If Pathfinder 2E looks a lot like 5th edition....

[johnbragg]

....what 3PP steps up and releases a streamlined single-book PHB/DMG/MM with say the SRD's worth of content, with their own custom campaign setting, to claim the 3X banner?

Drop Dead Studios, with Spheres being the central mechanic? Green Ronin (Freeport)? Sean K Reynolds? Would Monte Cook even want to?

[Air0r]

I'd support this, honestly. not opposed to pathfinder 2e either. room enough for all, methinks.

[lightningcat]

While I have no knowledge one way or another, I would place bets that PF2e will resemble Starfinder more then D&D5e. It looked as if they were already using SF as a testing bed for some ideas, not all of which worked, but others did.

[Esquire]

But... but why, though? I mean, selling the core books over again, obviously, but still.

[Air0r]

While I have no knowledge one way or another, I would place bets that PF2e will resemble Starfinder more then D&D5e. It looked as if they were already using SF as a testing bed for some ideas, not all of which worked, but others did.

also, pathfinder unchained is getting some of it's rules as default, it would seem, if their FAQ is accurate to the rules we will eventually get to see.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

What we know looks more like Unchained+Starfinder: Fantasy Edition with the class skill bonus scaling like 5e Proficiency.

As long as BAB and saves stick around I can work with whatever else I don’t like tbh

[Florian]

But... but why, though? I mean, selling the core books over again, obviously, but still.

Usual product lifecycle problem, I guess. Looking back how the release style changed over the last 10 years to cater to the customer base, it´s pretty clear that we're at the end of line when it comes what can be done without a reset.

[stack]

Trying to make a system to serve the marked of the previous edition of another system is a tricky situation. Change too much and you lose your market, don't change enough and you perpetuate the known issues with the previous system. I expect finding a niche in a small, fractured market would be difficult. Some 3.5 die-hards aren't changing systems until they can't find anyone to play with. I expect PF 1.0 will end up with a number of those, though how many will depend heavily on what 2.0 does. The total TTRPG market is not terribly large, the d20 fantasy market is obviously only a segment of that. A successful 3pp product measures sales in hundreds. A 3pp house launching a new system is a risky proposition and I expect would require immense dissatisfaction with 2.0 among the PF base, which seems unlikely given the general attitude I see over on the Paizo boards. Its way too early to tell though, of course.

[Eldariel]

But... but why, though? I mean, selling the core books over again, obviously, but still.

There are many fundamental flaws in the Core 3.X mechanics they copied for Pathfinder.

Unchained fixed some of them:

Multiclassing BAB and saves should always have been fractional
Skills granting new abilities with ranks makes perfect sense though skill classes should get some advantage in skill rank acquisition
Martial classes actually got some useful class features
etc.


Starfinder fixed some others

Most saliently the standard attack/full attack issues where standard attacks start off equal to full attacks and rapidly become completely useless - full attack mechanic nails martials down and overall does a huge disservice to the game


Some are never addressed:

Casters being unable to multiclass reasonably [martials always get BAB, casters get stone nothing making gishes Gish-in-a-Cans or like Fighter 1/Wizard 19s or requiring PRCs]
Combat maneuvers requiring overspecialisation and still not being rewarding enough [martials lack good options]
A number of spells, Core and otherwise, being completely broken in that they do things beyond what they should and are just overall too powerful for reasonable gameplay [Planar Bindings, Simulacrum, Gate, etc.]
etc.



Remaking the core rules to consolidate it all so everyone plays by the same fixed set as opposed to sprinkling the fixes around different optional subsystems makes perfect sense. Reworking this all would let the whole work better while steering clear of the major 5e mistakes (bounded accuracy, too far away from the "you actually can do anything"-baseline of 3e, still not giving martials any nice stuff and keeping their gameplay monotonous with Battlemaster being barely more interesting than a standard Fighter, etc.) certainly has the potential to improve the whole drastically while still staying true to its roots. Same could be said for 5e but WotC just threw the whole into a trashcan and started off a clean table as per usual. Frankly, Paizo ****ed up by not making PF that way in the first place with the 10+ years of accumulated 3.X experience that they summarily ignored, but perhaps they've finally learnt their lesson.

[stack]

... but perhaps they've finally learnt their lesson.

The last base class they released was the shifter. I want PF2 to be good, but I have significant reservations.

[Eldariel]

The last base class they released was the shifter. I want PF2 to be good, but I have significant reservations.

Aye, it'll probably be a mess much like all the earlier systems and the best traditional D&D system will still remain AD&D 2nd edition even with all its obvious and eminently fixable flaws... But I have some hope.