps what I like about the system while fixing its many and serious flaws. Paizo won't be the company that makes it though. It's been several years since they've produced any remotely worthwhile content, and the response to 2e's playtest has been overwhelmingly negative. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this, but considering who we're dealing with that's extremely unlikely.

Same here. Take the 3.75 chassis, cut out the useless feats and bloat but ffs keep what worked. There is still a niche out there for a D&D-like system more customizable and complex than 5e. But no, instead they threw the whole thing away and are making a new game for... who exactly? I still have no idea who Pathfinder 2 is supposed to appeal to.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

D&D 5E will make for a better videogame adaptation

 

[Curratum]

Pathfinder 2E cannot be a surprise hit because it's literally the same old, horribly bloated shit.

 

[nikolokolus]

I would like an improved version of Pathfinder, one that keeps what I like about the system while fixing its many and serious flaws. Paizo won't be the company that makes it though. It's been several years since they've produced any remotely worthwhile content, and the response to 2e's playtest has been overwhelmingly negative. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this, but considering who we're dealing with that's extremely unlikely.

Same here. Take the 3.75 chassis, cut out the useless feats and bloat but ffs keep what worked. There is still a niche out there for a D&D-like system more customizable and complex than 5e. But no, instead they threw the whole thing away and are making a new game for... who exactly? I still have no idea who Pathfinder 2 is supposed to appeal to.

Ive never played it, just skimmed it, but ive heard FantasyCraft might be something worth taking a look at? I've heard decent things about it from some people I trust (definently not my style of game, since I'm more of a BRP or B/X D&D guy these days.)

 

[deuxhero]

Looked at Fantasy Craft and the overall design seems solid, but the formatting is terrible.

 

[Shadenuat]

I dunget Pathfinder 2. It seems like it tried to gamify many roleplaying things, new actions; the chargen looks like a complicated way to solve unexisting issue (whats wrong with pointbuy?), the sjw is hilariously dominant (but whatever, we only need rules); some things reminded me of d&d4 (aoe archer attack), strange choice in races, the spell heightening is obviously from d&d5... it feels like they're afraid to speak in numbers which resulted in me spending quite some time searching for what the fuck do you roll to just hit something with a sword (yoh need a Strike action hurr). I would honestly be fine with just better p1 which is better 3.5, keep chaotic good paladins if you REALLY have to, clean up some rules, whatever. But keep the traditional core intact.

 

[catfood]

There's nowhere for PF to go from here. PF is already a bloated ruleset thanks to its 3.5 roots, so adding more stuff to it is only going to worsen the problem. Streamlining it also wouldn't be an option because people who play rules heavy systems such as this won't like it. Make a new system from scratch, then? The only way left to go would be to make a new system, but then their fans will leave because they want to play a 3.5 clone and also, understandably, would want backwards compatibility with the old product. PF was a dead-end product from its inception.

 

[Mortmal]

PF has indeed a bloated ruleset and starfinder too. So many classes , feats and yet today in my starfinder game we ended up with 2 operative with ghost spec, exactly same planned build. There's an illusion of choices, it ends up in a few meta build people will pick. May as well remove feats and have limited number of classes but each of them being built good. Thats what retroclones are doing and doing well .Dont think there's still a niche for pathfinder 2. They better write adventures for other systems.

 

[udm]

Looked at Fantasy Craft and the overall design seems solid, but the formatting is terrible.

I've always been interested in giving Fantasy Craft a shot, but can't find anyone who'd be interested in playing it, or the time to commit to memory all of its number crunching intricacies.

But I really like the system and the character build possibilities.

 

[Luckmann]

I would like an improved version of Pathfinder, one that keeps what I like about the system while fixing its many and serious flaws. Paizo won't be the company that makes it though. It's been several years since they've produced any remotely worthwhile content, and the response to 2e's playtest has been overwhelmingly negative. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this, but considering who we're dealing with that's extremely unlikely.

Same here. Take the 3.75 chassis, cut out the useless feats and bloat but ffs keep what worked. There is still a niche out there for a D&D-like system more customizable and complex than 5e. But no, instead they threw the whole thing away and are making a new game for... who exactly? I still have no idea who Pathfinder 2 is supposed to appeal to.

This. It's amazing how out of touch Paizo is.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

Pathfinder was a glorified OSR release. Unlike most OSR products, Pathfinder over extended itself and is now paying the price. They tried to be a replacement for DnD when an OSR product is a niche alternative.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

They should have just focused on slimming down what they already have. They got lucky with D&D stumbling on 4e, but are probably going to end up losing their audience with all their changes.

 

[Night Goat]

Pathfinder was a glorified OSR release. Unlike most OSR products, Pathfinder over extended itself and is now paying the price. They tried to be a replacement for DnD when an OSR product is a niche alternative.

What? Pathfinder is as far from OSR as it gets.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

Pathfinder was a glorified OSR release. Unlike most OSR products, Pathfinder over extended itself and is now paying the price. They tried to be a replacement for DnD when an OSR product is a niche alternative.

What? Pathfinder is as far from OSR as it gets.

You're right. OSR games are games based on disused DnD rules under OGL. Whilst Pathfinder innovated by being based on disused DnD rules under OGL. The only real difference is most OSR products are based on ODnD whereas Pathfinder is based on 3.5.

 

[catfood]

Pathfinder was a glorified OSR release. Unlike most OSR products, Pathfinder over extended itself and is now paying the price. They tried to be a replacement for DnD when an OSR product is a niche alternative.

What? Pathfinder is as far from OSR as it gets.

You're right. OSR games are games based on disused DnD rules under OGL. Whilst Pathfinder innovated by being based on disused DnD rules under OGL. The only real difference is most OSR products are based on ODnD whereas Pathfinder is based on 3.5.

I don't think you understand what OSR means.

 

[Arrowgrab]

Pathfinder was a glorified OSR release. Unlike most OSR products, Pathfinder over extended itself and is now paying the price. They tried to be a replacement for DnD when an OSR product is a niche alternative.

What? Pathfinder is as far from OSR as it gets.

You're right. OSR games are games based on disused DnD rules under OGL. Whilst Pathfinder innovated by being based on disused DnD rules under OGL. The only real difference is most OSR products are based on ODnD whereas Pathfinder is based on 3.5.

That is just plain simply NOT THE DEFINITION OF OSR.

OSR is based on old-school editions of D&D (hence the "O" in "OSR"), with an explicit understanding that "old-school" means up to AD&D (arguably including 2E AD&D, if you're into that sort of thing). When the OSR began, 3 and 3.5 editions were the current, actively supported editions, a.k.a. the exact same fucking things the OSR was "rebelling against" or "lashing out at". So no, 3.5 never was, isn't, and never ever will be OSR. Whether or not any given edition is out of print is totally irrelevant as far as OSR-ness is concerned. And, in fact, even being based on the OGL is not a requirement, there are exceptions.

You're objectively wrong and ignorant.

 

[Luckmann]

Yeah, as far as I'm aware, OSR is pretty much defined as "pre-3.5". 3.0 and its derivatives, as enjoyable as I may find them, are not "old-school", and I have no idea how anyone could claim otherwise with a straight face.

 

[nikolokolus]

If you aren't sure what the ethic/aesthetic of OSR gaming is, Matt Finch's "manifesto," A Quick Primer for Old-school Gaming isn't a bad place to start.

In a nutshell:

• Rulings trump "rules"
• Player skill means more than character skill
• You get more experience for recovering loot than you do for killing shit (which is a huge fucking shift in mindset if you spend any time thinking about it).
• Balance isnt really a thing. Players should have to choose whether to run away or press their luck.

So yeah, WoTC era D&D or pathfinder ain't old school.