Pathfinder 2 3.0: Meh, what for?

[137beth]

This is the third thread for discussing the Pathfinder 2nd edition playtest.

First edition of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554908-Pathfinder-2-Blog-Critical-Success-and-Failure)
Second edition of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?567496-Pathfinder-2-Playtest-2nd-Edition-If-it-ain-t-broke-still-fix-it)

[Erloas]

But sticking the Meh in there breaks up the flow, for/four

So maybe I've missed it, but since the playtest is over, is there an SRD up the rules?

[khadgar567]

But sticking the Meh in there breaks up the flow, for/four

So maybe I've missed it, but since the playtest is over, is there an SRD up the rules?
Ah my time lost friend playtest is continueing but there is no updates.

[Rhedyn]

I can feel the enthusiasm and excitement for this new edition.

I assume it's too late to go with "Pathfinder 2 3.0: Have you tried Savage Worlds?"

[Morty]

I'm not a fan of Pathfinder in either of its editions, to put it mildly, but the 5E threads here prior to its release also trended towards the negative and, well, here we are.

[Cosi]

I'm not a fan of Pathfinder in either of its editions, to put it mildly, but the 5E threads here prior to its release also trended towards the negative and, well, here we are.

At the point where the current edition of D&D is releasing content more slowly than 3e did after 4e was announced? I get that there are people who like 5e, but it's not any kind of success. The only reason it's not the least successful edition of D&D is because 4e set that bar so massively low with "so bad that some random dude's houserules for the previous edition becomes the most successful game on the market". Pretty much all the negative stuff people said about 5e before release has turned out to either be true, or be about something Mearls didn't bother to finish because he never finishes anything.

[Morty]

I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about popularity. And I'm not terribly interested in random edition warring against 4E. 5E is massively popular. So I wouldn't take this thread's reactions as indicative of much before the actual release.

[Cosi]

I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about popularity. And I'm not terribly interested in random edition warring against 4E. 5E is massively popular. So I wouldn't take this thread's reactions as indicative of much before the actual release.

5e is less popular than 3e is and, as noted, is being treated as DoA by its parent company. It's not "massively popular" so much as "massively more popular than 4e", which as also noted, is not impressive.

[stack]

I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about popularity. And I'm not terribly interested in random edition warring against 4E. 5E is massively popular. So I wouldn't take this thread's reactions as indicative of much before the actual release.


5e is less popular than 3e is and, as noted, is being treated as DoA by its parent company. It's not "massively popular" so much as "massively more popular than 4e", which as also noted, is not impressive.

Do we have sales figures either way? We can swap anecdotal evidence for 50 pages, but to actually make progress we need data, which I suspect will be hard to come by.

[Test Pattern]

I think 5e is doing good with sales....Of its core book only.

In terms of raw impact on the market 5e has much less.

[Rhedyn]

I'm not a fan of Pathfinder in either of its editions, to put it mildly, but the 5E threads here prior to its release also trended towards the negative and, well, here we are.
5e is very much a runaway success and very popular. The core books sales on Amazon alone are a testament to that. But, 5e is still kind of bad and the design philosophy behind it values thematic strength over good rules while keeping complexity low. The actual game part of 5e has trouble functioning outside of a very specific encounter pacing and even then only at low levels unless you use 3rd party monster manuals.

5e's thematic strength has made playing it a popular for of online streaming content which gets people to buy books and even try the game out even if it doesn't stick.

If threads were negative, the final product is still disappointing regardless of popularity or success.

[Florian]

Have you tried Savage Worlds?

I have. Personally, if I had the choice between not gaming at all and SaWo, not gaming wins by a huge margin.

[ThatMoonGuy]

I don't think the point is really wether or not 5e sells well or is popular but really if it is because of the system itself or all the buzz around it. Stuff like Stranger Things, Critical Role and so on. One can't help but wonder where 5e would be where it not for all that.

[Raxxius]

I don't think the point is really wether or not 5e sells well or is popular but really if it is because of the system itself or all the buzz around it. Stuff like Stranger Things, Critical Role and so on. One can't help but wonder where 5e would be where it not for all that.

This is true for everything in existence.

Just because something is better doesn't mean that it gets to be popular.

[Florian]

One can't help but wonder where 5e would be where it not for all that.

Still amongst the top. You know, the thing with the mass market is, that it is more or less never the "best" or "best engineered" product that will win. It is always the product with the broadest appeal and the least flaws for a wide range of people (who can´t ever agree on anything).

[Rhedyn]

I have. Personally, if I had the choice between not gaming at all and SaWo, not gaming wins by a huge margin.
Well that is because you have a wrong opinion.

It's the only game I'm playing and I play twice a week.

[Chromascope3D]

D&D also has the benefit of being the only widely known tabletop rpg amongst the public at large. Dat brand recognition tho.

[Rhedyn]

D&D also has the benefit of being the only widely known tabletop rpg amongst the public at large. Dat brand recognition tho.
Dude even D&D isn't that widely known beyond "that game they were playing in Stranger Things was real?"

[legomaster00156]

Dude even D&D isn't that widely known beyond "that game they were playing in Stranger Things was real?"
You're joking, right? Dungeons and Dragons is very well-known, mostly for its role as a boogeyman in the Satanic Panic. :smallconfused:

[exelsisxax]

Dude even D&D isn't that widely known beyond "that game they were playing in Stranger Things was real?"

Which is incredible brand recognition for the niche it is in. That's about as much as every other TTRPG ever put together. That makes you the 800lb gorrilla even if it's a half-done game with mechanics from the 90s.

[RedMage125]

Dude even D&D isn't that widely known beyond "that game they were playing in Stranger Things was real?"

As an aside, where do you get this impression from? The D&D name and brand have been featured in a lot more than that since the 70s. I've known jocks, nerds, meatheads/gym rats, furries, skaters, people from all kinds of religious backgrounds, ethnicities, sexual orientations, gender identities, and lots more who play D&D. D&D is incredibly popular in the military, across all branches*. It's certainly more well-known outside TTRPG playing communities than Pathfinder is. Even people I know who actually play Pathfinder refer to it as "D&D" sometimes.

And 5e has brought a lot of disenfranchised people back into the fold of the brand. Pathfinder, while staying true to a lot of what made 3.x great, has been suffering from the same over-glut of options and power creep that 3e had. Playing a Core class without any archetype from a later book is almost always strictly inferior. Don't get me wrong, I like PF and 5e, and I'd almost certainly rather play PF than 3.5, but 5e had design goals of being simpler, and harkening back to pre-3e days of "Rulings > Rules", while still retaining a lot of the streamlining that made 3e+ work more simply than the Byzantine mechanics of TSR-era D&D.

*This may be a backwards cause-effect observation, however. A lot of TTRPG players join the military because of the sense of adventure and excitement instilled in them from their time playing (according to a lot of the "Scale Mail" inputs to the old Dragon and Dungeon magazines). But I am Active Duty Navy with over 12 years in, and have played with Sailors, Marines, and Airmen (and their spouses, including my own wife) almost exclusively in that time.

Back on topic, I actually have questions about the PF 2e playtest, as I have not participated in any of the threads about it. Are any of the playtest materials and things available online for free like the PF SRD is? I'm kind of curious what kinds of changes they are looking at making, and I'd like to go over them, but when I first heard about it, the PF "beta" had to be purchased. And I'm not interested in spending money on an incomplete game.

[ThatMoonGuy]

You can get the playtest at paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest and the guys at r/Pathfinder2e keep a topic with the updates.

[Rhedyn]

As an aside, where do you get this impression from? I get asked, "What do you do Fridays?"

"I play RPGs"

"What?"

"D&D"

"What's that?"

"You sure you haven't heard about D&D?"

"The thing they play on Stranger Things? / No"

Man do I have that conversation a lot with basically anyone who does "normal" social things.

Back on topic, I actually have questions about the PF 2e playtest, as I have not participated in any of the threads about it. Are any of the playtest materials and things available online for free like the PF SRD is? I'm kind of curious what kinds of changes they are looking at making, and I'd like to go over them, but when I first heard about it, the PF "beta" had to be purchased. And I'm not interested in spending money on an incomplete game.
As much as I dislike/hate 2e, it does not deserve this criticism. They sold physical books, the digital copies of the books were always freely available.

[Midnightninja]

Back on topic, I actually have questions about the PF 2e playtest, as I have not participated in any of the threads about it. Are any of the playtest materials and things available online for free like the PF SRD is? I'm kind of curious what kinds of changes they are looking at making, and I'd like to go over them, but when I first heard about it, the PF "beta" had to be purchased. And I'm not interested in spending money on an incomplete game.

They only charged for the physical copies. You can get the playtest PDFs and all their updates from paizo's site.

Also there's an SRD (http://pf2playtest.opengamingnetwork.com/) from the PF SRD people, and a pdf with all the updates (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/9etyxz/pathfinder_2e_playtest_rulebook_updated/) courtesy of a redditor.

Edit:Ninja'd by ThatMoonGuy.

[RedMage125]

I get asked, "What do you do Fridays?"

"I play RPGs"

"What?"

"D&D"

"What's that?"

"You sure you haven't heard about D&D?"

"The thing they play on Stranger Things? / No"

Man do I have that conversation a lot with basically anyone who does "normal" social things.
I understand that such is your experience, but please, in turn, understand that a large number of people who do "normal" social things (whatever that means) have at least heard of D&D outside of a Netflix show that only came out last year. They may associate it with people who dwell in basements, wearing capes and eating Cheetos, but they're heard of it. Hell, Rick and Morty did a D&D crossover comic. I've only seen the previews of it so far, though.


As much as I dislike/hate 2e, it does not deserve this criticism. They sold physical books, the digital copies of the books were always freely available.

I guess I only heard about the physical books being sold for the playtest when I first heard PF 2e being announced. I also went on deployment within a few months of the announcement, so I didn't hear much more or follow up with it. It really wasn't a "criticism", unless you count calling it an "unfinished product", which it literally is.

[Morty]

I didn't really want to discuss 5E's merits or lack thereof, just to point out that the last time a thread on this site was sceptical about a new edition of D&D, it still hit off and made bank. So I wouldn't be surprised to see PF2E do the same.

Then again, it doesn't have some advantages 5E had. It doesn't have the brand, nor does it have a combination of design that made it both appeal to newbies and to grognards who hadn't got onboard with 3E. Indeed, it seems more like it's changed enough to annoy the notoriously change-averse fans but not quite enough to fix things and bring people who didn't like 1E.

[Rhedyn]

I didn't really want to discuss 5E's merits or lack thereof, just to point out that the last time a thread on this site was sceptical about a new edition of D&D, it still hit off and made bank. So I wouldn't be surprised to see PF2E do the same.

Then again, it doesn't have some advantages 5E had. It doesn't have the brand, nor does it have a combination of design that made it both appeal to newbies and to grognards who hadn't got onboard with 3E. Indeed, it seems more like it's changed enough to annoy the notoriously change-averse fans but not quite enough to fix things and bring people who didn't like 1E.Paizo also already cashed-in their trust with Starfinder. Which was a solid enough RPG but not terribly interesting or revolutionary and suffers from being very much locked into their setting.

All of which sound exactly like PF2e. So at best, it will have a good launch and then proceed to fall off everyone's radar.

[zfs]

5e is less popular than 3e is and, as noted, is being treated as DoA by its parent company. It's not "massively popular" so much as "massively more popular than 4e", which as also noted, is not impressive.

I don't know why I'm even bothering with this, because this has been pointed out to you numerous times and you seem to just not care, but the low splatbook count isn't evidence of "Wizards treats 5e as DoA," it's because they made a business decision to do less splatbooks.

Look, you like splatbooks. So do I. I like 3.5 more than 5 and that's one of the reasons, that 3.5 is a giant piece of velcro and they just kept sticking new ideas and subsystems to it. Incarnum? Sure. Initiator classes? Why not. Legacy weapons? They're not very good, but have at it. 5e isn't doing that. You can continue to infer that this is because 5e is a failure - that's your prerogative. But the numbers that we have access to don't agree with your viewpoint.

Wizards claimed 2017 was their best sales year since they bought the property from TSR in 1997. Maybe it's accounting flimflam. Maybe it's marketing hogwash. Maybe they're flat out flying. But unless you have some numbers to counter their claims, that's all the info we have.

[zfs]

As for the actual topic, my group is about to finish an 8 month run through a custom system that one of our members whipped up, and then we're voting on whether to continue an earlier 3.5 campaign that had custom legacy items for each character, return to 5e where we had run some strung out one-shots, or try out PF 2.0. I've been looking at potential builds for the PF 2.0 playtest material and so far nothing excites me, but I'm willing to have my mind changed.

[Test Pattern]

I will say that 5e benefits from also being at the right place at the right time.

In my opinion, it benefits from a certain name brand momentum, and indeed appeals to the grognard population.

PF I don't believe can pull that off. For better or for worse it can't rely on nostalgia and what I call "The magic factor".


Wizards claimed 2017 was their best sales year since they bought the property from TSR in 1997. Maybe it's accounting flimflam. Maybe it's marketing hogwash. Maybe they're flat out flying. But unless you have some numbers to counter their claims, that's all the info we have.

If you sell more of a core product but not nearly as much other products you are generally making less money.
But I just don't buy it to a certain extent. I remember this same type of marketting speak said about 4e.

I do believe that 5e is quite popular now, and the general go to for a system that everybody will generally know because of its inertia and low level of investment required.

But its also a system with a much worse SRD, which essentially forces purchase.

[thompur]

I will say that 5e benefits from also being at the right place at the right time.

In my opinion, it benefits from a certain name brand momentum, and indeed appeals to the grognard population.

PF I don't believe can pull that off. For better or for worse it can't rely on nostalgia and what I call "The magic factor".



If you sell more of a core product but not nearly as much other products you are generally making less money.
But I just don't buy it to a certain extent. I remember this same type of marketting speak said about 4e.

I do believe that 5e is quite popular now, and the general go to for a system that everybody will generally know because of its inertia and low level of investment required.

But its also a system with a much worse SRD, which essentially forces purchase.

Plus, They don't offer their rules books for sale in PDF form.:smallannoyed:

[zfs]

If you sell more of a core product but not nearly as much other products you are generally making less money.
But I just don't buy it to a certain extent. I remember this same type of marketting speak said about 4e.

I do believe that 5e is quite popular now, and the general go to for a system that everybody will generally know because of its inertia and low level of investment required.

But its also a system with a much worse SRD, which essentially forces purchase.

Wizards isn't a dumb company - you may not like every decision they make, and obviously they've made mistakes, but they've been profitable for years. It's tough to get an exact measure of their revenue since they're a subsidiary of Hasbro, but there's no evidence that Wizards is an albatross. If printing more splatbooks was a magic revenue generator, they'd probably do it. But books take authors, editors, artists - they have to be proofed and printed and distributed. I don't know how their distribution agreements work, but they may also be responsible for unsold inventory from bookstores/hobby shops. Was 3.5e's heavy book release schedule a business decision or a design decision? Obviously it's both, but which weighed more heavily?

I agree that obviously Wizards is going to toot their own horn, and they said similar marketing piffle/puffery about 4e. But with 4e there was an obvious disconnect between the WotC's marketing razzle dazzle and the actual userbase. 4e was divisive enough that it led to Paizo getting a foothold with PF in the first place. I doubt we'll ever know exact book sales and amount of players, but for a few years there it looked like 4e and PF were neck and neck. Maybe PF was even winning. There's no illusion currently that anything is threatening to dethrone 5e in popularity. It's the most played on Roll20, it's streamed by a lot of people, it has the highest market penetration just by dint of being D&D. This corner of the web is not a microcosm of the rest of society - and even on GitP, the 5e boards are just as active as these, and these boards cover PF as well as 3.5.

Edit: Test Pattern, when they said best sales year I assumed they meant total revenue, not # of books sold. Again, the lack of full transparency leaves room for these types of squabbles, but I work in the accounting world and even at companies with the loosest moral fiber, a marketer would likely get laughed out of the room if they tried to claim "sales went up X%" because they sold one million more tchotchkes but brought in less total revenue. And of course we have no idea how their profit compares to 3.5.

[zfs]

Plus, They don't offer their rules books for sale in PDF form.:smallannoyed:

Which I agree is, IMO, a bad business decision. I imagine the proliferation of illegal PDFs spooks them to some extent, and obviously they prefer the high profit margins from physical releases, but I don't think offering PDF purchases would do anything to decrease physical book sales.

[NomGarret]

Those would be some interesting numbers to see. In an average group of five, when only physical copies are available, how many of each book does the group own? What are the numbers when both hard copies and PDFs are available? In my group, we’ll typically have a couple hard copies of core books, but hardly ever buy more than one physical copy of a splat. If PDFs are available for that system, we will often buy a few but I’ve never really seen it cut into our physical copies. Either it’s an additional copy of something shared like one more core book or a popular supplement, or it’s a niche book we were borderline on purchasing at all.

[zfs]

Those would be some interesting numbers to see. In an average group of five, when only physical copies are available, how many of each book does the group own? What are the numbers when both hard copies and PDFs are available? In my group, we’ll typically have a couple hard copies of core books, but hardly ever buy more than one physical copy of a splat. If PDFs are available for that system, we will often buy a few but I’ve never really seen it cut into our physical copies. Either it’s an additional copy of something shared like one more core book or a popular supplement, or it’s a niche book we were borderline on purchasing at all.

I feel like that's probably the most common arrangement for groups of friends, that most people will have core books (or at least the PHB) but share splats. Obviously changes if you play in multiple groups.

[Remuko]

I understand that such is your experience, but please, in turn, understand that a large number of people who do "normal" social things (whatever that means) have at least heard of D&D outside of a Netflix show that only came out last year. They may associate it with people who dwell in basements, wearing capes and eating Cheetos, but they're heard of it. Hell, Rick and Morty did a D&D crossover comic. I've only seen the previews of it so far, though.


I guess I only heard about the physical books being sold for the playtest when I first heard PF 2e being announced. I also went on deployment within a few months of the announcement, so I didn't hear much more or follow up with it. It really wasn't a "criticism", unless you count calling it an "unfinished product", which it literally is.

@ the bolded bit... uh Stranger things has been out for 2 and a half years. Season 1 premiered on July 15, 2016.

Also to reply to all the people above me. I played from around the start of 3.0 til rather recently and i think only one time did i ever play with a group where we had, total as an entire group more than one copy of any book, and it was only a second PHB. We all shared the same books. No one had their own copies of even the core rule books.

[Rhedyn]

Those would be some interesting numbers to see. In an average group of five, when only physical copies are available, how many of each book does the group own? What are the numbers when both hard copies and PDFs are available? In my group, we’ll typically have a couple hard copies of core books, but hardly ever buy more than one physical copy of a splat. If PDFs are available for that system, we will often buy a few but I’ve never really seen it cut into our physical copies. Either it’s an additional copy of something shared like one more core book or a popular supplement, or it’s a niche book we were borderline on purchasing at all.My guess is that the norm is one PDF sale per friend group (if that) and physical books as interest increases in the system.

Paizo sold far less physical copies to our group than WotC because the online databases were better/easier/needed for playing our characters than the actual book.

[Minion #6]

Pathfinder 2 3.0: Meh, what for?

Good thread topic - what's the use case? Under what circumstances do you use PF2 over another game? It's hardly like it offers anything new

If you want balance, D&D 4e does that better with more engaging mechanical options.
If you want simplicity, D&D 5e is the most well known and popular game on the market.
If you want a strong narrative focus, Dungeon World does it better.
If you want nitty-gritty customisation, 3.PF already does that.
If you want adventure paths, any previous D&D iteration has enough to last you as much time as you like.
And if you want a combination of these things, taking one of these games that already does what you want and using some of the wealth of 3rd party content to fine tune it to the level you want.

And that's only sticking to games that do the sort of "classic fantasy RPG" thing. Other genres and playstyles are better done by other games too

[Rhedyn]

Good thread topic - what's the use case? Under what circumstances do you use PF2 over another game? It's hardly like it offers anything new

If you want balance, D&D 4e does that better with more engaging mechanical options.
If you want simplicity, D&D 5e is the most well known and popular game on the market.
If you want a strong narrative focus, Dungeon World does it better.
If you want nitty-gritty customisation, 3.PF already does that.
If you want adventure paths, any previous D&D iteration has enough to last you as much time as you like.
And if you want a combination of these things, taking one of these games that already does what you want and using some of the wealth of 3rd party content to fine tune it to the level you want.

And that's only sticking to games that do the sort of "classic fantasy RPG" thing. Other genres and playstyles are better done by other games too

If you want balance, D&D 4e does that better with more engaging mechanical options.
If you want simplicity, D&D 4e does that better with more engaging mechanical options.
If you want a strong narrative focus, D&D 4e does that better
If you want nitty-gritty customisation, D&D 4e does that better
If you want Paizo adventure paths, PF2e will start and end better than 4e at that.

I do not really see how PF2e is supposed to grow their fanbase. PF2e doesn't compare well to a failed RPG. (Even though 3.5 was abandoned by WotC just like 4e, 3.5 is still going strong and only seeming like it might start to die out)

[Cosi]

Could we go back to the pointless argument about ability scores, or the pointless argument about class systems? Those were a lot more fun than this is going to be.


Do we have sales figures either way? We can swap anecdotal evidence for 50 pages, but to actually make progress we need data, which I suspect will be hard to come by.

RPG companies are generally not very open about sales figures. Usually the best you can do is get tea leaves from looking between the lines of what they say in official statements, and trying to extract meaning from them based on the assumption that they are making the most impressive-sounding claim that is not factually false.


You're joking, right? Dungeons and Dragons is very well-known, mostly for its role as a boogeyman in the Satanic Panic. :smallconfused:

Yeah. My perception is that the name D&D is enormously well known. Whenever pop culture as a whole makes reference to TTRPGs, they describe them as D&D. When they show people actually playing, what they're doing is usually loosely related at best to the mechanics of any version of D&D (let alone whatever version happens to be current), but "D&D" has pretty good name recognition.


I don't know why I'm even bothering with this, because this has been pointed out to you numerous times and you seem to just not care, but the low splatbook count isn't evidence of "Wizards treats 5e as DoA," it's because they made a business decision to do less splatbooks.

Has it occurred to you that the reason I haven't changed my position in response to your argument is because I think it's a bad argument? If I told you "D&D 5e failed because too many class descriptions were on prime-numbered pages" every time we discussed the quality of 5e, would you eventually feel compelled to change your opinion based on that?

Anyway, the notion that the dearth of splatbooks is intentional isn't inconsistent with the game being on life support. It's not like I was claiming that the designers had just forgot that they could release additional books. The most optimistic possible interpretation of the "it's a business decision" theory is that it means the D&D team can't think of any products they could make which wouldn't hurt sales. That's the best case and it paints a pretty damn bleak picture of the quality of the people working on the game. The most likely case is that the game is limping along on whatever people happen to throw together. Plus, that's entirely consistent with the observed behavior of Mearls on every other project he's worked on.

[Rhedyn]

Has it occurred to you that the reason I haven't changed my position in response to your argument is because I think it's a bad argument? If I told you "D&D 5e failed because too many class descriptions were on prime-numbered pages" every time we discussed the quality of 5e, would you eventually feel compelled to change your opinion based on that?

Anyway, the notion that the dearth of splatbooks is intentional isn't inconsistent with the game being on life support. It's not like I was claiming that the designers had just forgot that they could release additional books. The most optimistic possible interpretation of the "it's a business decision" theory is that it means the D&D team can't think of any products they could make which wouldn't hurt sales. That's the best case and it paints a pretty damn bleak picture of the quality of the people working on the game. The most likely case is that the game is limping along on whatever people happen to throw together. Plus, that's entirely consistent with the observed behavior of Mearls on every other project he's worked on.Well my favorite RPG, Savage Worlds, has exactly one full-time employee while the rest are part timers and/or contract. I'm fairly certain books are shipped from someone's house in Arizona. That being said, the amount of Savage Worlds books produced dwarfs 5e even if you only start counting since 5e's release. That doesn't make Savage Worlds more popular or successful than 5e.

That being said, to my knowledge, 5e has like two full time developers for 5e and everyone else is contract, which means even current Paizo dwarfs their staff in numbers. 5e may be a wild success but it isn't feeding a lot of people and Hasbro seems content to make money off the brand more than the actual hobby.

At this point 5e acts more as a gateway to RPGs than anythings else with a very small dribble of content (that may still be too fast considering how shakily the core design of 5e is and just how easy it is to break in little pieces) and honestly I think 5e was a much stronger, more versatile game before things like Sage Advice or any of the splat books (I may even go so far to say that the game may be better without the monster manual, especially if you replace it with Tome of Beast by Kobold Press)

[Akal Saris]

Completely anecdotal, but at Pax Unplugged last weekend Paizo had about 6 tables for 6 people set up for the playtest, but I wasn't able to try it out the playtest because the tables there were booked solid by Saturday morning. Bummer for me but good news for the game.

[AmberVael]

A less anecdotal snapshot of the industry can be derived from reports released by sites such as Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds. If you look at their reports across time you can get an even better sense of how things are going.

Roll20 Orr Report (http://blog.roll20.net/post/174833007355/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2018) and Fantasy Ground stats. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4800-Fantasy-Grounds-Game-Stats-for-2017-D-D-5E-Up-By-6-Pathfinder-Holds-Steady!)

Short version is that 5e seems to be doing pretty well for itself.

[Rhedyn]

A less anecdotal snapshot of the industry can be derived from reports released by sites such as Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds. If you look at their reports across time you can get an even better sense of how things are going.

Roll20 Orr Report (http://blog.roll20.net/post/174833007355/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2018) and Fantasy Ground stats. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4800-Fantasy-Grounds-Game-Stats-for-2017-D-D-5E-Up-By-6-Pathfinder-Holds-Steady!)

Short version is that 5e seems to be doing pretty well for itself.
At first I was like, "Savage Worlds is number 3 on Fantasy Grounds?" and then I remember that they actually do a lot of support for that platform.

[HouseRules]

D&D 5E and PF 2E does not make the mistake of D&D 4E - Release content faster than players could consume them.

[zfs]

Anyway, the notion that the dearth of splatbooks is intentional isn't inconsistent with the game being on life support. It's not like I was claiming that the designers had just forgot that they could release additional books. The most optimistic possible interpretation of the "it's a business decision" theory is that it means the D&D team can't think of any products they could make which wouldn't hurt sales. That's the best case and it paints a pretty damn bleak picture of the quality of the people working on the game. The most likely case is that the game is limping along on whatever people happen to throw together. Plus, that's entirely consistent with the observed behavior of Mearls on every other project he's worked on.

Or maybe they've decided not to devote a ton of time and resources to splatbook creation? They do seem to want tighter control over their output, and maybe that's a Mearls thing - I get the feeling that even though 3.5 splatbooks were obviously proofed and edited by Wizards (not always very well, as we know), they weren't exactly looking over the authors shoulders at all times. Maybe they're not willing to give their content team that kind of leash anymore. I just find this whole "more is always better" argument a bit silly. It's like saying the Cheesecake Factory is a better restaurant than the French Laundry because it has a bigger menu. And they don't have buffalo wings on the menu, so that must mean Michelin star awarded chef Thomas Keller must be incapable of making good wings. Or saying Nintendo is dumb to only release a mainline Zelda game every 5 years or so - why not 7 or 8 a year? They'd sell, right?

5e is almost 4 1/2 years old. 3.5e's entire run was about that long - actually less if I remember correctly. They had what, something like 50-60 "real" splats and some smaller things? In the same period, 5e has...like 4 or 5? (Xanathar's Guide, Mordy's Tome of Foes, Volo's Guide, Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, I might be missing a couple) And some adventure paths and assorted things. Clearly this isn't a lapse on their part. You say it's because they don't have any creative talent on board and Mearls is hack - maybe so. Business decisions are made with reference to personnel, after all.

As for life support, neither of us has access to the kind of numbers that could determine that. Given the typical run of a D&D edition, if 5e has 3 more years in it, I can't see that as being anything but a rousing success.

[Rynjin]

Which I agree is, IMO, a bad business decision. I imagine the proliferation of illegal PDFs spooks them to some extent, and obviously they prefer the high profit margins from physical releases, but I don't think offering PDF purchases would do anything to decrease physical book sales.

They must be super spooked by the fact that illegal PDFs are proliferated anyway; mostly downloaded by people who find the physical books to be a PITA to use, even when they own those as well. If they offered both PDFs AND physical copies, they'd probably find that folks are in many cases willing to buy BOTH, like many of Paizo's customers do.

[zfs]

They must be super spooked by the fact that illegal PDFs are proliferated anyway; mostly downloaded by people who find the physical books to be a PITA to use, even when they own those as well. If they offered both PDFs AND physical copies, they'd probably find that folks are in many cases willing to buy BOTH, like many of Paizo's customers do.

I'm not sure that we disagree on anything? Your tone makes it sound like it, but I don't think you've said anything that I don't agree with.

[Cosi]

Or maybe they've decided not to devote a ton of time and resources to splatbook creation?

Yeah, because they don't think they would sell, because they don't have faith in the game. You know, exactly like I said. You keep going "ah, but have you considered that they are in fact doing the things they are doing intentionally" as if that were a compelling argument or I had ever asserted to the contrary. I don't think that they intended to release a bunch of books and they accidentally didn't. I just think the fact that they aren't releasing new books is indicative of the fact that they don't think they can make money by supporting their product. Which, in the business world, is not typically seen as a sign you have a successful product on your hands. The success of the iPod prompted Apple to release other products, not collapse their release schedule below where it was when they almost went bankrupt.


Or saying Nintendo is dumb to only release a mainline Zelda game every 5 years or so - why not 7 or 8 a year? They'd sell, right?

A quick glance at WIkipedia reveals that more games for the Switch have come out this year than 5e has released splats since it launched. So, yes, Nintendo does in fact release lots of content for products it supports. Because when you make something that is good, people will buy it for money. The fact that 5e does not have things for people to buy indicates that the designers do not trust themselves to make a product worth buying. Which, given that their entire job is to make a product worth buying, raises questions about why they still have jobs.


As for life support, neither of us has access to the kind of numbers that could determine that. Given the typical run of a D&D edition, if 5e has 3 more years in it, I can't see that as being anything but a rousing success.

5e is releasing content more slowly than 3e did after 4e was announced. The difference between 5e and an edition of D&D that's scheduled to be replaced is that 5e has less content. 5e has been in the "dead edition waiting to be replaced" stage of its lifecycle for its entire lifecycle. Maintaining that for a long time isn't a "rousing success", it's a failure to launch.

[Rynjin]

I'm not sure that we disagree on anything? Your tone makes it sound like it, but I don't think you've said anything that I don't agree with.

Just an addendum, not an argument.

[zfs]

A quick glance at WIkipedia reveals that more games for the Switch have come out this year than 5e has released splats since it launched. So, yes, Nintendo does in fact release lots of content for products it supports. Because when you make something that is good, people will buy it for money. The fact that 5e does not have things for people to buy indicates that the designers do not trust themselves to make a product worth buying. Which, given that their entire job is to make a product worth buying, raises questions about why they still have jobs.


Yes, we know you've concluded that the books that don't even exist wouldn't sell. You're doing the same thing you do with every one of these ridiculously stubborn views you have. You're defining 5e as a failure regardless of sales numbers, regardless of market penetration, regardless of its standing in the industry, because the trickle of releases means the game must just not be good, was a 'dead game' the day it came out, and if anybody talented was working on it they'd make 20 splats a year like 3.5e did, splats that we obviously know were profitable because we're entirely privy to the contracts WotC had with writers, the costs of printing and distributing, their reserve loss on the balance sheet from liability on unsold inventory. You're not shifting your goalposts, you just placed them on the Moon right after we picked a stadium. As long as you're going to continue asserting that a dearth of splatbooks is in and of itself compelling evidence of a 'failed' product, then we can't have an actual discussion.

I guess those matchbox sized 3 Diamond restaurants should really be selling their food in a HS cafeteria or a hospital commissary - I mean they make good food, and people would buy it. I mean, their entire job is to sell food, after all.

Edit: Since releasing more splatbooks is just such an obvious smart business move and a telltale sign of the health and profitability of a product line, can you pick some of the individual 3.5e splats that you like - maybe ToM or UA or ToB - and tell me the bottom line impact each release had on the P&L? I can accept some guesstimates and fudging a bit, like I don't need you to determine how high of a reserve we'd need to set up to counter the book loss from future distributor returns of dead inventory.

[Erloas]

Completely anecdotal, but at Pax Unplugged last weekend Paizo had about 6 tables for 6 people set up for the playtest, but I wasn't able to try it out the playtest because the tables there were booked solid by Saturday morning. Bummer for me but good news for the game.

How big was the WoTC area? At PAX Prime and Geek Girl Con WoTC (and D&D specifically) had a lot more area than Paizo did. Of course that is Seattle and I literally live like 15 minutes away from WoTC's main (only?) building. That said, it seemed like both groups were fairly equally busy. Whether anyone *really* cared which game they were playing was hard to tell. It was pretty rare to see almost any game in any area devoid of people.
I got to play the D&D Dungeon Mayhem game but didn't wait around long enough to get into any of the RPG tables.

[TiaC]

I think the best indications that 5th isn't bringing in much money are their continued firing of employees and the lack of adventures.

There's a decent argument that releasing more splats would lessen the appeal of 5e's simplicity and lower the overall quality of the material, but that argument does not apply to adventures, which don't bring power creep or make the rules more complicated. Paizo makes a lot of its money off its APs, and it doesn't have decades of adventures ready to update.

[Vaktaeru]

Maybe I'm derailing a bit, but I find the fact that this thread (which was *supposedly* about pathfinder 2.3.0) has been entirely about 5e's sales numbers extremely telling about how well the playtest is doing. We have a dedicated thread for it and don't even care enough about the system for that dedicated thread to be about the same game, let alone the content in the playtest.

[MeimuHakurei]

Maybe I'm derailing a bit, but I find the fact that this thread (which was *supposedly* about pathfinder 2.3.0) has been entirely about 5e's sales numbers extremely telling about how well the playtest is doing. We have a dedicated thread for it and don't even care enough about the system for that dedicated thread to be about the same game, let alone the content in the playtest.

My theory is that the public playtest period has expired, so the game's unlikely to really draw any excitement until its release. There's no telling how the game will be changed at that point, either.

[Morty]

Maybe I'm derailing a bit, but I find the fact that this thread (which was *supposedly* about pathfinder 2.3.0) has been entirely about 5e's sales numbers extremely telling about how well the playtest is doing. We have a dedicated thread for it and don't even care enough about the system for that dedicated thread to be about the same game, let alone the content in the playtest.

It started with me pointing out that what this thread does and does not talk about isn't really indicative of how well the game is doing.

[Rynjin]

My theory is that the public playtest period has expired, so the game's unlikely to really draw any excitement until its release. There's no telling how the game will be changed at that point, either.

That's really been the crux of the issue all along. It was explicitly stated that the playtest was the most extreme changes they were thinking of. It's quite possible then that the release version will bear little to no resemblance to the playtest.

So why should anyone give a damn about the playtest? And by extension, the release; no info can truly be claimed to be known about the product, so how an I meant to be invested in it?

[Cosi]

Yes, we know you've concluded that the books that don't even exist wouldn't sell.

Yes, I've concluded that given that a business's job is to make money, a business not doing something is indicative of them believing it wouldn't make money. Suggesting that it's something else is like crafting elaborate theories for why Usain Bolt doesn't run backwards. The far simpler solution would be to say that he doesn't do it because it would make him less likely to win.


You're doing the same thing you do with every one of these ridiculously stubborn views you have.

Ah, yes, my "ridiculously stubborn" view that a corporation is acting in a way consistent with its views of its business interests, versus your totally flexible belief that a game that releases less product that cancelled game lines is a wild success.


As long as you're going to continue asserting that a dearth of splatbooks is in and of itself compelling evidence of a 'failed' product, then we can't have an actual discussion.

You can't have an actual discussion. Because your argument is entirely "but what if they meant to do it", which is not a rebuttal to anything at all. A rebuttal would be some explanation for why we can't infer that the actions of a profit-seeking agent are driven by a desire to make a profit.


I guess those matchbox sized 3 Diamond restaurants should really be selling their food in a HS cafeteria or a hospital commissary - I mean they make good food, and people would buy it. I mean, their entire job is to sell food, after all.

They don't have the manpower. Do you want to explain why "industry leader that has never had manpower problems before in its forty-year history" is a sign of success, or is this another case where I'm too stubborn to reason with?


Since releasing more splatbooks is just such an obvious smart business move and a telltale sign of the health and profitability of a product line, can you pick some of the individual 3.5e splats that you like - maybe ToM or UA or ToB - and tell me the bottom line impact each release had on the P&L? I can accept some guesstimates and fudging a bit, like I don't need you to determine how high of a reserve we'd need to set up to counter the book loss from future distributor returns of dead inventory.

No, you need to show that those things were a loss. Because for the entire pre 5e history of D&D, D&D released more splats than 5e. If "releasing splatbooks" was a terrible business strategy, someone would have noticed in the forty years the game has done it.

The null hypothesis is that business behave in a way that maximizes profit. For 5e, that's "not releasing content". For every other edition ever (including editions of games that aren't even D&D like Shadowrun or WoD) that's "releasing content". For every other product ever that's "giving people the opportunity to buy your product". Why is 5e looking exactly like a failure evidence it's a success?

[Rhedyn]

Why is 5e looking exactly like a failure evidence it's a success?Perhaps the business model is to only/mainly sell the core books?

Perhaps the splats they have been releasing require a lot of begging and scraping at Hasbro to even be allowed to go for it? D&D was on thin ice before 5e and might very well still be. It was pretty known at the time of release that if D&D 5e flopped, that Hasbro wouldn't be clearing expenses for a 6th edition. Any amount of splat material would suggest that Hasbro does not see 5e as a failure, but they still see D&D as a poor investment area due to the lack of more splats.

Another reason for a lack of splats would be the relatively small design space 5e has. There just isn't all that much to build on.

[Morty]

Most of the content in 3.0 and 3.5 splatbooks was mostly good for kindling, filled as it was with feats, PrCs and spells no one would ever use, and gems of design such as Swashbuckler and Samurai. A slower and more fragmented update schedule for 5E might not be ideal, but it's understandable.

[ThatMoonGuy]

You know, it is entirely possible that 5e is seeking well but the people behind it don't think splats will. The 3.5e model, which pathfinder inherited, assumed a core playerbase which would keep buying mats for the game. But maybe 5e interest is in more casual players which wouldn't be as interested in splats as hardcore players.

It's all about who they're targeting.

[zfs]

Guys stop having logical explanations for 5e's slow release schedule, Cosi has already decreed that it's because 5e was a failure from Day 1.


Yes, I've concluded that given that a business's job is to make money
?

Yes, to make money. Not to print more splatbooks, which, contrary to your beliefs that you've clearly gained from a lifetime of running successful businesses, are not magic money engines. How much money did Exemplars of Evil make? How about the Rules Compendium? Complete Psionic? Oh right, you have absolutely no idea because we don't have sales numbers for those books and we don't know how much it cost to produce them. But please, keeping lecturing the accountant on how businesses make money.

Here's Hasbro's financials: https://investor.hasbro.com/financial-information

So if you want to dig through those for evidence that 5e is a total failure, feel free. Because otherwise, your hypothesis is pretty worthless since you have basically no data. WotC claim 2017 was their best sales year ever for D&D. Your rejoinder to that is that....they're lying? Or that it doesn't matter because the game sucks so it's a failure even if it makes them more money than 3.5e because releasing fewer splatbooks looks like a failure and looks mean more than, you know, actual sales? Or that even if they are making money, they could be making so much more if they just copied 3.5e's heavy release schedule?

That last one might even be true - but we don't have the numbers to make that conclusion. Now, sales doesn't equal profit - 2017 may not have been the most profitable year for D&D. We don't have enough information to know either way.

Edit: Looking at Hasbro's brand portfolio, D&D seems to fall under their "Hasbro Gaming" umbrella, unlike Magic (which they see as their cash cow from WotC) which is under "Franchise Brands." The full net revenue of the Hasbro Gaming line went for $662 million in 2015 to $813 million in 2016. In 2017 that rose again to $893 million. It's impossible to tell how much of that is D&D, since that category also includes things like Jenga and Trivial Pursuit. But here's what Hasbro says in their 2017 Annual Report:

"In the Hasbro Gaming portfolio higher net revenues from DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products and new social gaming products including SPEAK OUT,FANTASTIC GYMNASTICS and TOILET TROUBLE drove a revenue increase in 2017."

So sure, maybe it's Toilet Trouble that is driving those high revenue numbers, not D&D. Or is Hasbro lying to their shareholders and the SEC just like Mearls is lying?

[zfs]

Maybe I'm derailing a bit, but I find the fact that this thread (which was *supposedly* about pathfinder 2.3.0) has been entirely about 5e's sales numbers extremely telling about how well the playtest is doing. We have a dedicated thread for it and don't even care enough about the system for that dedicated thread to be about the same game, let alone the content in the playtest.

I mean, I think the prior two threads exhausted most of the debate about PF 2e for the moment - this cohort is certainly pretty low on it. We'll see if they stick to their guns when it comes to not making any drastic changes after the playtest.

[Erloas]

Books are not a great way to make money. The very large upfront cost and large warehouse needs for inventory, so you don't have to pay those large upfront costs again, make is so a few very good selling books is significantly better than many low selling books.
If you sell 10000 books you'll be making a lot more if that is over 3 books than if it's over 15 different books.
It is very possible that the relatively low numbers sold of any given splatbook means that they net very little profit even if the gross looks ok.
Fewer releases of fuller, more generally useful books, is a better business model.

Also from a consumer perspective, looking at a store and seeing four dozen options for one game can make it seem more intimidating and too expensive to get into. A new player won't know how many of those books they'll really need. You'll also look forward and be likely to pick up extra books if they are fewer and farther between, it's hard to get too excited about something when a new variation will be coming out in a month and there are already ten you haven't got to yet.

[exelsisxax]

Here's a related debate: Do you want PF2 to succeed, or to fail?

I'm leaning towards wanting it to fail. Companies don't deserve to exist, and a company that produces unwanted products should stop existing. Its failure will be a loud repudiation of (hopefully) the strange combination of ivory tower and business-centric design, and a rejection of the pseudo-goals paizo put forward. If it goes bad enough, the whole company will fold. I like having corporations be accountable for their practice, so this is inherently pleasing to me. In the wake of such a failure, there's probably going to be successor attempts, and just as PF stole the D&D market for years, someone might step up and make a good game in the same vein.

But I also don't know if that'll end up being good for the hobby. 4e imploding wasn't terrible because it eliminated the biggest shareholder and created more competition. If PF2 goes down the same drain, it could easily be bad for the hobby because it will be the end of the only competitor against 5e. It will increase the monopoly-like hold of D&D over the market, and that'd be pretty terrible.

[zfs]

Here's a related debate: Do you want PF2 to succeed, or to fail?


I'm mostly on your side here - I want it to fail so that the Invisible Hand smacks Paizo around a bit and makes them more receptive to their consumer base (and not just their sycophants), but I don't want it to fail so hard that Paizo dies.

Not sure how many here were wrestling fans, but when ECW and WCW went under in 2001, both companies deserved to die. WCW had years of management incompetence and ECW had been running at a loss their entire run and floating bad checks to their employees. But the WWF/WWE becoming a virtual monopoly has been terrible for the fans - it's been great for Vince McMahon though, who became a billionaire from it.

Competition makes for a healthier market - but I don't want to see a company rewarded for making bad decisions.

[Rhedyn]

Here's a related debate: Do you want PF2 to succeed, or to fail?Fail.

But that is because I don't recognize Paizo anymore. From their forums, they seem outright hostile towards their customer-base and have completely insulated themselves from criticism that could help get their collective head out of their asses. The state of PF2e is just the natural consequence of designing in an echo chamber.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Point of order: Paizo Publishing isn't a corporation, it's an LLC.

That aside, it's a pretty callous opinion to hold that would ever want a product (that brings no harm to people or things) to fail. Creators put blood, sweat, tears, and years of time into the things they make - to so easily say "I hope it fails" because you apparently like seeing things fail when you don't like the attitude of some of the people involved with it. I'm fine with stumbling, but I'd rather Paizo learn how to fix its issues and remove the people who look down on their player base, rather than it failing.

[zfs]

Point of order: Paizo Publishing isn't a corporation, it's an LLC.

That aside, it's a pretty callous opinion to hold that would ever want a product (that brings no harm to people or things) to fail. Creators put blood, sweat, tears, and years of time into the things they make - to so easily say "I hope it fails" because you apparently like seeing things fail when you don't like the attitude of some of the people involved with it. I'm fine with stumbling, but I'd rather Paizo learn how to fix its issues and remove the people who look down on their player base, rather than it failing.

They won't learn anything if PF 2e is an incredible success, though. Fail doesn't have to mean "Cutthroat Island bombing and killing Carolco Pictures" failing.

[NomGarret]

Good question. I guess my hope is that the release is decidedly lackluster, not enough to bomb and drive Paizo out of business or anything like that, but disappointing. Then, in a year or so when it comes time for an Advanced Players Guide, or whatever they would call it, they’ve learned their lessons and make sufficient course corrections to take full advantage of the new system and do new and exciting things with it.

Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen, for several reasons. 1) it requires a particular window of failure. 2) it involves learning the right lessons. 3) it means being able to put those learnings into practice after the fact. 4) you have to do it soon enough that those who were turned off by the new edition are still willing to give it a shot and those who did like it don’t feel abandoned. Of all the 4e parallels, having a repeat of Essentials could be the most unfortunate.

[Rhedyn]

Point of order: Paizo Publishing isn't a corporation, it's an LLC.

That aside, it's a pretty callous opinion to hold that would ever want a product (that brings no harm to people or things) to fail. Creators put blood, sweat, tears, and years of time into the things they make - to so easily say "I hope it fails" because you apparently like seeing things fail when you don't like the attitude of some of the people involved with it. I'm fine with stumbling, but I'd rather Paizo learn how to fix its issues and remove the people who look down on their player base, rather than it failing.Hmmm maybe Paizo should realize that forum moderation is a part of customer service.

I was fairly optimistic about where PF2e was going before they started purging threads at the slightest provocation, and that was after mods called people racist for not liking the name change from race to "ancestries" so they changed up their mod staff a little.

[zlefin]

It depends what one means by "wnating pf2 to fail". I think the current version (as far as I saw) was bad, and should fail because it's bad, and that paizo needs to adjust their plan and come up with something better.

[Morty]

I might not like PF2E, or PF1E for that matter, but wanting it to fail... yeah, that just feels pointlessly antagonistic. A bunch of people have worked on it and I'm not going to wish failure on them.

Besides, we can't predict its effect on the market anyway, since we're not exactly qualified economists/marketers. Would it create more space for other, better and more diverse games? Or would it just solidify 5E's monopoly as people give up on Pathfinder or just recycle old content for it and 3.5?

[ThatMoonGuy]

Here's a related debate: Do you want PF2 to succeed, or to fail?


In a perfect world, I'd like Paizo to fix the issues with PF2e and bring out a good product. As I don't think PF2e is a good product and it being a success would mean we're stuck PF2e for god knows how long, I'm lightly leaning towards "moderate failure". But I fear that if that happens Paizo may backpedal and make a possible PF2.5e which ends up being too close to 1e.

Honestly, I'd be more happy if D&D 5e and PF2e were failures because it that happened maybe a modernized system would come to take their place as the king of tabletop dungeon fantasy. A system that hopefully doesn't stick to ideas of the 80s. There's this saying that "science moves a death at a time" and I'm pretty sure this works for RPGs too.

[Erloas]

They won't learn anything if PF 2e is an incredible success, though.
If it is a big success that just means they were right and "we" were wrong about what "average" players really want in a game.

There is definitely niches for all styles of games. It is hard to say what niche is still, at this point, a hole waiting to be filled.

I think the 3.5\PF1 niche is large enough that even if Paizo drops it someone else is likely to pick it up like they did.

It might have been a better idea to make PF1.5 to refine the system further and also create a whole new system that goes after a different niche and can be more free to drop the sacred cows of 3.5 and earlier. Trying to be both new and old is just a hard path to follow.

As for Paizo failing, rather than opening the market that could also go the opposite way and cause more other companies to double down on what they have now and stifle change, growth, and experimentation.

[Rynjin]

Point of order: Paizo Publishing isn't a corporation, it's an LLC.

That aside, it's a pretty callous opinion to hold that would ever want a product (that brings no harm to people or things) to fail. Creators put blood, sweat, tears, and years of time into the things they make - to so easily say "I hope it fails" because you apparently like seeing things fail when you don't like the attitude of some of the people involved with it. I'm fine with stumbling, but I'd rather Paizo learn how to fix its issues and remove the people who look down on their player base, rather than it failing.

The people who are the absolute worst to their customers are the Creative Director, Lead Designer, one of the lead writers, and the CEO.

Removing them at this stage is essentially the same as the company failing; what would be left afterward is unrecognizable.

[zfs]

As for Paizo failing, rather than opening the market that could also go the opposite way and cause more other companies to double down on what they have now and stifle change, growth, and experimentation.

That's certainly possible - if as a player you want some sacred cows gored, other companies might see PF 2e fail and decide that any deviation from orthodoxy is suicide and it might make the industry more calcified and worse off for it.

[Minion #6]

That's certainly possible - if as a player you want some sacred cows gored, other companies might see PF 2e fail and decide that any deviation from orthodoxy is suicide and it might make the industry more calcified and worse off for it.

Which would be a pity, because it's not deviation with the orthodoxy that would cause PF2 to fail. It's the fact that is just simply not a quality product in a variety of ways that brings nothing to the table that gives it a reason to use over any other game, including and especially it's main competition - it's own predecessor and the 800lb gorilla of a brand name. Even with the multitude of issues those games have, they at least offer something that PF2 doesn't.


That aside, it's a pretty callous opinion to hold that would ever want a product (that brings no harm to people or things) to fail. Creators put blood, sweat, tears, and years of time into the things they make - to so easily say "I hope it fails" because you apparently like seeing things fail when you don't like the attitude of some of the people involved with it. I'm fine with stumbling, but I'd rather Paizo learn how to fix its issues and remove the people who look down on their player base, rather than it failing.

Emphasis mine. The bolded part would go a long way honestly. Bare minimum, they should either be told by their PR people to shut the hell up stay out of it if they're going to be so condescending to their players, or outright fired. Same with anyone in any industry that attacks or condescends to their customer base. It's such basic marketing theory that I find it sort of shocking how frequent it is.

There is no circumstance where attacking your audience does anything good for your product. You don't bring in new customers just by attacking existing ones. That's like expecting to get new buildings by just demolishing the old ones. You actually have to build something, not just break down what already exists.

[exelsisxax]

That's certainly possible - if as a player you want some sacred cows gored, other companies might see PF 2e fail and decide that any deviation from orthodoxy is suicide and it might make the industry more calcified and worse off for it.

That's how companies like paizo and WotC will see it, just as the latter thought that was what killed 4e. Those that are actually making games, like paizo used to, will recognize the actual problems that players had and why they did not buy the product. Hopefully there will be enough people in that boat to produce 3.875, 4.5, a non-derived modern edition, or even a totally unrelated fantasy RPG.

[Rhedyn]

Emphasis mine. The bolded part would go a long way honestly. Bare minimum, they should either be told by their PR people to shut the hell up stay out of it if they're going to be so condescending to their players, or outright fired. Same with anyone in any industry that attacks or condescends to their customer base. It's such basic marketing theory that I find it sort of shocking how frequent it is.

There is no circumstance where attacking your audience does anything good for your product. You don't bring in new customers just by attacking existing ones. That's like expecting to get new buildings by just demolishing the old ones. You actually have to build something, not just break down what already exists. There aren't a lot of Paizo staff that I am convinced don't despise their player base. Mark Seifter?

[RedMage125]

It might have been a better idea to make PF1.5 to refine the system further and also create a whole new system that goes after a different niche and can be more free to drop the sacred cows of 3.5 and earlier. Trying to be both new and old is just a hard path to follow.

I kind of feel like this is what Unchained was, TBH. Basically re-do some of the classes without holding to 3.5e sacred cows too much.

[Rynjin]

There aren't a lot of Paizo staff that I am convinced don't despise their player base. Mark Seifter?

Mark is a cool dude. He kinda gets "one of us" status since he was a forumite long before he started working for Paizo. I kinda like Erik Mona too, though I haven't interacted with him much, and most of the adventure writers in general are cool people (though most are freelance).

[Gnaeus]

I’d like to see a hard fail. I’d like to see Paizo bought out by or forced to sell their IP to a gaming company that is willing to develop it. My personal preference would be the guys at Dreamscarred Press.

As for people losing jobs, I would hope that the better creative talent find positions elsewhere in the industry, and that the people who thought PF2e was a good idea spend the rest of their lives cleaning the grease traps at fast food restaurants. They have shown no aptitude at anything else.

[Cosi]

Here's a related debate: Do you want PF2 to succeed, or to fail?

I want PF 2e to succeed. I expect it to fail.

PF 2e's design looks bad. The ideas are bad, the implementation is bad, it's all bad. If they release a game based on what they've shown so far, I expect that it will be a bad game.

But I don't get anything out of bad games existing. From my perspective, the best thing would be for Paizo to go back to the drawing board, reevaluate their design process, and produce a good game.


There aren't a lot of Paizo staff that I am convinced don't despise their player base. Mark Seifter?

I think, in general, a lot of RPG designers take criticism very poorly and view the things they make less as a product they are selling to consumers and more as a gift they are giving to consumers.


Perhaps the business model is to only/mainly sell the core books?

Core books are almost always the best sellers. Yet every other major game has released more content and faster than 5e. Which is more likely -- that all those guys were throwing money away because the real winning strategy is to not release content, or that 5e having the release schedule of a game that already has a forthcoming replacement implies its creators have as much faith in it as people have in games that are being replaced? I know which I'd bet on.


Guys stop having logical explanations for 5e's slow release schedule, Cosi has already decreed that it's because 5e was a failure from Day 1.

What I said was that from Day 1, 5e has had a release schedule with less stuff on it per year than 3e did after 4e was announced. That is factually true. If you're at the point where you're trying to misrepresent my factually true statements as intransigence, I don't see why I should bother engaging with you. Until you can acknowledge the facts of the situation, we can't possible have a meaningful discussion about the analysis of those facts.

[RedMage125]

Man, this thread has gone from On-Topic, to WotC/Hasbro's financials (and assumptions about/judgment thereof), to vitriolic hate for specific, named members of the Paizo staff.

Helluva ride.

[Minion #6]

Man, this thread has gone from On-Topic, to WotC/Hasbro's financials (and assumptions about/judgment thereof), to vitriolic hate for specific, named members of the Paizo staff.

Helluva ride.

Vitriol for named members of Paizo Staff? Where? Only person who is specifically given any sort of characterisation (rather than merely mentioned without specifics) is Mark Seifter, who is spoken of in positive terms. Are you reading the same thread I am?

Also, FWIW, it seems to me the people arguing with Cosi aren't addressing his core point. It remains true that 5e has a more sparse release schedule than 3.5 did when 3.5 was on the way out regardless of your opinion on whether the game is any good. If you like the game, you should want them to release more content so that you can get more of something you like, and if you dislike the game then the sparse release schedule is another data point to show why you're not confident in it. To think that releasing less books per year than an edition that specifically was being phased out to make for a new one looks healthy for a game is just silly. Thinking that they have understandable reasons as to why that's happening is one thing, but trying to spin it as anything other than a negative is going out of the way to ignore reality.

On the actual thread topic though, honestly, what predictions do people make for PF2's performance? If Starfinder is anything to go by, I expect Gencon hype and sales followed by a slow death due to lack of incoming players. In fact, I think that PF2 is so bad, after the initial sales rush, numbers will drop faster than SF and be outsold by it even as SF drops in sales too. Before anyone jumps on me to say "ah how can you know what the sales will be", don't bother. This is a prediction, not a prophecy.

[Erloas]

Also, FWIW, it seems to me the people arguing with Cosi aren't addressing his core point. It remains true that 5e has a more sparse release schedule than 3.5 did when 3.5 was on the way out regardless of your opinion on whether the game is any good. If you like the game, you should want them to release more content so that you can get more of something you like, and if you dislike the game then the sparse release schedule is another data point to show why you're not confident in it. To think that releasing less books per year than an edition that specifically was being phased out to make for a new one looks healthy for a game is just silly. Thinking that they have understandable reasons as to why that's happening is one thing, but trying to spin it as anything other than a negative is going out of the way to ignore reality.

I can only speak for myself, but I could very well see WoTC deciding that while splat books might increase gross profit, they don't actually do anything to increase net profit, so a constant stream of new releases might not actually increase their bottom line at all. If they thought that over saturation of books was seen as a barrier to entry for new players they may have slowed down releases very deliberately to keep the "low barrier to entry" that they were going for in 5E. Market analytics has came a long ways (or at least ease and availability of getting those analytics) in the last 10 years.

[RedMage125]

What I said was that from Day 1, 5e has had a release schedule with less stuff on it per year than 3e did after 4e was announced. That is factually true. If you're at the point where you're trying to misrepresent my factually true statements as intransigence, I don't see why I should bother engaging with you. Until you can acknowledge the facts of the situation, we can't possible have a meaningful discussion about the analysis of those facts.

Wait, are you ONLY counting books listed as "supplements", and completely discounting adventures and the like? What about other products like their minatures, dungeons tiles, DM screens, dice sets, D&D-brand games, card games, card supplements, digital content, and so on?

They've been trying to actually space out the adventures so that people who started playing one when it was released might reasonably be done with by the time the next one is published. This also goes along with supporting Adventurer's League play, because those seasons correspond with the new adventures. And how many adventures is that? Tyranny of Dragons (2 books), Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, Tales From the Yawning Portal, Tomb of Annihilation, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, and Dungeon of the Mad Mage. That's 9 books in 4 1/2 years. Or about 2/year. Each one a hardcover book FILLED with details and options, many of which (OotA comes to mind) are very open-ended adventures. Each one is easily 4-6 months or more to play through.

You call their release schedule a sign of "failure", but I don't think that's even remotely a fair assessment. Given that RPGs themselves are an odd duck when it comes to profitability and sales, because once your loyal players all have the main books, what else do they need? And you use 3e as a comparison, but are completely discounting how much of 3e, especially towards the end, was absolute garbage. Hell, the Complete Divine was barely edited, and that was about a year into the 3.5e revision. There was practically an entire book for every back alley and outhouse for the Forgotten Realms, all with "new options". And all told, there was just a glut of product, and ABSOLUTELY a power creep. 5e was, from the jump, about quality over quantity. They've said that. This is why so much gets released as playtest before we see it in books. They're not going to print a whole bunch of books with a bunch of options that no one really wants, just to make the sale on the 1/4 of the book that's decent. Which is why all their books are generally $45 or more, too. They're putting out higher quality product at a slower pace. And from what we've heard about their sales...it's working out great.

I understand your point. But your argument is taking ONE aspect of their production line (simple quantity of different books published), and making an assumption from that that the company is not succeeding. You are LITERALLY ignoring the most important part of the equation, which is sales. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about how many book they've released. The numbers you propose may be correct. But it doesn't matter if they're selling well. If company A makes 3 different books one year, and sells 1 million copies of each, but company B produces 8 different books that year, in total selling 1.3 millions books combined all year, do you think company B is "more successful"? Obviously, that's ridiculous. But you've been ignoring or dismissing the reports of their actual sales numbers, and instead focused on how many different products they've released (focusing only on one kind of product), and act like you are somehow the only one taking more factors into consideration than anyone else. Your tone is condescending and insulting, and you are walking dangerously close to the line for Flaming.

I may not be an accountant or a financial expert, but I know that "how many different books" a publisher releases in year is not the be-all, end-all measure of their success, or even the success of that product line. I also know when I see someone talking down to someone else. So perhaps, throttle back in that regard?

[TiaC]

Core books are almost always the best sellers. Yet every other major game has released more content and faster than 5e. Which is more likely -- that all those guys were throwing money away because the real winning strategy is to not release content, or that 5e having the release schedule of a game that already has a forthcoming replacement implies its creators have as much faith in it as people have in games that are being replaced? I know which I'd bet on.



What I said was that from Day 1, 5e has had a release schedule with less stuff on it per year than 3e did after 4e was announced. That is factually true. If you're at the point where you're trying to misrepresent my factually true statements as intransigence, I don't see why I should bother engaging with you. Until you can acknowledge the facts of the situation, we can't possible have a meaningful discussion about the analysis of those facts.

Even more, they're barely releasing adventures. It might be a reasonable position that splatbooks would lower the average quality of the game, but adventures just make it easier to find and run a game. Porting adventures from earlier editions is very easy, and adventures can be made with low print quality because they aren't expected to be used as often. A large part of Paizo's success is its support of APs.

Also, they're definitely keeping up the weaselly marketing-speech of 4e. They point at their Amazon sales as representative of their success, but they also discounted the price of their books on Amazon below the price at other stores, meaning that Amazon will steal sales from other businesses.

[Morty]

Which would be a pity, because it's not deviation with the orthodoxy that would cause PF2 to fail. It's the fact that is just simply not a quality product in a variety of ways that brings nothing to the table that gives it a reason to use over any other game, including and especially it's main competition - it's own predecessor and the 800lb gorilla of a brand name. Even with the multitude of issues those games have, they at least offer something that PF2 doesn't.

PF2E seems to be straddling the fence, as I've said before. Trying to do enough new things to anger the conservative fans but not enough to bring new people in. And generally mixing the new and the old in awkward ways.

Sadly, if it fails, the reaction from Paizo and possibly others is likely to be back-pedalling and "returning to the roots". It often happens with games after an attempt at something new goes poorly.

[zfs]

What I said was that from Day 1, 5e has had a release schedule with less stuff on it per year than 3e did after 4e was announced. That is factually true. If you're at the point where you're trying to misrepresent my factually true statements as intransigence, I don't see why I should bother engaging with you. Until you can acknowledge the facts of the situation, we can't possible have a meaningful discussion about the analysis of those facts.

Yes, and you also said that because of that slow release schedule, 5e is on life support. (Or rather that the slow release schedule is by itself evidence that the game is on life support) I gave you factually true statements known as Hasbro's Annual Report. If you have factually true statements to contradict WotC's claim that 2017 was their best sales year ever for D&D and Hasbro's assertion that their spike in revenues from their Hasbro Gaming department was due to a rise in D&D sales, please post them.


Also, FWIW, it seems to me the people arguing with Cosi aren't addressing his core point. It remains true that 5e has a more sparse release schedule than 3.5 did when 3.5 was on the way out regardless of your opinion on whether the game is any good. If you like the game, you should want them to release more content so that you can get more of something you like, and if you dislike the game then the sparse release schedule is another data point to show why you're not confident in it. To think that releasing less books per year than an edition that specifically was being phased out to make for a new one looks healthy for a game is just silly. Thinking that they have understandable reasons as to why that's happening is one thing, but trying to spin it as anything other than a negative is going out of the way to ignore reality.

I'm not a particularly huge fan of 5e and don't really desire them to release more of it - well, I'd like an official version of the Mystic class, but that's about it. As far as ignoring reality, D&D sales were apparently higher in 2017 than any other year under WotC. That's reality. WotC obviously planned on selling more core books and not allocating resources to splatbooks - and the potential reasons for that have been talked about by a lot of people on this thread. They wanted a tighter design space. Maybe they don't have enough writing talent on-hand (or enough people left in the rolodex) to pump out 20 splats a year like they did during 3.5. Maybe they wanted fewer books so that newbies would be less intimidated - people trying to get into 3.5 late in the game may have felt overwhelmed by the sheer number of options (you know, the thing about 3.5 that we like so much about it and that keeps us posting about it 10+ years after it was phased out didn't necessarily help sell it to RPG neophytes).

By the objective measures that we're privy to (Roll20 numbers, media coverage, # of people creating/watching 5e streams and other 5e-related web content, WotC press releases and Hasbro's financials), 5e is doing very well. Much better than 4e and probably better than 3.5e on a pure sales basis.

[zfs]

Even more, they're barely releasing adventures. It might be a reasonable position that splatbooks would lower the average quality of the game, but adventures just make it easier to find and run a game. Porting adventures from earlier editions is very easy, and adventures can be made with low print quality because they aren't expected to be used as often. A large part of Paizo's success is its support of APs.

Also, they're definitely keeping up the weaselly marketing-speech of 4e. They point at their Amazon sales as representative of their success, but they also discounted the price of their books on Amazon below the price at other stores, meaning that Amazon will steal sales from other businesses.

3.0/3.5 mostly had a bunch of smaller modules with a few big adventure paths like RHoD, which still was a small book compared to the giant AP's that 5e has done. If you look at pure amount of content page-wise for sale over 3.5's run compared to 5e's run, I think you'll see that 5e has just as much total adventure content, and likely sold more since the AP releases are pretty big ticket. I mean how many people here own Grasp of the Emerald Claw or Whisper's of the Vampire's Blade?

Now one thing 3.0/3.5 did better was releasing lots of free adventures online. That's clearly a point in the edition's favor. But it has no bearing on comparative sales numbers.


This is why so much gets released as playtest before we see it in books.

This is a good point too. We can't pretend that 3.5e and 5e have even remotely similar design philosophies when it comes to new content. 3.5 released reams of classes, many of them outright broken or so under-powered as to be near worthless, but mixed in with the dross was some very good stuff. It's clear that many classes had very little play testing and definitely no fan input.

5e releases a much smaller amount of new subclasses through their website as Unearthed Arcana and has fans playtest and vote on all of them before they ever get official releases, if they even ever get official releases. Hell, they've proposed all of one new base class, the Mystic, and that still hasn't gotten a full release.

[Cosi]

Seriously, can we have some other argument? Like, could we have any of the game design arguments from the old thread? Those arguments were actually interesting.


Wait, are you ONLY counting books listed as "supplements", and completely discounting adventures and the like? What about other products like their minatures, dungeons tiles, DM screens, dice sets, D&D-brand games, card games, card supplements, digital content, and so on?

First, let me be precise about what I'm claiming: the speed of content release for 3e was faster in the period between 4e being announced and the last piece of official 3e content being released than it has ever been for 5e.

As far as "content", it turns out not to really matter. Obviously "D&D branded games" are not content for any particular edition, so they don't count. But the volume cap between "5e ever at all" and "3e after 4e was announced" is so big that it doesn't really matter what you count.

The highest volume year for 5e was 2014, when the game launched, and the three core books (as always, the PHB, MM, and DMG), first three adventures (Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and Rise of Tiamat), and Starter Set were released. That's seven products (unless Wikipedia's list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks) is missing something). That's seven books in twelve months.

4e was announced in August 2007. After that point Wikipedia lists four new products (Rules Compendium, Exemplars of Evil, Elder Evils, and Dungeon Survival Guide). The latest of those (Elder Evils) is listed as releasing in December 2007. That gives us four months between the announcement of 4e, and the end of 3e releases. Extrapolating, if 5e had matched an edition that was in the process of being replaced for content in its first year, it would have released twelve books.


You call their release schedule a sign of "failure", but I don't think that's even remotely a fair assessment. Given that RPGs themselves are an odd duck when it comes to profitability and sales, because once your loyal players all have the main books, what else do they need?

Once people have Age of Empires, what more do they need? Once people have Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, what more do they need? Once people have X-Com: Enemy Unknown, what more do they need? Selling expansion material for things that function on their own is not some special property of RPGs. All sorts of things get expansions, and those expansions generally make money. Because if people like your product, giving them the opportunity to buy more of it is not usually a bad strategy.


And all told, there was just a glut of product, and ABSOLUTELY a power creep.

There was a lot of product. That's not the same as a glut of product. If there was a glut of product, why maintain that level of production? The burden of proof is very much on the pro-5e side to demonstrate that the strategy employed by every major RPG company was losing money, despite the fact that "company" is an organizational structure literally defined by a mandate not to lose money.

Seriously, Occam's Razor. RPGs have existed for 40 years. Which is more likely, that it took 40 years to figure out that producing less product made more money, or that the game producing less content than previous editions did while being replaced isn't doing great?

Not to mention that if you look at Mearls' history, it's easy to see a pattern of failure to deliver. Looking at his past behavior, he seems like exactly the kind of person who would try to sell not doing his job as a brilliant business strategy.


5e was, from the jump, about quality over quantity.

5e was, from the jump, about Mearls not wanting to lose his job. The idea that 5e is an edition built on quality over quantity rests on the laughable assumption that 5e is a quality product. Everything about 5e reeks of lazy design, because 5e is somehow simultaneously shovelware and vaporware.


But you've been ignoring or dismissing the reports of their actual sales numbers

RPG companies don't release sales numbers. They release marketing statements. I've been choosing to interpret those statements pessimistically, because:


Also, they're definitely keeping up the weaselly marketing-speech of 4e. They point at their Amazon sales as representative of their success, but they also discounted the price of their books on Amazon below the price at other stores, meaning that Amazon will steal sales from other businesses.

Generally, when a company crows about their success, they are saying whatever the most impressive sounding thing that is not technically a lie is. Read in that light, I have yet to see anything that makes 5e sound like a success. Things like relative popularity don't really prove much. Of course D&D is on top, it's always on top.

[zfs]

RPG companies don't release sales numbers. They release marketing statements. I've been choosing to interpret those statements pessimistically, because

Because you want to. Because you don't like 5e. We get it.

No, Wizards won't release their sales numbers, but Hasbro is a publicly traded company that legally has to fully disclose their financials. The division of Hasbro that D&D falls under has had large increases in net revenue from 2015 to 2016 and 2017. Hasbro's own commentary to investors/their board/the SEC regarding why revenue went up cites higher sales from their D&D division as the preeminent reason.

As soon as you have some numbers to challenge that assertion, I'd love to see you post them.



Once people have Age of Empires, what more do they need? Once people have Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, what more do they need? Once people have X-Com: Enemy Unknown, what more do they need? Selling expansion material for things that function on their own is not some special property of RPGs. All sorts of things get expansions, and those expansions generally make money. Because if people like your product, giving them the opportunity to buy more of it is not usually a bad strategy.

Ah yes, the Capcom business plan. I can't forget all those magical years of my youth playing Super Metroid Turbo, Super Metroid Champion Edition, Super Metroid Rainbow and who can forget Super Super Metroid.



There was a lot of product. That's not the same as a glut of product. If there was a glut of product, why maintain that level of production? The burden of proof is very much on the pro-5e side to demonstrate that the strategy employed by every major RPG company was losing money, despite the fact that "company" is an organizational structure literally defined by a mandate not to lose money.

Ah yes, I forgot all that evidence you've shown us that Wizards is losing money for Hasbro. Probably because you didn't post any.

Why did 3.5e keep pumping out lots of books? Well, if your argument is "it must be right because they kept doing it," then I guess Wizards made no bad business decisions from 2004 to 2007 but suddenly they can't run a chicken coop because they decided to print fewer books. Where's the evidence that continuing to print tons of splats was a good business decision? We have no idea if any of those late-printed books like Exemplars of Evil even turned a profit.

Anyway, I'm just waiting for your argument to get even more ridiculous and the goalposts to make their way somewhere past Alpha Centauri. The argument is "is 5e a financial success," so people who think it is need to prove that every other major RPG ever lost money. I'm awestruck.

[Cosi]

If you have factually true statements to contradict WotC's claim that 2017 was their best sales year ever for D&D

No, that's not what he said. He said "best year ever". The word "sales" is not in the claim he made. That's not a coincidence, that's a careful choice on his part. If he could have said sales, he would have said it. You made the mistake of assuming that corporations are ever honest with you about their own success. They never are. He also talked about growth in the "past few years", which are all 5e. Since the release of 5e, WotC has been quite careful to avoid making claims that include 3e when boasting about sales. When they do mention 3e, they say things like "on track to beat", which is a completely vacuous statement. So, yes, if you take marketing statements at face value, the game looks awesome. But if you do that, I can offer you a great deal on a bridge.

[Cosi]

No, Wizards won't release their sales numbers, but Hasbro is a publicly traded company that legally has to fully disclose their financials. The division of Hasbro that D&D falls under has had large increases in net revenue from 2015 to 2016 and 2017.

So you're saying that now that there's more content, 5e is selling better? That seems super consistent with your previous assertion that not releasing content was the hidden path to victory that had hitherto eluded business. I don't need to give you numbers, your own numbers are entirely consistent with me being right if you read them for what they are instead of what you want them to be.

[zlefin]

since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously?

[zfs]

No, that's not what he said. He said "best year ever". The word "sales" is not in the claim he made. That's not a coincidence, that's a careful choice on his part. If he could have said sales, he would have said it. You made the mistake of assuming that corporations are ever honest with you about their own success. They never are. He also talked about growth in the "past few years", which are all 5e. Since the release of 5e, WotC has been quite careful to avoid making claims that include 3e when boasting about sales. When they do mention 3e, they say things like "on track to beat", which is a completely vacuous statement. So, yes, if you take marketing statements at face value, the game looks awesome. But if you do that, I can offer you a great deal on a bridge.

Not true:

Look at the bullet points that say "2017 was the best year ever for D&D in terms of sales" and "Year 3 of D&D sales is stronger than their first year" (https://plus.google.com/+StanShinn/posts/iHYy8RDYnmD)

This was from a speech/presentation given at the Game Manufacturers Association in Reno back on March 13th.

I don't take marketing statements at face value. I do take things on the P&L at face value since the SEC is a real thing. So if you have the figures that show that the growth in net revenue for the Hasbro Gaming division has more to do with Toilet Trouble than D&D, again, you're more than free to post them. Hasbro CEO Brian Goldern disagrees and so does whoever puts together their Annual Report but hey, what do they know compared to Cosi?


So you're saying that now that there's more content, 5e is selling better? That seems super consistent with your previous assertion that not releasing content was the hidden path to victory that had hitherto eluded business. I don't need to give you numbers, your own numbers are entirely consistent with me being right if you read them for what they are instead of what you want them to be.

So that means every single year an RPG is out their total sales should be higher than the year before because there's more total content? Let me go check NES game sales - they must be way higher now in 2018 than they were in 1987, since there are so many more games out.

Gosh, how do these games ever fail then? 3.5e should have been selling tens of millions of books by 2008 since they had such a huge catalogue of splatbooks. Why did WotC ever stupidly create 4e and then 5e? They threw away a gold mine!

No, I'm saying that 2017 was a better sales year for D&D than any year of 3.5's run - but how can that be, since more splats automatically means more book sales and more profit? Just more content for Cosi's future book on how to run companies with over $5 Billion in total yearly revenue so he can educate dunces like Hasbro's CEO.


since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously?

I don't know how much clout they have with non-RPG wonks but I think any of the major 3PP like Dreamscarred would get people seriously hyped if they were to strike out on their own with a full RPG, and they could probably expect a very big crowdfunding effort to support them.

[RedMage125]

First things first, zfs. Multiple postings like that is a violation of the Forum Rules, which you may have missed. I hope I am not being insulting here, but I'm going to tell you how to multi-quote, as I assume you do not know how, since your account is only 3 months old and you aren't doing it. At the bottom of every post is a symbol that looks like "+ . When you click it, a green checkmark appears. You may click multiple posts in this manner, and then when you click "Reply to Thread", they will all be in there.

Just trying to help. I get that back-to-back posts happen sometimes (because you want to respond to people who posted while you were typing the first one), but 3 or more in a row is real bad.

3.0/3.5 mostly had a bunch of smaller modules with a few big adventure paths like RHoD, which still was a small book compared to the giant AP's that 5e has done. If you look at pure amount of content page-wise for sale over 3.5's run compared to 5e's run, I think you'll see that 5e has just as much total adventure content, and likely sold more since the AP releases are pretty big ticket. I mean how many people here own Grasp of the Emerald Claw or Whisper's of the Vampire's Blade?

Now one thing 3.0/3.5 did better was releasing lots of free adventures online. That's clearly a point in the edition's favor. But it has no bearing on comparative sales numbers.

3.0/3.5 never released official "adventure paths", those were almost exclusively the domain of Dungeon magazine (which, at the time, was published by Paizo). That's actually where they started doing these massive ones that took character from 1-20. Shackled City was the first, but that was spread all over so many magazines, but Age of Worms...oh my...it was amazing. WotC actually continued that with 4e in the digital version of Dungeon magazine, "Scales of War" ran players from 1-30.

A lot of the WotC adventures, however, WERE related. You could run them as individual adventures, but if you ran them together, there were elements that tied them together. Kind of like Grasp of the Emerald Claw and Shadows of the Last War (which, by the way, I do own. I own every single 3.5e era Eberron product, to include the Eberron DM's Screen...I went super fanboy over Eberron).



First, let me be precise about what I'm claiming: the speed of content release for 3e was faster in the period between 4e being announced and the last piece of official 3e content being released than it has ever been for 5e.

As far as "content", it turns out not to really matter. Obviously "D&D branded games" are not content for any particular edition, so they don't count. But the volume cap between "5e ever at all" and "3e after 4e was announced" is so big that it doesn't really matter what you count.

The highest volume year for 5e was 2014, when the game launched, and the three core books (as always, the PHB, MM, and DMG), first three adventures (Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and Rise of Tiamat), and Starter Set were released. That's seven products (unless Wikipedia's list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks) is missing something). That's seven books in twelve months.

4e was announced in August 2007. After that point Wikipedia lists four new products (Rules Compendium, Exemplars of Evil, Elder Evils, and Dungeon Survival Guide). The latest of those (Elder Evils) is listed as releasing in December 2007. That gives us four months between the announcement of 4e, and the end of 3e releases. Extrapolating, if 5e had matched an edition that was in the process of being replaced for content in its first year, it would have released twelve books.
Again, all I'm hearing is "number of different books released = ONLY measure of success". You were very verbose about it, but that's all you said.



Once people have Age of Empires, what more do they need? Once people have Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, what more do they need? Once people have X-Com: Enemy Unknown, what more do they need? Selling expansion material for things that function on their own is not some special property of RPGs. All sorts of things get expansions, and those expansions generally make money. Because if people like your product, giving them the opportunity to buy more of it is not usually a bad strategy.
Okay, but RPGs are an odd duck because only ONE person in a group of 4-7 even needs to HAVE the books to play. Unlike ANY of your other examples.


There was a lot of product. That's not the same as a glut of product. If there was a glut of product, why maintain that level of production? The burden of proof is very much on the pro-5e side to demonstrate that the strategy employed by every major RPG company was losing money, despite the fact that "company" is an organizational structure literally defined by a mandate not to lose money.

Seriously, Occam's Razor. RPGs have existed for 40 years. Which is more likely, that it took 40 years to figure out that producing less product made more money, or that the game producing less content than previous editions did while being replaced isn't doing great?
Without going into a rant...do you know why TSR collapsed?



5e was, from the jump, about Mearls not wanting to lose his job. The idea that 5e is an edition built on quality over quantity rests on the laughable assumption that 5e is a quality product. Everything about 5e reeks of lazy design, because 5e is somehow simultaneously shovelware and vaporware.
I decided to bold all the things you said that are pure opinion, and cannot be substantiated or validated with facts.

It's okay to HAVE opinions, and I'm not about to try and change your mind about "how good or bad 5e is". I get that you don't like it, and I respect that you have a different opinion and values than I do. But you are acting like your opinions are so vital an universal that they bear the weight of objective fact.



I've been choosing to interpret those statements pessimistically
That really sums up almost all of your points, right there.


I have yet to see anything that makes 5e sound like a success. Things like relative popularity don't really prove much. Of course D&D is on top, it's always on top.

So...if popularity means nothing...and sales mean nothing...what does make a product line "successful"? I mean, if it's making money for the company, AND it is rated highly by consumers...what else is needed? And more importantly, WHY? Why would something else be needed to be considered a success beyond those two things? Because one guy on the internet has a definition of success that does not make sense in terms of financial gains or consumer reviews?

Even if we validate your assumption, somewhat, you're basically only saying that "if 5e was successful, they'd release even MORE product to be even MORE successful, so because they are not MORE successful than they are, I say they are not successful AT ALL". And your measure of success is the number of books produced in the death throes of an edition that already gave us more supplements than we needed.

And by the way, the Rules Compendium was no new content, seemed to me a shameless last grab at more money for the same stuff. Dungeon Survival Guide, as I recall...wasn't that not even a rulebook? Wasn't it mostly pictures and talking about "how to adventure in a dungeon or cave", with no real meat to any of it. Hell, as I recall, most of it felt like a commercial for other adventures and modules. If "D&D brand games" don't count, then that book doesn't count for 3.5e.

[zfs]

First things first, zfs. Multiple postings like that is a violation of the Forum Rules, which you may have missed. I hope I am not being insulting here, but I'm going to tell you how to multi-quote, as I assume you do not know how, since your account is only 3 months old and you aren't doing it. At the bottom of every post is a symbol that looks like "+ . When you click it, a green checkmark appears. You may click multiple posts in this manner, and then when you click "Reply to Thread", they will all be in there.


I'm aware, and I know how to multi-quote, but thank you for being kind about it.

[stack]

since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously?

The 3pp business is built on part time freelancers that do it because they want to and miniscule sales. There are a few full time people, but making the jump to providing enough support to sustain a successor system is a non-trivial challenge. It will be made worse by everyone and their brother trying to be the next paizo.

[Cosi]

Ah yes, I forgot all that evidence you've shown us that Wizards is losing money for Hasbro. Probably because you didn't post any.

That's not what I said. I said that 5e's release strategy is consistent with it being a failure that it would lose money to support.

Occam's Razor. We know that corporations want to make money. We know that corporations have historically released lots of content for TTRPGs. There are two possible theories for why D&D 5e is releasing very little conflict: that doing so is a better business strategy (in which case dozens of corporations left money on the table for decades by releasing too many splats) or that 5e is failing (in which case both now-WotC and all other TTRPG companies have been behaving in a profit maximizing way).

So again, which is more likely, that profit-seeking corporations spent literal decades accepting a smaller profit than the one they would have achieved for doing less work, or that the game you like is bad?


Look at the bullet points that say "2017 was the best year ever for D&D in terms of sales" and "Year 3 of D&D sales is stronger than their first year" (https://plus.google.com/+StanShinn/posts/iHYy8RDYnmD)

Oh, some dude went to an event and came away with the belief that someone had said that? That's definitely real evidence that matters. Seriously, that's some dude's social media post. That's nothing.


So if you have the figures that show that the growth in net revenue for the Hasbro Gaming division has more to do with Toilet Trouble than D&D

Saying "growth from D&D and X" is a less impressive claim about the success of D&D than saying "growth from D&D". The burden of proof is on you to show that the ambiguous claim is consistent with your position. Your current argument is circular. "Of course D&D is beating Toilet Trouble, D&D is big and successful! Of course D&D is big and successful, it's beating Toilet Trouble!".

[exelsisxax]

since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously?

Dreamscarred Press and Drop Dead Studios. Their main products are pretty much universally agreed to be better designed, written, and balanced in-game than actual 1pp. When they run playtests, they accept and respond to feedback.

The question is one of ability to publish an entire game without support from a megalith like hasbro.

[zfs]

Oh, some dude went to an event and came away with the belief that someone had said that? That's definitely real evidence that matters. Seriously, that's some dude's social media post. That's nothing.



Saying "growth from D&D and X" is a less impressive claim about the success of D&D than saying "growth from D&D". The burden of proof is on you to show that the ambiguous claim is consistent with your position. Your current argument is circular. "Of course D&D is beating Toilet Trouble, D&D is big and successful! Of course D&D is big and successful, it's beating Toilet Trouble!".

No, someone was at an event where those exact claims were made and he's repeating them. He didn't hear Mark Price say "I had eggs for breakfast" and think "that must mean 2017 had the best sales for D&D ever!" If you can't even be honest about basic facts, I'm not going to continue this discussion. Net revenue going up isn't an "ambiguous claim." You want me to provide evidence that's impossible to provide because I can't steal documents from Hasbro's personal files and give exact sales numbers and bottom-line impact of WotC's D&D division on Hasbro's profitability.


Dreamscarred Press and Drop Dead Studios. Their main products are pretty much universally agreed to be better designed, written, and balanced in-game than actual 1pp. When they run playtests, they accept and respond to feedback.

The question is one of ability to publish an entire game without support from a megalith like hasbro.

As stack posted, it's way harder to make your own thing in its entirety than be a 3PP. But people back in 2007/2008 probably would have scoffed at Paizo being able to parlay their magazine publishing gig into being D&D's #1 competitor, so it can clearly be done.



And by the way, the Rules Compendium was no new content, seemed to me a shameless last grab at more money for the same stuff. Dungeon Survival Guide, as I recall...wasn't that not even a rulebook? Wasn't it mostly pictures and talking about "how to adventure in a dungeon or cave", with no real meat to any of it. Hell, as I recall, most of it felt like a commercial for other adventures and modules. If "D&D brand games" don't count, then that book doesn't count for 3.5e.

Yeah, some of the late stuff was pretty weak, but even that last gasp had a cool book in Elder Evils. As a fan, I actually preferred the 3.5 method of "let's just poop out 15 or so splats a year even if some are going to be garbage and lots of the base classes will be disasters with a few being literally unplayable out of the box" because it gave us stuff like the Binder and Incarnum and the Ardent, even though it also gave us the Truenamer and the Divine Mind. I'm just not going to asset that more splats is automatically the best business plan without having any actual numbers to back that up.

[AmberVael]

since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously?

Not many.
Groups that do have resources to pull it off generally don't have the interest. Green Ronin could take a stab at it, but they have systems of their own that they'd probably rather support instead.

Most of the groups who would be interested are third party publishers, and they don't have a lot of resources. Even the better known of these publishers don't earn much money and have relatively small audiences. If I was going to suggest a publisher who might pull it off, I'd say Legendary Games.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

They've been trying to actually space out the adventures so that people who started playing one when it was released might reasonably be done with by the time the next one is published. This also goes along with supporting Adventurer's League play, because those seasons correspond with the new adventures. And how many adventures is that? Tyranny of Dragons (2 books), Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, Tales From the Yawning Portal, Tomb of Annihilation, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, and Dungeon of the Mad Mage. That's 9 books in 4 1/2 years. Or about 2/year. Each one a hardcover book FILLED with details and options, many of which (OotA comes to mind) are very open-ended adventures. Each one is easily 4-6 months or more to play through.


3.0/3.5 mostly had a bunch of smaller modules with a few big adventure paths like RHoD, which still was a small book compared to the giant AP's that 5e has done. If you look at pure amount of content page-wise for sale over 3.5's run compared to 5e's run, I think you'll see that 5e has just as much total adventure content, and likely sold more since the AP releases are pretty big ticket. I mean how many people here own Grasp of the Emerald Claw or Whisper's of the Vampire's Blade?

I would point out that "release one adventure path and then release another one when everyone's played through it" is not exactly the best strategy unless every group is doing exactly that, buying a path, playing all the way through it in the expected time allotment, buying the next one, and so on.

There's plenty of scenarios in which the one-AP-per-6-months strategy falls flat:

If your group went "Eh, we just finished Red Hand of Doom with our last 3e campaign, we don't want to play another Tiamat-focused adventure path" when 5e came out and Tyranny of Dragons was the only adventure available for the entire year.
If your group started playing through Princes of the Apocalypse, TPK'd partway through after only a month of playing, and wanted to start on a different adventure path instead of justifying a whole new party picking up where the last one died.
If you had an experienced group (or just one that managed to play every week) that was able to blaze their way through Curse of Strahd in 3 months instead of 6 and wanted to start on a new adventure.
If you as the DM wanted a small, self-contained adventure you could slot into your ongoing campaign as a diversion or side quest.
If you were looking for a setting-specific adventure path (Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave/Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land/Anauroch: Empire of Shade for Forgotten Realms, Shadows of the Last War/Whispers of the Vampire's Blade/Grasp of the Emerald Claw/Voyage of the Golden Dragon for Eberron, The Great Modron March for Planescape, and so forth) because you want one that delves into the setting's lore and you don't want to adapt a generic one yourself, and the one AP they put out that year isn't for that setting.
If you prefer sticking to low levels or starting at high levels and wouldn't use more than a third or so of a full adventure path's content.
Heck, if you just weren't a huge fan of a particular AP's theme or weren't confident about the reviews or whatever.
Looking at Dungeon Magazine, every issue had 3 adventures in it, all at different level ranges, one of which was usually part of an ongoing adventure path and the other two of which were standalones, and in the 3.5 era it also had columns on GMing tools, adventure design tips, and similar generic advice. Someone who hated Shackled City or Age of Worms while those adventure paths were being published would still get 24 other standalone adventures over the course of a year that they could use as-is, string together, steal ideas from, and so on, all for ~$84 in 2004 dollars (~$111 today). That's 3x the content of a 5e adventure path for 2x the price, and of course you didn't have to buy every Dungeon issue if you were more interested in the standalones.

A group that's actually interested in doing nothing but running adventure paths one after another as WotC expects is better served (in variety, in timing, and other factors) by having more adventures of varying lengths, themes, settings, and level ranges published than having fewer single adventure paths, and the more a given group falls outside that narrow demographic the better off they'd be in the former case than the latter.

[Erloas]

So again, which is more likely, that profit-seeking corporations spent literal decades accepting a smaller profit than the one they would have achieved for doing less work, or that the game you like is bad?
Game companies of all stripes are notoriously bad at business, they're great at making up ideas and really bad at turning that into a profitable business. There are dozens (probably hundreds) of companies from console and PC games, to board games, to war games, to RPGs. Many are sold as the company dies so they keep going, but it is poor business sense that kills them. Almost every one that I know also comes from the fact that they're too ambitious and try to do too many things and once and spread themselves too thin. Trying to do more than the market will support.
This a niche, unlike something mainstream like Warlmart where you can survive by selling millions things for very low profits, they are more low volume, higher profit markets.

Look at MTG, practically seems like a license to print money. So why isn't WotC releasing new sets every month? Releasing more will automatically mean more money right? No, they've got a very steady release schedule of about 1 expansion a quarter. They've figured out what the market will support, what will keep people interested but not burn them out (too fast) or flood the market. It comes as no surprise that they would take the same, more measured and methodical, approach to D&D releases as well.

[Test Pattern]

Look at MTG, practically seems like a license to print money. So why isn't WotC releasing new sets every month?

Wait your talking about MTG which is based apon a bubble economy and artificial scarcity (As well as compuslion for gambling) as a example of "Small Time Buisness Sense" and "Good game design".

MTG releases hundreds of cards every year with power creep built into the system.

Do it over and try again.

[Erloas]

Wait your talking about MTG which is based apon a bubble economy and artificial scarcity (As well as compuslion for gambling) as a example of "Small Time Buisness Sense" and "Good game design".

MTG releases hundreds of cards every year with power creep built into the system.

Do it over and try again.

Not that I'm a huge fan of MTG, it has been a long time since I've collected. But when it comes to knowing your playerbase and developing a successful business model around it, I can't think of a better example. The game has it's flaws for sure, but it also has things it does incredibly well.
As for power creep, I'm going to have to say that other than a few wonky combos, it doesn't really seem like it. As a case in point, I played regularly ... 20 years ago I think. About 6 years ago my brother opened up a game shop, and while I didn't play a lot, I did pull out my old deck and it still won more often than not against new decks. It wasn't even an exceptionally powerful deck, fine tuned but not stacked with rare cards. I also played in a few releases and tourneys (to support his shop more than because I was really into MTG) and I can say that while the variety of options had increased, the overall power level and game speed wasn't that much different.

They didn't seem to build power creep into the system, they've just built a very strong community, competitive especially, and cycled out the available cards regularly.

Even though I've long ago given up on competitive gaming and collectable gaming, I can't say I've found any other card game that is nearly as good. Is it perfect? No, but it is good.

As for business sense... I'm not sure there is any non-computer/console game that even comes close to MTG. From a business standpoint, they've figured out something for sure. Virtually every FLGS I've been in lives and dies off of MTG.

*It is possible some of this has changed, my brother closed his shop about 3 years ago. I haven't followed it that closely.

You might not like MTG, but you can't claim that it isn't successful and enjoyed by huge numbers of people, and making money for the company.

[Test Pattern]

You might not like MTG, but you can't claim that it isn't successful and enjoyed by huge numbers of people, and making money for the company.
I won't. But you can claim the same thing for Apple, and Marlboro Cigarettes.

I decided that I don't half-go with scummy decisions as much as possible. I quit the game and sold off my entire collection (Recouping a TINY amount of the money invested), because its based on compulsion and inertia, and perpetual investment.

[Divayth Fyr]

Not true:

Look at the bullet points that say "2017 was the best year ever for D&D in terms of sales" and "Year 3 of D&D sales is stronger than their first year" (https://plus.google.com/+StanShinn/posts/iHYy8RDYnmD)

This was from a speech/presentation given at the Game Manufacturers Association in Reno back on March 13th.
The second bullet point kinda makes it feel like the first one was using "D&D" to talk about 5th Edition only (with its "Year 3 of D&D sales"), so I would take it with a grain of salt when wanting to claim overwhelming success.

[ThatMoonGuy]

The problem with trying to go Pathfinder on Pathfinder right now is that PF1e was created on a very specific moment when 4e was being bashed by everyone and the old 3.5e players felt betrayed. So Paizo, who had some street cred, took the chance and launched their own game with blackjack and hookers. Whoever gets on the bandwagon now will have to contend not only with PF2e, which may or may not be as well received as 4e, but also with 5e. They also can't capitalize on "3.5e but more streamlined" since this may just not cut it anymore as there are two versions of 3.5e on the market with literally tons of published matterial availabe in many cases for free.

I'd be more happy seeing a spiritual sucessor of 3.5e, a game that followed the same guidelines of strong character costumization while updating the underlying math and decisions to reach this goal in a somewhat more modernized fashion. Scrap the traditional classes and rethink what they mean. Rethink the assumptions of WBL and the at will/per day paradigm. Change what feats mean so that we get less trap options. That sort of thing. It's not easy work, sure, and while I'd love to see DSP do it (and I'm glad to see it's a common opinion given how I always had to fight grognards over ToB back in the day) I'm not sure if they have the necessary resources to pull it off in a reasonable timeframe.

[EldritchWeaver]

Not to mention that if you look at Mearls' history, it's easy to see a pattern of failure to deliver. Looking at his past behavior, he seems like exactly the kind of person who would try to sell not doing his job as a brilliant business strategy.

Since I'm not a Mearls historian, what did he do to earn your misgivings?


since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously?


The 3pp business is built on part time freelancers that do it because they want to and miniscule sales. There are a few full time people, but making the jump to providing enough support to sustain a successor system is a non-trivial challenge. It will be made worse by everyone and their brother trying to be the next paizo.


Dreamscarred Press and Drop Dead Studios. Their main products are pretty much universally agreed to be better designed, written, and balanced in-game than actual 1pp. When they run playtests, they accept and respond to feedback.

The question is one of ability to publish an entire game without support from a megalith like hasbro.


Not many.
Groups that do have resources to pull it off generally don't have the interest. Green Ronin could take a stab at it, but they have systems of their own that they'd probably rather support instead.

Most of the groups who would be interested are third party publishers, and they don't have a lot of resources. Even the better known of these publishers don't earn much money and have relatively small audiences. If I was going to suggest a publisher who might pull it off, I'd say Legendary Games.

My bets would be DDS and DSP and Purple Duck Games. The former two I've interacted enough with to be confident in producing quality products, but the big question is if the first two will produce something which is backwards compatible enough to garner a sufficiently large audience. Imagine Pathfinder with no vancian magic and no 5th tier martial classes, but instead using only spheres, psionics, initiators and the like. To get there, you have to sacrifice a number of holy cows. Considering people started riots over the suggestion that since ability scores are nearly irrelevant in PF2, you could just use modifiers, this might be difficult to achieve.

Also, it also begs the question if these two companies would be willing to work together or even if it makes sense. Personally, I'm not a fan of PoW due to its mechanics (it's too close to vancian, regardless if the recovery mechanics are different), so I wouldn't want to be forcefed those mechanics. What I could imagine is to create a basic book, which contains the rules for the games, but necessarily the classes - which would be supplied by the various companies.

Not sure how workable this would be, since Purple Duck Games (which seems to be closely related to Legendary Games? Maybe they merged?) is already working on being a Paizo's Paizo. At this point, I'm not sure if PF or a clone will survive the coming storm. But I'll wait and see what the future will bring.

[Raxxius]

Fundamentally the problem that you have with 5e is it's not aimed at you.

Hardcore gamers need to understand that even if they will buy nearly everything published, they represent a tiny portion of the potential market.

Games made for you are not appealing to casual gamers. Bring a complete newbie to pathfinder and most likely someone else is going to need to build their character.

It's not exactly an appealing prospect for many people.

Getting more people to buy less product Is efficient. Board games are on the resurgence and the casual market is bigger than ever.

Dimishing hardcore fanbases are not the most profitable, you need to pump out a lot more material for lower roi.

Markets changed. 5e is a success, I know people who would never touch 3.5/p for being impenetrable playing 5e.

It may never have the total depth of content 3.5 did
But I wouldn't be surprised if no game system ever matches 3.5/p size and scope. The market changed.

[Gnaeus]

Dreamscarred Press and Drop Dead Studios. Their main products are pretty much universally agreed to be better designed, written, and balanced in-game than actual 1pp. When they run playtests, they accept and respond to feedback.

The question is one of ability to publish an entire game without support from a megalith like hasbro.

Publishing is fairly easy these days. My wife’s small press published her 2 novels, 2 editions of her technical manual, and half a dozen other books from friends and family members, using the womanpower of one person who had 2 kids and another full time job. I have little doubt that a multi person team full of talent like the ones you mentioned could knock out a core set based on their (probably already written) houserules +d20 srd in pretty short order. Especially if, for example, Paizo failed and they acquired PF1 to use as a template to improve upon, rather than trashed.

No, I would say the question is whether they could market enough to maintain their staff, based on reputations which while good in our community, don’t extend much beyond it. I know I’d be excited but I don’t know if they could get it to new players.

[stack]

I would say releasing core rules is a smaller hurdle than sustaining content. Rolling out enough adventures and other content to keep afloat is the greater challenge, in my estimation.

[Gnaeus]

Fundamentally the problem that you have with 5e is it's not aimed at you.

Hardcore gamers need to understand that even if they will buy nearly everything published, they represent a tiny portion of the potential market.

Games made for you are not appealing to casual gamers. Bring a complete newbie to pathfinder and most likely someone else is going to need to build their character.

It's not exactly an appealing prospect for many people.

Getting more people to buy less product Is efficient. Board games are on the resurgence and the casual market is bigger than ever.

Dimishing hardcore fanbases are not the most profitable, you need to pump out a lot more material for lower roi.

There should be room in the market for both games, though. I love 5e for the reasons you cited. If my daughters 12yo friends want to play D&D I don’t want to explain 40 core classes and hundreds of feats. It’s a nice, simple game. But my hardcore gaming group isn’t much interested. We will stick to 3.pf or jump to GURPS or something before we downgrade our gaming complexity to 5e.

There are published novels on human/dinosaur porn. There is at least one, I think several multi book, fairly successful lines of novels about people from our world sucked into their 3.5 clone games. If those make money, I can’t believe there isn’t a publishing niche for fans of 3.pf who want a more complex D20 game than 5e. I support 5e for being 5e and I think it is pretty decent for what it does. But it isn’t a replacement (especially given it’s already mentioned slow publishing schedule, because I own my books and won’t buy anything else that lacks crunch character content. Unless they change their model they already have all the money they will get from me or my friends. I suppose someone might shell out a few $ for an AP in pdf form.) for my pf1 or 3.5 $.

TLDR. 5e or 6e be the market leader for the foreseeable future. That doesn’t mean the 3.5 fans can’t still get material for their market corner.

[Rhedyn]

since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously? If by "Pathfinder" you mean "Popular not D&D game that values having rules for things in their design philosophy", then I think PEGs Savage Worlds has a decent shot. I got my hands on the PDF of the new edition and it's just an overall improvement on what was already my favorite RPG.

I don't see DSP, DDS, or Kobold Press making their own 3.5 clone. I predict most of them to start cranking out more and more 5e crunch since the game has a hardcore audience that is hungry for content. It's far less risky and far easier to plug the rules holes in 5e than rethink 3.5.

PurpleDuck may actually do it. They are putting in the effort and if they can make a pretty book, then they could take the reigns.

[exelsisxax]

PurpleDuck may actually do it. They are putting in the effort and if they can make a pretty book, then they could take the reigns.

Last time I saw their game, it was blatantly a 3.PF rebpublishing, not a new game. I don't think that would fare well - if people want 3.PF, they already have 3.PF. The system needs reworking for a good successor, not a blind copy-paste.

[Rhedyn]

Last time I saw their game, it was blatantly a 3.PF rebpublishing, not a new game. I don't think that would fare well - if people want 3.PF, they already have 3.PF. The system needs reworking for a good successor, not a blind copy-paste.
*Butterfly strokes through Savage Worlds supplements that all still work with the edition released yesterday

If only what I actually wanted from 3.X was reworked in a fast and deep game where both Martials and casters get to be cool.

*Dives back into the crunchy depths

[Scowling Dragon]

Blugh. Savage worlds to me is not a great generic universal game.

[Rynjin]

While I love Savage World's, it's a VERY different type of RPG. Any 3.PF successor will need to capture the FEEL of it's predecessors, and SW does not.

[Ualaa]

Wait your talking about MTG which is based apon a bubble economy and artificial scarcity (As well as compuslion for gambling) as a example of "Small Time Buisness Sense" and "Good game design".

MTG releases hundreds of cards every year with power creep built into the system.

Do it over and try again.

My buddy plays MTG, but has printed out every card (a few times) and hasn't purchased any of them.
If you want to play him, you both have access to every option.
So it is the best strategy that wins, not whoever has the most luck or threw the most money at some company.

[Rhedyn]

Blugh. Savage worlds to me is not a great generic universal game.It's not actually all that universal. It only really works for any kind of story that makes for a good movie, and even then it works best with the Core-book + a campaign specific supplement to keep things fresh. It's also a continuously improving project so whatever your previous hang up was about the system may not even be an issue anymore. But it is mid-crunch and if heavy or light crunch is your preference, then there are other generics for that. Idk too many mid-crunch generics beyond Savage Worlds.


While I love Savage World's, it's a VERY different type of RPG. Any 3.PF successor will need to capture the FEEL of it's predecessors, and SW does not.

I guess I have to question what FEEL needs to be captured because I am not missing much at all. I think a Pathfinder successor only needs to carry on the core design philosophy of "Having Rules for things is good." which is something D&D 5e has abandoned. The bar for complexity tolerated has plummeted with the advent of 5e but I still see many people disgruntled by the lack of rules for things and the devs insistence that injecting "rulings" into rules is "value added".

[zfs]

The second bullet point kinda makes it feel like the first one was using "D&D" to talk about 5th Edition only (with its "Year 3 of D&D sales"), so I would take it with a grain of salt when wanting to claim overwhelming success.

Reading all the articles about this seminar, it's clear they meant it was the best sales year for D&D that WotC has had yet, not just 5e. The second bullet is sort of redundant either way (if 2017 was their best sales year ever, then obviously Year 3 sales topped Year 1 sales).

Without auditing them it's impossible to know whether they're using accounting gimmicks to make that boast.

[Recherché]

I guess I have to question what FEEL needs to be captured because I am not missing much at all. I think a Pathfinder successor only needs to carry on the core design philosophy of "Having Rules for things is good." which is something D&D 5e has abandoned. The bar for complexity tolerated has plummeted with the advent of 5e but I still see many people disgruntled by the lack of rules for things and the devs insistence that injecting "rulings" into rules is "value added".

Having played Savage Worlds and really not liking it, my problems largely come from the math not clicking in my head. Also a lack of feeling like my character is ever really competent at anything and not having many abilities that combined together well to create characters that were more than the sum of their parts. I'm sure the system works well for some people but it's just not for me.

[Telwar]

Reading all the articles about this seminar, it's clear they meant it was the best sales year for D&D that WotC has had yet, not just 5e. The second bullet is sort of redundant either way (if 2017 was their best sales year ever, then obviously Year 3 sales topped Year 1 sales).

Without auditing them it's impossible to know whether they're using accounting gimmicks to make that boast.

It could easily include things like the PDF sales from DM's Guild for, say, previous editions, etc.

From what I recall hearing, their business strategy for 5e is to keep costs as low as they can, so they can be as profitable as possible, so they don't look like dead weight compared to Magic and Pokemon.

And from what I recall, the core books for 3e and 4e were always reasonably good sellers, but the supplements weren't nearly as evergreen. And, compared with the costs involved in making the books, I can see why they'd keep the supplements down, especially since there was a ton of crap thrown at the wall. To 5e's credit, they haven't put out too much *crap* product, but they haven't also put out much new that's really great, too.


On-topic: I would like PF2 to succeed. I think they're making a lot of mistakes (in particular, it looks like they're ripping too many things off of classes and graciously letting you pick from them as you level), but I'd like a viable alternative to 5e (which I, ahem, dislike).

[Rhedyn]

Having played Savage Worlds and really not liking it, my problems largely come from the math not clicking in my head. Statistics used to analyze the core mechanic can get advance and calculating an "average roll" on exploding dice is actually like a Taylor series (that can be simplified down into a little formula). The in-game math is pretty simple, but yes I understand the theorycraft just not clicking. It's a pretty simple conclusion though. Bigger dice = better


Also a lack of feeling like my character is ever really competent at anything and not having many abilities that combined together well to create characters that were more than the sum of their parts. I'm sure the system works well for some people but it's just not for me. Did you remember to roll your Wild Die? (You roll a d6 with all traits rolls and select the higher result). Having a d6 in a trait gives you a 75% success rate and that is a pretty minimal investment. So I do not understand this criticism. Savage Worlds characters start out very competent and only get better. Nor do I really get the "sum of parts" comment. Things combo and there is optimization it's just not the same kind as PF and it doesn't create the vast gulf of ability difference that you see in 3.X.

Your issues do not seem to be ones that are intrinsic to Savage Worlds (Swingy math / anything can happen, no Hit points, turns can be wasted, action-focused, etc).

[Test Pattern]

So it is the best strategy that wins, not whoever has the most luck or threw the most money at some company.

Good for him. But we are talking about business sense and game design. MTGs fundemental nature means that new expansions are released for money, not good design.


It's not actually all that universal. It only really works for any kind of story that makes for a good movie, and even then it works best with the Core-book + a campaign specific supplement to keep things fresh. It's also a continuously improving project so whatever your previous hang up was about the system may not even be an issue anymore. But it is mid-crunch and if heavy or light crunch is your preference, then there are other generics for that. Idk too many mid-crunch generics beyond Savage Worlds.

Savage worlds doesn't really feel mid-crunch (More like weirdly designed low-crunch) to me. But I feel like the game is a very sensitive issue to you so I won't really dig into it.

[Rhedyn]

Savage worlds doesn't really feel mid-crunch (More like weirdly designed low-crunch) to me.I would consider D&D 5e mid-crunch.

[Morty]

I guess I have to question what FEEL needs to be captured because I am not missing much at all. I think a Pathfinder successor only needs to carry on the core design philosophy of "Having Rules for things is good." which is something D&D 5e has abandoned. The bar for complexity tolerated has plummeted with the advent of 5e but I still see many people disgruntled by the lack of rules for things and the devs insistence that injecting "rulings" into rules is "value added".

That's basically the problem. Whenever people start trying to nail down what makes D&D feel like D&D, we either get completely contradictory goals and expectations, or get bogged down in people being emotionally invested in particular features and form over function. Or both.

[Rhedyn]

That's basically the problem. Whenever people start trying to nail down what makes D&D feel like D&D, we either get completely contradictory goals and expectations, or get bogged down in people being emotionally invested in particular features and form over function. Or both. I don't think many games are going to feel more like D&D than D&D 5e.

It's what people want out of an RPG that won't compete with "feeling like D&D" that is more of the question. Because the market of people who want games to feel like D&D, but not so much so that they are just going to play 5e is pretty small. I would predict the market niche of "people who buy carts of 3.X books" would be more sizable.

I won't fault PF2e for not feeling like D&D anymore. It just runs into the problem that what it does feel like isn't all that great in my opinion (an overly sterile game with more crunch than the complexity of the abilities justify).

[Test Pattern]

I would consider D&D 5e mid-crunch.

I consider 5e unfinished crunch. It sure "Feels" like D&D but in my mind that came about by sacrificing 90% things of substance to focus on veneer.


I won't fault PF2e for not feeling like D&D anymore. It just runs into the problem that what it does feel like isn't all that great in my opinion (an overly sterile game with more crunch than the complexity of the abilities justify).

Agreed. In a way PF1 was in a good position the same way that PF2 is in a bad position.

[Erloas]

Yeah, "feels like D&D" is an impossible thing to match, or even define. Because it varies for every single person, and will have as much to do with your DM and when you started playing as anything else.

To me personally the "essence" of D&D is the RPG dice set (d4-d20) and the classes. Not that the classes can't change either, but the general themes for each has to still be there. As in you can give a fight a lot more options, but the end result should feel like a martial master and even if the abilities aren't realistic they should "feel" like a martial ability not like magic. That could be "superhero"ish or "only happens in movies." Wizard, cleric, rogue, paladin, etc. all have room to change, but they should be recognizable.

[Vaktaeru]

Here's a related debate: Do you want PF2 to succeed, or to fail?

I don't WANT the release to fail, but I expect it to. What I WANT is for Paizo's devs to get their heads out of their asses, bring on 10 or so well-known or high-spend players' entire groups for a jam session about where the game should go and what Paizo is doing right and wrong, and actually implement some meaningful fixes to their new game before it's released in an unbalanceable state (much as Pathfinder was, seeing as how it was heavily bsaed on the broken 3.5 system).

However, I've resigned to the sad reality that this is pretty much the least likely business strategy for Paizo. They're too high up in their ivory tower, and see any dissent from players as an extremely vocal minority that only exists to bring them bad PR.


since an alternate line of inquiry was asked for:
what people/organizations have the clout to propose an alternate version of Pathfinder and be taken seriously?

Undoubtedly, I'm with exelsisxax on this one. Drop Dead and Dreamscarred have huge support from the existing Pathfinder playerbase, which in the case of Drop Dead only seems to grow over time (Dreamscarred I'm less than optimistic about after their Path of War product line got axed) as they release more content. N. Jolly specifically I would love to see brought on as Creative Director of whatever we end up with, because he seems to care more than almost anyone else I've heard of about the Pathfinder community, and he's probably released more actually good original content on his own than all the top-level executives of Paizo combined, especially when you consider that most of Pathfinder just grandfathered in hit-or-miss rules from 3.5. I'm probably biased though because I adore kineticists and I adore Spheres of Power/Might, and those have been his two biggest projects to date.

[Grim Reader]

That's basically the problem. Whenever people start trying to nail down what makes D&D feel like D&D, we either get completely contradictory goals and expectations, or get bogged down in people being emotionally invested in particular features and form over function. Or both.

Completely different goals and expectations, plus people getting bogged down in being emotionally invested in particular features is what makes D&D feel like D&D.

[stack]

I don't WANT the release to fail, but I expect it to. What I WANT is for Paizo's devs to get their heads out of their asses, bring on 10 or so well-known or high-spend players' entire groups for a jam session about where the game should go and what Paizo is doing right and wrong, and actually implement some meaningful fixes to their new game before it's released in an unbalanceable state (much as Pathfinder was, seeing as how it was heavily bsaed on the broken 3.5 system).

However, I've resigned to the sad reality that this is pretty much the least likely business strategy for Paizo. They're too high up in their ivory tower, and see any dissent from players as an extremely vocal minority that only exists to bring them bad PR.



Undoubtedly, I'm with exelsisxax on this one. Drop Dead and Dreamscarred have huge support from the existing Pathfinder playerbase, which in the case of Drop Dead only seems to grow over time (Dreamscarred I'm less than optimistic about after their Path of War product line got axed) as they release more content. N. Jolly specifically I would love to see brought on as Creative Director of whatever we end up with, because he seems to care more than almost anyone else I've heard of about the Pathfinder community, and he's probably released more actually good original content on his own than all the top-level executives of Paizo combined, especially when you consider that most of Pathfinder just grandfathered in hit-or-miss rules from 3.5. I'm probably biased though because I adore kineticists and I adore Spheres of Power/Might, and those have been his two biggest projects to date.

Clarification: N Jolly hasn't written any SoP material aside from SoP/SoM blend classes released by Legendary Games.

Also, the sales numbers on a strong 3pp release verses a paizo hardcover are not anywhere close. It's hard to get real numbers, but DDS has 1 person on staff and a bunch of freelancers in it for fun.

[Test Pattern]

Also, the sales numbers on a strong 3pp release verses a paizo hardcover are not anywhere close.

Because they are third party. The argument is quality, not quantity.

[Morty]

I don't think many games are going to feel more like D&D than D&D 5e.

It's what people want out of an RPG that won't compete with "feeling like D&D" that is more of the question. Because the market of people who want games to feel like D&D, but not so much so that they are just going to play 5e is pretty small. I would predict the market niche of "people who buy carts of 3.X books" would be more sizable.

I won't fault PF2e for not feeling like D&D anymore. It just runs into the problem that what it does feel like isn't all that great in my opinion (an overly sterile game with more crunch than the complexity of the abilities justify).

It's true that 5E has the market cornered on "D&D, but streamlined and cleaned up". What people do miss in it is the crunchiness of 3E/PF. Which, honestly has always had more crunch than the complexity of the abilities justified, but PF2E doesn't really improve on that.


Completely different goals and expectations, plus people getting bogged down in being emotionally invested in particular features is what makes D&D feel like D&D.

Can't really argue with that.

[Florian]

I guess I have to question what FEEL needs to be captured because I am not missing much at all. I think a Pathfinder successor only needs to carry on the core design philosophy of "Having Rules for things is good." which is something D&D 5e has abandoned. The bar for complexity tolerated has plummeted with the advent of 5e but I still see many people disgruntled by the lack of rules for things and the devs insistence that injecting "rulings" into rules is "value added".

Oh, I think that this isn't so hard to figure out.

D&D/PF1 are amongst those systems that have a very huge "gaming outside the game" value, which makes it so attractive.

The ability for the devs to keep the math tight and stay in control of the possible gaming styles makes organized play on that scale necessary that we saw with the RPGA, Adventurers Guild and PFS. That's a necessary element to keep a lot of people in the hobby.

Gaming outside the game is mostly what we engage here on this forum. A robust class and level framework with enough movable and customizable parts to still make it "your own", with a steady stream of new toys to keep out finding new combinations and talk about them, read guides and so on pretty much make up the ability to play it solo.

Personally, I think that trying to offer the tools to tackle a broader range of genres and styles is also good, even worth having the drawback of things not being all to compatible once you leave the "center point" behind.

[Rhedyn]

It's true that 5E has the market cornered on "D&D, but streamlined and cleaned up". What people do miss in it is the crunchiness of 3E/PF. Which, honestly has always had more crunch than the complexity of the abilities justified, but PF2E doesn't really improve on that.
I don't think people want crunch. PF2e is very crunchy.

I think people want interesting complex abilities and crunch is the necessary evil to get there.

Paragraphs of rules for polymorph are tolerable. The same paragraph of rules for minute duration wild shape or 8 feats that provide +2 bonuses in niche situations is a waste of everyone's time.

[Luckmann]

I don't think people want crunch. PF2e is very crunchy.

I think people want interesting complex abilities and crunch is the necessary evil to get there.

Paragraphs of rules for polymorph are tolerable. The same paragraph of rules for minute duration wild shape or 8 feats that provide +2 bonuses in niche situations is a waste of everyone's time.
I think this sums it up pretty well. Complexity good, crunchy bad. Unfortunately, they tend to come together, and in axing one, the other one usually is too.

Meanwhile, Paizo seems to think that "complicated" = "complex".

[EldritchWeaver]

(Dreamscarred I'm less than optimistic about after their Path of War product line got axed)

Wait, PoW got axed? When did that happen? Does that mean there won't be errata for the disciplines?

[Lord_Gareth]

Wait, PoW got axed? When did that happen? Does that mean there won't be errata for the disciplines?

Axed might be a strong word. Think of it more as an extended break from the line, which, you know, broke four of our authors (myself included) and has all other prospects side-eyeing it as a result.

[Grim Reader]

To me, it seems that a significant fraction of the base enjoy the character creation and development subgame. I don't know how big, but a lot of people enjoy fitting together disparate parts to make a powerful and/or engaging organic character.

This fraction has not been catered well for since 3.5. It is more difficult to make rules and content when the equivalent of an internet supercomputer crunches 10 000 builds to find out-of-control combinations. It demands more skill and active follow-up from the designers.

4th was basically an attempt to almost totally eliminate that aspect of play. Pathfinder discourages it a bit more subtly with capstones, favored class bonuses etc.

5th... I haven't gotten the impression that its all that fertile an ecosystem for the character building.

People who come to forums like this.. I don't think we are disposed to like that sort of game. Doesn't mean there aren't a lot of other people who are, but less of them will be here.

[zlefin]

hmm, the character building game is indeed significant for a number of people. myself it's partly just because games don't get off the ground much; but the char building itself is still often quite fun on its own. certainly for other games in the past I've made chars just to design them.
I wonder how one designs a game specifically to be enjoyed by those who like making chars?

[skaddix]

I don't really want a generic tabletop rpg builder lol. Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Superhero have vastly different things that need to balanced in my book.

Fantasy and Sci-Fi mostly boils down to a switch between melee combat dominating vs ranged combat dominating. Superhero stuff well weapons tend to pretty optional.

[Silly Name]

I wonder how one designs a game specifically to be enjoyed by those who like making chars?

Lots of character options, with the chance for interesting and surprising synergies between them? 3.5 did it, albeit somewhat unintentionally, but the big draws for the character-building are those two elements: the variety of options, and figuring out how they interact with each other. In part, I think it'd be better if the combos still arose naturally from players examining the game and figuring stuff out, but I also wouldn't mind an higher quality of all the options presented in the system, since a bunch of what 3.5 offers is trash or traps, with not a lot of actually good options.

Still, 3.5 never managed to really overturn the basic "meta" of the game, since a bunch of the most broken and powerful things are in the Core books, which always left me a bit bummed since non-Core stuff tended to be subpar except for some PrCs or feats.

[QuadraticGish]

hmm, the character building game is indeed significant for a number of people. myself it's partly just because games don't get off the ground much; but the char building itself is still often quite fun on its own. certainly for other games in the past I've made chars just to design them.
I wonder how one designs a game specifically to be enjoyed by those who like making chars?
Isn't it called gestalt? But really, char building is fantastic between 3.5 and PF material.

[Morty]

A great deal of the character building in 3E/PF comes as a side-effect or direct byproduct of the system making it very hard to make some concepts work without jumping through a lot of hoops. I'm not terribly fond of 5E at the end of the day, but at least it lets me play a ranged rogue with a crossbow without slapping me with a big "NO" sign every five minutes.

[JMS]

A great deal of the character building in 3E/PF comes as a side-effect or direct byproduct of the system making it very hard to make some concepts work without jumping through a lot of hoops. I'm not terribly fond of 5E at the end of the day, but at least it lets me play a ranged rogue with a crossbow without slapping me with a big "NO" sign every five minutes.
Yeah, not a massive fan of that part of 3.5, particularly as someone with a somewhat convoluted game progression: Parents AD&D, 4e, 5e, 3.5, PF. Thus, no Dex to damage confuses me.
Also, I would say that 4e took away the worry of “can I stay relevant” when building and kept the thematic part.
As for my opinion on the game, everyone local plays 5e, so I will stay with that, but remain cautiously optimistic that PF 2 will work. It seems to be a combination of 5e design and numerical simplicity and PF complexity with character building. Might have a niche, might not.

[Morty]

The dex to damage thing is part tradition, part a legitimate concern that if using dexterity for melee combat is too easy, strength will become obsolete. Either way, using dexterity in melee is a "rogue thing". Though at least now rogues aren't forced into it anymore. But there's still no option that helps them with fighting at range. Go figure.

[Vaktaeru]

As for my opinion on the game, everyone local plays 5e, so I will stay with that, but remain cautiously optimistic that PF 2 will work. It seems to be a combination of 5e design and numerical simplicity and PF complexity with character building. Might have a niche, might not.

I'm desperately hoping your idea of what pf2e will be is correct, but all feedback thus far has indicated otherwise. It seems that they've made it just as complicated as pathfinder, without maintaining the complexity of it. It's just flavorless crunch. It's styrofoam in our peanut butter, when pathfinder 1e had real peanuts.

[OgresAreCute]

I'm desperately hoping your idea of what pf2e will be is correct, but all feedback thus far has indicated otherwise. It seems that they've made it just as complicated as pathfinder, without maintaining the complexity of it. It's just flavorless crunch. It's styrofoam in our peanut butter, when pathfinder 1e had real peanuts.

Hey, I ate styrofoam one time. Hardly the worst thing I've eaten.

Actually, I might like styrofoam more than peanut butter.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Vaktaeru
I'm probably biased though because I adore kineticists….

I think it’s fair to say, based on recent discussion, that you’re a bit of an outlier on this one.

[Sir Chuckles]

I think it’s fair to say, based on recent discussion, that you’re a bit of an outlier on this one.

Hey, I love Kineticist, might even call it my favorite class.

...when 3rd party subsystems such as Gestalt and Spheres of Might are on the table.

[Rynjin]

The dex to damage thing is part tradition, part a legitimate concern that if using dexterity for melee combat is too easy, strength will become obsolete. Either way, using dexterity in melee is a "rogue thing". Though at least now rogues aren't forced into it anymore. But there's still no option that helps them with fighting at range. Go figure.

It's not a legitimate concern; Paizo has had years to run the math (and people who've run the math FOR them) on Dex to Damage's advantages and disadvantages over strength.

The consensus is that it's generally weaker for a pure damage dealer, but often provides a better AC (though not astoundingly better) and always better Reflex saves (which is a fairly minor upside in the grand scheme). The largest difference in character effectiveness is the initiative modifier, but doing some odd 30% less damage than a Strength based martial balance that out.

[Morty]

It's not a legitimate concern; Paizo has had years to run the math (and people who've run the math FOR them) on Dex to Damage's advantages and disadvantages over strength.

The consensus is that it's generally weaker for a pure damage dealer, but often provides a better AC (though not astoundingly better) and always better Reflex saves (which is a fairly minor upside in the grand scheme). The largest difference in character effectiveness is the initiative modifier, but doing some odd 30% less damage than a Strength based martial balance that out.

Fair enough, I suppose, in which case it's just tradition or caution. Dexterity-fighting is a rogue thing, so it should stay a rogue thing, otherwise it doesn't "feel right".

[Rhedyn]

Fair enough, I suppose, in which case it's just tradition or caution. Dexterity-fighting is a rogue thing, so it should stay a rogue thing, otherwise it doesn't "feel right".

*Looks at all the Fighter, Ranger, Paladin dex combatants of 5e which fan-base consist solely of people playing the game because it "feels" right

OK sure.

[Morty]

I didn't say it was sound reasoning, did I? Of course, 5E still restricts what melee weapons you can apply dexterity to.

[Florian]

Fair enough, I suppose, in which case it's just tradition or caution. Dexterity-fighting is a rogue thing, so it should stay a rogue thing, otherwise it doesn't "feel right".

Blame tradition. Or rather, blame the idiots that came up with the d20 core mechanics and decided on keying certain things to certain attributes.

But you're quite wrong on the other point. The look at feel should be keyed towards the weapon and fighting style. For example, using an Epee and being a fencer is not a thing strictly tied to class, neither is a rogue barred from going brute force with a morningstar.

[Morty]

It seems the quotation marks didn't make it obvious, but I consider the argument about "feeling right" bogus.

[JMS]

The dex to damage thing

Yeah, I can kind of understand no Dex to melee, even if I don’t like it, but no Dex to Ranged?

[exelsisxax]

Yeah, I can kind of understand no Dex to melee, even if I don’t like it, but no Dex to Ranged?

Dex to damage makes less sense for ranged than for melee. The only factor influencing damage for ranged weapons(that comes from an attribute) is kinetic energy via strength(either speed or supposing stronger characters have more massive weaponry). You can't finesse an arrow to a higher speed or use agility to add mass to a dagger throw. You can finesse a sword strike to cut across a larger area, use quick positioning to achieve better angles of attack, and use precision to dynamically seek out critical areas of vulnerability. None of those can be done with projectiles.

[Durandu Ran]

Dex to damage makes less sense for ranged than for melee. The only factor influencing damage for ranged weapons(that comes from an attribute) is kinetic energy via strength(either speed or supposing stronger characters have more massive weaponry). You can't finesse an arrow to a higher speed or use agility to add mass to a dagger throw. You can finesse a sword strike to cut across a larger area, use quick positioning to achieve better angles of attack, and use precision to dynamically seek out critical areas of vulnerability. None of those can be done with projectiles.

Dexterity is a lot more relevant to aiming than Strength is, and where you aim an arrow sure has an effect on how much you hurt someone.

[Rynjin]

Dex to damage makes less sense for ranged than for melee. The only factor influencing damage for ranged weapons(that comes from an attribute) is kinetic energy via strength(either speed or supposing stronger characters have more massive weaponry). You can't finesse an arrow to a higher speed or use agility to add mass to a dagger throw. You can finesse a sword strike to cut across a larger area, use quick positioning to achieve better angles of attack, and use precision to dynamically seek out critical areas of vulnerability. None of those can be done with projectiles.

I don't particularly care about the logic/physics of it. Holding D&D characters to real world example sof things that cna be done ends in bull**** like this (https://www.facebook.com/JasonBulmahn/posts/spent-a-part-of-the-morning-tying-my-mouse-to-my-hand-by-the-cord-and-figuring-o/647725701914359/) that just hurts the game.

The real issue with Dex to ranged damage IS a matter of balance. Archery is already the most powerful combat style in pathfinder (having less risks and more support to remove its downsides than ANY other fighting style), and is primarily balanced by archers needing to be a little MAD in order to keep their damage up (you want at least 14-16 Str by about level 10 to pump out enough damage to stay relevant). every single point of damage matters for archery, and has a disproportionate impact on how powerful the style is. +1 damage to a Greatsword user is nice, but at most playable levels is only +2 to damage in a round. +1 damage to an archer is an extra +5 damage per round just at level 6.

Being able to add +7-8 damage to your average bow shot (of which you make about 6-7 per round by level 10) in a round ON TOP of all the other surprisingly huge bonuses an archer can eke out over the course of a game, without sacrificing anything in to-hit, AC, or Initiative is a big deal.

[Sir Chuckles]

With the changes to the way Initiative works in PF2, they mitigate if not remove the #1 advantage that freely giving Dex to melee brings. Which I imagine is what played into the decision to bring Finesse into play.

But there's still a lot of holes and weird stuff in the design. It's a step forward, but it's a step to the north-east when the compass is saying north.

[Florian]

It seems the quotation marks didn't make it obvious, but I consider the argument about "feeling right" bogus.

I consider it to be one of the most important arguments. Think about it: We could replace the six regular attributes with Might, Magic and Talk, for combat, magic and social. People will go nuts and complain about how bonkers it is, when their Archer could effectively wield a Greataxe using the same Might score....

[Silly Name]

The issue of "realism" when deciding which of the six D&D stats influence what aspects of combat seems a bit weird to me. The six stats are an abstraction and oversimplification of real life, and not keying damage to DEX is no less unreasonable than not keying it to INT/WIS under the argument "but since I have high INT/WIS I am better at aiming, and thus can strike vital organs and inflict higher damage!". Give a player enough time, and I'm sure they could find an argument for why each stat apart from CHA could influence damage dealt.

If you want DEX to ranged damage, just pretend that DEX also influences aiming. No biggie. But I think a better way to approach the problem is from a balance perspective rather than from realism, since, as I said, the six stats aren't supposed to be perfectly realistic.

If anything, one of the things which may seem weird in PF is that how well you hit your enemy (attack roll) has no correlation to how damage you do (damage roll) unless you scored a "lucky hit" (critical hit). I am sure there are game systems where the two are related or even function as a single roll, but I don't think it'd work too well with the underlying mechanisms of D&D/PF.

[OgresAreCute]

The issue of "realism" when deciding which of the six D&D stats influence what aspects of combat seems a bit weird to me. The six stats are an abstraction and oversimplification of real life, and not keying damage to DEX is no less unreasonable than not keying it to INT/WIS under the argument "but since I have high INT/WIS I am better at aiming, and thus can strike vital organs and inflict higher damage!". Give a player enough time, and I'm sure they could find an argument for why each stat apart from CHA could influence damage dealt.

If you want DEX to ranged damage, just pretend that DEX also influences aiming. No biggie. But I think a better way to approach the problem is from a balance perspective rather than from realism, since, as I said, the six stats aren't supposed to be perfectly realistic.

If anything, one of the things which may seem weird in PF is that how well you hit your enemy (attack roll) has no correlation to how damage you do (damage roll) unless you scored a "lucky hit" (critical hit). I am sure there are game systems where the two are related or even function as a single roll, but I don't think it'd work too well with the underlying mechanisms of D&D/PF.

In World of Darkness at least you get extra damage dice to roll if you roll very well on the attack roll, but you don't necessarily deal extra damage if you roll terribly on the damage roll. You'd need to add flat damage to get a good hit = good damage thing properly.

[stack]

Rolling well doing extra damage is something that is in the PF2 playtest. The reception of the +10/-10 critical system seems mixed.

[RedMage125]

I didn't say it was sound reasoning, did I? Of course, 5E still restricts what melee weapons you can apply dexterity to.

That's because if D&D (across all WotC-produced editions) is guilty of one thing, it is absolutely tying mechanics towards specific tropes and archetypes. Don't get me wrong, I loved 3.x, LOVED 4e (at least as a DM), and I love 5e (I like what of PF I have played so far as well), but I can admit the shortcomings of a system I enjoy. Tying mechanics to specific archetypes is found in class design, weapon mechanics, and all over, really. It's the reason 3.5e Monks had to be Lawful. Not because chaotic people cannot fight unarmed, but because the monk class was designed very narrowly to fit into the "wuxia martial artist" trope. If you note, they have class features that say they stem from "the hours that the monk spends in meditation". Barbarians, likewise. Rage was viewed as something inherently abhorrent to a disciplined mind, but also, Barbarians were forced to be illiterate. There was very little room for a character to make a wildly different type of character. For example, a disciplined warrior from a samurai clan (like Crab bushi in L5R) whose "rage" is actually a cold, emotionless state of heightened battle-awareness that is brought about through intense discipline and meditation (basically Crab Dead-Eyes Berserkers).

Weapons, too. I've seen weapons demonstrations from professional combat acting troupes (The Duelists in Michigan, I have a friend who works with them). In one, I saw a person wielding a greataxe, and it was ABSOLUTELY finesse. The weapon was wielded with one hand on the handle, and the other flat-palmed against the middle of the haft, and he spun the weapon in short, graceful arcs around his body. But D&D specifically views the greataxe as a weapon that is wielded with brute strength, sacrificing precision for raw power. In 3.5e, it had a x3 crit mod, but no extended crit range like a sword. In 4e, it had a property that allowed more dice to be rolled on a crit. The list goes on.

Part of playing D&D without too many houserules is accepting that the designers prefer to limit a lot of mechanics towards the most common, relatable, and resonant fantasy tropes.

[Minion #6]

Rolling well doing extra damage is something that is in the PF2 playtest. The reception of the +10/-10 critical system seems mixed.

And for good reason. It's nice in theory, but in reality creates very tight - about 3 or so in either direction - windows where critical successes and failures are about as common as they need to be. This warps the maths of the rest of the system so that bonuses are only given out very sparingly, and makes anything that gives a bonus just feel bad. No amount of pointing out that a +1 means more than it used to makes it feel like any major difference on a roll as swingy as that of a d20.

[NomGarret]

The issue of "realism" when deciding which of the six D&D stats influence what aspects of combat seems a bit weird to me. The six stats are an abstraction and oversimplification of real life, and not keying damage to DEX is no less unreasonable than not keying it to INT/WIS under the argument "but since I have high INT/WIS I am better at aiming, and thus can strike vital organs and inflict higher damage!". Give a player enough time, and I'm sure they could find an argument for why each stat apart from CHA could influence damage dealt.


Oh no, I can add CHA. You see, I’m just so darn charming that I can’t help but convince the minor spirits nearby to give a helping hand. Air spirits gently redirect the arrow’s path. Earth spirits soften the ground under an opponent’s foot just enough to slow their turn. Fire spirits are just so excited at the honor of being included they flare extra hot!

[Dimers]

Oh no, I can add CHA. You see, I’m just so darn charming that I can’t help but convince the minor spirits nearby to give a helping hand. Air spirits gently redirect the arrow’s path. Earth spirits soften the ground under an opponent’s foot just enough to slow their turn. Fire spirits are just so excited at the honor of being included they flare extra hot!

I have the self-confidence to make the best use of what agility and might I have, not questioning my own ability. And when my foe sees that in my face, it saps her own confidence, makes her shaky, tells her subconscious mind that she WILL be harmed.

[OgresAreCute]

I have the self-confidence to make the best use of what agility and might I have, not questioning my own ability. And when my foe sees that in my face, it saps her own confidence, makes her shaky, tells her subconscious mind that she WILL be harmed.

My smile is so pretty, my opponent WANTS me to kill them.

[Rynjin]

I consider it to be one of the most important arguments. Think about it: We could replace the six regular attributes with Might, Magic and Talk, for combat, magic and social. People will go nuts and complain about how bonkers it is, when their Archer could effectively wield a Greataxe using the same Might score....

Having played the Final Fantasy d6 system (which I believe was developed on these boards?) a bunch recently, that system is not as far-fetched or insane as you make it out to be.

There are four stats: Power, Resolve, Dexterity, and Mind.

Power is ANY power your character possesses. It can be anything from raw, unfettered arcane might to simply having enormous muscles. Most spells use PWR as their primary damage attribute, but so do Huge weapons like greatswords or huge axes. So if your Black Mage wants to wield an enormous club as their primary weapon, and have the proficiency (easily obtained by a slight dip in Dark Knight or Warrior or something) they can use the same stat for melee damage as their spells. And it works out just fine.

RES is similarly dual purpose, representing both your mental and physical ability to shrug off effects and remain confident in the face of danger. MND and DEX are admittedly single purpose...sort of.

The primary derived statistics are where MND and DEX get their flexibility: Force and Finesse. Simplified, Force is a combo of your PWR and RES, and is used for opposed rolls (whether your status effects are successful or you resist an enemy's, that kind of thing) making ti again as useful for a wizard as a warrior. Finesse is used for some opposed rolls as well, and is a combo of your MND and DEX stats. it also determines how many ranks you're allowed to put in a single skill, so a wizard who wants to be knowledgable about subjects in-depth is incentivized to invest in DEX.

It's a system both simpler than most d20 systems'...and accomplishes more things in a simpler way than the povercomplicated nature of ability scores, modifiers, and each one tackling a nominally distinct but often related purpose (how different are Charisma, Wisdom, and Intelligence REALLY when it comes to "force of will"?). The change would not be inherently bad.

[Morty]

I consider it to be one of the most important arguments. Think about it: We could replace the six regular attributes with Might, Magic and Talk, for combat, magic and social. People will go nuts and complain about how bonkers it is, when their Archer could effectively wield a Greataxe using the same Might score....

And how does this hypothetical situation relate to rogues?



Part of playing D&D without too many houserules is accepting that the designers prefer to limit a lot of mechanics towards the most common, relatable, and resonant fantasy tropes.

If only that were true. But D&D is stuck in a self-referential loop a lot of the time and it embraces or discards concepts because it always has. The issue of dexterity in melee, for one thing, makes it hard to pursue quite a few fantasy and fictional archetypes.

[137beth]

In my 3.5 house rules I cut things down to five ability scores: Agility, Toughness, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The mental ability scores are the same as in the regular rules. Agility encompasses dexterity and attack rolls. Toughness encompasses constitution, carrying capacity, and damage rolls. However, it is possible to get either agility to damage or toughness to attack rolls.

Also, the feat that gives you extra hit points is renamed "Extra Hit Points" so as not to conflict with the Toughness ability score.

[Morty]

I feel like people greatly overestimate the importance of attributes in general. Particularly in D&D, where they're just one source of numbers out of many. It's different in a system where they're the basis of the math, of course.

[Florian]

I feel like people greatly overestimate the importance of attributes in general.

I think that a lot of people have problems with the abstractions that are common to some systems. They try to understand the results the system generates and fall back to a reference framework they can grasp. That's especially true for systems that don't manage to model the impact of skill and training in a meaningful way.

Questions like: What affects how good I hit with my sword? What affects what happens when I hit with my sword? What affects what happens when I get hit with a sword? - All of those are quite common and abstractions like BAB, Iterative attacks and HP are quite unintuitive, so it seems to be more or less natural to fall back on a framework based on basic (physical) capability to answer those.

[Rhedyn]

Attributes are important because the bonuses are a treadmill. If you decided to have 14 in strength instead of 18, then perhaps you also buy a con belt first rather than str. Maybe you get a flame tongue instead of a +2 weapon. Maybe you pass on class specific bonuses to branch out.

Soon you find yourself 5-10 points behind and power attack becomes a DPR loss and your character is now really bad at their main contribution.

It's not hypothetical, I've seen many players do this. Specifically a 14 strength 18 charisma Hospitaler Paladin that felt my CRB-only fighter was OP.

[icefractal]

I feel like people greatly overestimate the importance of attributes in general. Particularly in D&D, where they're just one source of numbers out of many. It's different in a system where they're the basis of the math, of course.In 5e, attributes are king. Until high level, an untrained guy with a high attribute beats a trained one, and even a Rogue doesn't pull ahead until mid levels.

In PF2, level does matter, but having a high attribute still makes a bigger difference than being a "master" of the skill.

In 3e, skills aren't kept "on track" in the same way, so with the multiplicity of ways to boost skills you can compensate for a low attribute. Although even then, attributes can make a pretty big difference. And do make a huge difference in other areas.

So what system are you referring to where attributes aren't that important?

[Morty]

I think that a lot of people have problems with the abstractions that are common to some systems. They try to understand the results the system generates and fall back to a reference framework they can grasp. That's especially true for systems that don't manage to model the impact of skill and training in a meaningful way.

Questions like: What affects how good I hit with my sword? What affects what happens when I hit with my sword? What affects what happens when I get hit with a sword? - All of those are quite common and abstractions like BAB, Iterative attacks and HP are quite unintuitive, so it seems to be more or less natural to fall back on a framework based on basic (physical) capability to answer those.

That's a fair point. Attributes are the more immediately obvious than the more in-depth characteristics. "This character is strong" and "this character is clever" leap out more than skills and class features.



So what system are you referring to where attributes aren't that important?

None whatsoever, seeing how I never said that. I said people overestimate their importance by treating them as be-all, end-all of a character's capabilities and acting like they accurately represent anything other than the game's math. Not quite the same thing as "not important".

[icefractal]

None whatsoever, seeing how I never said that. I said people overestimate their importance by treating them as be-all, end-all of a character's capabilities and acting like they accurately represent anything other than the game's math. Not quite the same thing as "not important".Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. By "people" do you mean game designers or players of those games?

[Morty]

I'm talking about players, when discussing the games. The attributes' importance is overstated often. They are important, but they're just one element, next to skills, class features, feats, spells and whatnot. This is particularly evident when people try to nail them down to real-life concepts, like "18 intelligence makes you Einstein" or whatever.

[Erloas]

I think the big thing about attributes is that they have impacts on many other parts of a character and they're just about the only "given" in any game.

When you consider that most games start at lower levels, many don't get to really high levels, optimization varies widely, and item availability changes with every DM, it is one of the few things essentially guaranteed.

While you can use feats, spells, items, and other ways of getting certain things very high, it is usually a very select set of things you can do. So higher attributes lead to more well rounded characters instead of highly specialized ones.

[137beth]

How many years do y'all think it will be before we get Starfinder 2nd edition?

[Almadelia]

How many years do y'all think it will be before we get Starfinder 2nd edition?

Paizo will go bankrupt after PF2e flops and they realize that Colette and the other forum-goers were right all along about their math being rubbish and their design being unfocused gibberish. So never.

[Morty]

Doomsaying aside, Starfinder's reception seems to have been mild, unless I missed a lot of enthusiasm. So I wouldn't be sure either way.

[Florian]

How many years do y'all think it will be before we get Starfinder 2nd edition?

Maybe 10? PF1 has remarkable staying power and SF was a b-product of preparing the follow-up transitions, as well as a thing to keep sales and organized play going, even with PF1 coming too an end. I don't think that SF, by itself, is actually well received and something that people actually wanted, but judging it as sorta-kinda stop-gap-measure, it seems to be doing well. So: Well see SF2 when we're nearing the end of the production run of PF2.

[137beth]

Starfinder sold sufficiently well that they are doing a playtest for an expansion. (https://paizo.com/starfinderplaytest) If it weren't making at least some money, Paizo probably wouldn't be supporting it at all. Maybe it started as a paid alpha for PF2, but then sold better than expected. Or maybe Starfinder was always meant to be a separate product line and the timing with PF2 was just coincidental. Either way, it's well past time for another product that is just meant as an alpha for Pathfinder 2, so if Paizo is planning to put out more Starfinder stuff in 2019, they probably think it will make money.


Granted, just because it is making enough money for them to keep churning out APs and maybe occasionally a new expansion doesn't mean Starfinder is making enough money to justify a new edition. And, if Pathfinder 2e flops badly enough, it could lead to Paizo going out of buisness regardless of whether Starfinder is making a profit. But if Gamma World can make it to seven editions, I figure there is at least a faint possibility of a 2nd edition of Starfinder. Maybe it will be produced by Paizo, or maybe it will be published by whatever company scoops up Paizo's assets if they go bankrupt. Or it might never happen.

[Florian]

I feel like a broken record some times: The main product are APs, rules and stuff are just the way to facilitate those sales. That's simply a thing when using the OGL, you're bound to be open source and have to find a way to deal with it.

(There's strong evidence based on when certain topics crop up, that the majority of users on this board never threw a dollar towards Paizo but rather rely solely on PFSRD.)

[thelastorphan]

I feel like a broken record some times: The main product are APs, rules and stuff are just the way to facilitate those sales. That's simply a thing when using the OGL, you're bound to be open source and have to find a way to deal with it.

(There's strong evidence based on when certain topics crop up, that the majority of users on this board never threw a dollar towards Paizo but rather rely solely on PFSRD.)

The existence of the PFSRD and Paizo's willingness to put nearly all of their material on the web for free is part of the reason I STARTED buying their books. They didn't have to do that. It motivated me to make the jump from 3.5. I doubt I am alone in that.

[OgresAreCute]

Speaking of Starfinder playtests, is there a mirror to the playtest doc that doesn't require me to sign into anything?

[Florian]

They didn't have to do that.

That's not correct. Check the back of each PF product and you'll find the Open Gaming License Version 1.0a (in short: OGL) there. The mechanical aspects of anything related to the D20 system are free, must be shared and can be used as such by any other 3PP for any purpose, like setting up the D20PFSRD or Paizo often using monster stat blocks from Tome of Horror Complete (Necromancer Games, Frog God Games).

Basically, Paizo would have no problem building modules, an entire AP or writing source books for Akashic, Path of War or Spheres stuff. The pendulum swings both ways.

The real question always is, what is not shareable and how to build a business model around it?

[Cosi]

Florian is, as usual, talking nonsense.

The PFSRD drives sales rather than depressing them. Both 3e and PF owe their impressive successes to making the rules more open.

APs are a niche product. They sell to DMs, and a subset of DMs at that. You don't make money by selling something that only 20% (roughly) of your customers are even notionally interested in. To counter Florian's anecdote (interesting that apparently now we're supposed to take "people on the forums do it" seriously, but we aren't with balance complaints or 3rd party products) with my own, I know more people who bought a double-digit number of 3e splatbooks than who bought any 3e pre-written adventures at all. If splat sales are lower -- and again, there's no real indication they are -- it's profoundly unlikely adventure paths are making up the slack.

Any interesting mechanical news about PF 2e? They ditch the critical success/failure nonsense yet?

[Almadelia]

(There's strong evidence based on when certain topics crop up, that the majority of users on this board never threw a dollar towards Paizo but rather rely solely on PFSRD.)
This sounds incredibly and entirely irrelevant to the point at hand, yeah, and can only reasonably be construed as an attempt to discredit others in the thread. So, stop that.

[Erloas]

I think most companies have realized that making their rules available online is about the only way, at this point in time, to have any chance of getting wide spread adoption. Most wargames have gone that route too.

It helps sales, because without free rules a lot of people won't even look at a system now, so if even learning the basics of your game is behind a pay-wall that is going to cut your potential market drastically right out of the gate.

I'm not sure how many people have subscriptions to Paizo's stuff, but I would imagine it is a decent amount of people. So there are a lot of books that people are buying even if they don't have a direct interest in them. So that even if a player isn't using everything they get in the subscription, having a lot there makes it seem more valuable. With a set and known "pre-orders" for every book they put out, they can have a pretty good idea of what their limit for resources for each of those books is (both printing and designing).

I would be willing to bet, that even if a lot of players/DMs don't directly use an adventure path or similar, since they've got the book anyway, they're probably borrowing encounters, characters, ideas, etc. That is probably happening with groups that primarily use the SRDs, people that play very heavily modified/houseruled versions of the game, and people that bought the main books.

As such, I can't see PF2 sinking Paizo, even if it does very poorly. We'll see how they handle things in the next 3-6 months, but none of the indicators of "this is a last ditch effort by a company to survive" seems to be there. Considering they've made it through a recession and very turbulent times for every forms of entertainment and publishing, I'm thinking they've actually got a pretty good handle on the financial side of things and they wouldn't be betting the farm on this. Not to say very poor sales wouldn't hurt them, but hurt them and cause them to go under are two very different things.

[Almadelia]

etc
I don't literally think they're sinking but I just do not see 2e doing well. They'll probably have to go back to doing 1e content or else change stuff up drastically if they want a chance. This isn't even like when 4e or 5e was being announced, there was outrage on forums, groups were abuzz. With this? Nobody I know even cares anymore, they're just 'meh not my thing I'll go houserule some new stuff in 3.x'. Apathy kills far more than just hate, because hate at least generates controversy, gets people's heads turning, asking 'what's the problem this time?'

[thelastorphan]

That's not correct. Check the back of each PF product and you'll find the Open Gaming License Version 1.0a (in short: OGL) there. The mechanical aspects of anything related to the D20 system are free, must be shared and can be used as such by any other 3PP for any purpose, like setting up the D20PFSRD or Paizo often using monster stat blocks from Tome of Horror Complete (Necromancer Games, Frog God Games).

Basically, Paizo would have no problem building modules, an entire AP or writing source books for Akashic, Path of War or Spheres stuff. The pendulum swings both ways.

The real question always is, what is not shareable and how to build a business model around it?

All the OGL requires is that it be shareable. They didn't have to spend their resources as a company to create as comprehensive an srd as they maintained. (Now AoN has taken it over?) Other companies hadn't done that to the same degree previously. 3.5's srd is nothing compared the one Paizo ran. Does Sword and Sorcery have an srd? Kalamar? One with all their content? D20pfsrd is seperate and collects all the third party stuff into an srd but no agreement makes it necessary. Only that when someone does share it there's no problem as long as that company's intellectual property isn't reproduced. Hence no Gods from paizo on Srds etc.

Do we know if Paizo is gonna maintain a strong srd for PF2? I hope so. It's the only thing that might get me to pick up the system if it turns out okay.

[Morty]

Starfinder sold sufficiently well that they are doing a playtest for an expansion. (https://paizo.com/starfinderplaytest) If it weren't making at least some money, Paizo probably wouldn't be supporting it at all. Maybe it started as a paid alpha for PF2, but then sold better than expected. Or maybe Starfinder was always meant to be a separate product line and the timing with PF2 was just coincidental. Either way, it's well past time for another product that is just meant as an alpha for Pathfinder 2, so if Paizo is planning to put out more Starfinder stuff in 2019, they probably think it will make money.

Seems I was wrong, then. I'm not sure just how much SF was testing the waters before PF2E. At least some ideas ended up carrying over, like weapons scaling in damage... sadly, this particular idea is a pretty wrong-headed one. Others, like two health tracks or reducing casters to six spell levels didn't, even though they really should have. Maybe if I knew more about SF, I'd see more similarities.

[OgresAreCute]

Seems I was wrong, then. I'm not sure just how much SF was testing the waters before PF2E. At least some ideas ended up carrying over, like weapons scaling in damage... sadly, this particular idea is a pretty wrong-headed one. Others, like two health tracks or reducing casters to six spell levels didn't, even though they really should have. Maybe if I knew more about SF, I'd see more similarities.

I think how monsters are made and scaled is pretty similar, but I haven't really looked much at pathfinder 2 lately. In Starfinder at least enemies have humongous to-hit modifiers, and the system has some of that "tight math" which means if you use a monster with CR 2 or 3 higher than APL, everyone's gonna die.

[Rhedyn]

I was really pumped for Starfinder, but I found the core book to be incomplete (lack of certain gear for each level, or a way to make our own). The monster math was kind of terrible and summon monster was barely satisfactory (sure lots of cosmetic variety but barely any special abilities).

It lacked the gear it needed to seem like a fun system. Sure I guess splat could save it eventually, but I find the setting to be garbage. The Gap basically ruins the setting and destroys world building. The Pact Worlds themselves are majority Evil and only lazy writing makes the overall Pact Society "good". Sure just ignore the consequence of you members being Drow, Undead, Far Realm Nightmares, with a neutral block of Robots, Bio-roids squid monsters, and Space Mars. Somehow the two to three good members just make everything nice. Barf.

[Florian]

Oi, were talking about an extremely saturated marked. The situation outside the USA is even more complicated, as imports (like PF) tend to be cheaper than homemade (like DSA for Germany), as they only need a license, translator and final editor (Friends and me did this to get funds as students, so, yeah, I actually know the difference there because I keep in touch with "pro" writers for local games - You´ll find my name in the credits beginning with Complete Divine up to Advanced Players Guide - german version)

[Slithery D]

I was really pumped for Starfinder, but I found the core book to be incomplete (lack of certain gear for each level, or a way to make our own). The monster math was kind of terrible and summon monster was barely satisfactory (sure lots of cosmetic variety but barely any special abilities).

It lacked the gear it needed to seem like a fun system. Sure I guess splat could save it eventually, but I find the setting to be garbage. The Gap basically ruins the setting and destroys world building. The Pact Worlds themselves are majority Evil and only lazy writing makes the overall Pact Society "good". Sure just ignore the consequence of you members being Drow, Undead, Far Realm Nightmares, with a neutral block of Robots, Bio-roids squid monsters, and Space Mars. Somehow the two to three good members just make everything nice. Barf.

Armory solves a lot of the gear and weapon gaps.

The Gap saves the setting, because it doesn't have to address what happened in Pathfinder's era and invalidate people's campaigns and rewrite their history or make up a "how Golarion got industrialized" history. Paizo has shown with Golarion's ridiculous history how bad they are at writing that stuff.

The mostly evil planets in the Pact Worlds have tiny populations compared to Aballon, Castrovel, Akiton, and the gas giants. If 10% of those planets are good then they enormously outnumber the evil people in system.

[Rhedyn]

The Gap saves the setting, because it doesn't have to address what happened in Pathfinder's era and invalidate people's campaigns and rewrite their history or make up a "how Golarion got industrialized" history. Paizo has shown with Golarion's ridiculous history how bad they are at writing that stuff Not harming PF doesn't save the setting. Hell just make it an alternative universe.

Just because the history would be crap is no excuse for preventing history. We actually used a different system in that setting and boy were my players annoyed at the severe limitations the gap put on backstory and lore for their custom races.

It's also a terrible conceit

[thelastorphan]

If its sufficiently far into the future the gap is unnecessary. Let players fill it in how they want. That being said I don't really mind. I like the mystery aspect of it. My pet theory is that there is only a gap from the perspective of the rest of the pact worlds and that Golarion as we know it is preserved within the Starstone. Soldiering onward as the planet we are used to, unadvanced.

[Rhedyn]

If its sufficiently far into the future the gap is unnecessary. Let players fill it in how they want. That being said I don't really mind. I like the mystery aspect of it. My pet theory is that there is only a gap from the perspective of the rest of the pact worlds and that Golarion as we know it is preserved within the Starstone. Soldiering onward as the planet we are used to, unadvanced.

Yeah but the gap was all of 300 years ago.

[Almadelia]

If its sufficiently far into the future the gap is unnecessary. Let players fill it in how they want. That being said I don't really mind. I like the mystery aspect of it. My pet theory is that there is only a gap from the perspective of the rest of the pact worlds and that Golarion as we know it is preserved within the Starstone. Soldiering onward as the planet we are used to, unadvanced.

Problem is that it's 300 years ago. It's even part of the setting, there are elves alive in the present who just have a block of their memory completely wiped out, it's part of the reason they've gone full isolationist, Grey Elf style. Even the older dwarves would remember that when they were a kid nobody was in space or any of that stuff. Even for humans this is relatively recent, 300 years is the length of one dynastic cycle or the time from Charlemagne to Phillipe II, yeah it's a long time but no it isn't long enough ago for it to be "in the past". The Gap is lazy as hell, it's basically just throwing your hands up in the air and going "nobody knows lol". If you can't give an answer to a fundamental question of this magnitude, maybe the question shouldn't be part of the setting. Leaving it "to the players" is counterproductive because if you're leaving the biggest questions to me, why am I buying your setting books?

[Sir Chuckles]

Seems I was wrong, then. I'm not sure just how much SF was testing the waters before PF2E. At least some ideas ended up carrying over, like weapons scaling in damage... sadly, this particular idea is a pretty wrong-headed one. Others, like two health tracks or reducing casters to six spell levels didn't, even though they really should have. Maybe if I knew more about SF, I'd see more similarities.

The equipment system (mostly crafting) and scaling weapons are about the only things I hate about Starfinder. There were people who looked into their crystal balls and came up with the theory that Starfinder was a prototype/water tester for a PF2, and it kinda does seem like it.

[Florian]

The equipment system (mostly crafting) and scaling weapons are about the only things I hate about Starfinder. There were people who looked into their crystal balls and came up with the theory that Starfinder was a prototype/water tester for a PF2, and it kinda does seem like it.

What's the alternativ, tho?

We´re talking about two design goals here:
1) Zero to hero, what was a mini-boss this session, will be a common mook some sessions down the road, as the characters have grown in might.
2) Keeping the sweet spot of 3-5 combat round to take down adequate CR opponent while leveling up.

One of the problems with the initial d20 approach to weapons, simply was that they don't scale all too well. Hence we got stuff like the Übercharger or Pounce-based builds to circumvent the issue.

[Almadelia]

What's the alternativ, tho?

We´re talking about two design goals here:
1) Zero to hero, what was a mini-boss this session, will be a common mook some sessions down the road, as the characters have grown in might.
2) Keeping the sweet spot of 3-5 combat round to take down adequate CR opponent while leveling up.

One of the problems with the initial d20 approach to weapons, simply was that they don't scale all too well. Hence we got stuff like the Übercharger or Pounce-based builds to circumvent the issue.

Why should weapons scale though? It's not like a mundane longsword becomes sharper in the hands of a war god (well alright, sometimes it does, but you get the point). The alternative would've been ways to actually use your weapon instead of abstracting it all off into BAB, damage, and AC (which mind you doesn't scale for some asinine reason in d20), like SoM style stuff except offsetting a lot of the BAB into there (maybe make everyone half-BAB and SoM style tricks on level up make up the difference, so a swordmaster is stronger than a normal person but only gets to really show off his power when he's holding a sword or something that passes for one).

[EldritchWeaver]

Why should weapons scale though? It's not like a mundane longsword becomes sharper in the hands of a war god (well alright, sometimes it does, but you get the point). The alternative would've been ways to actually use your weapon instead of abstracting it all off into BAB, damage, and AC (which mind you doesn't scale for some asinine reason in d20), like SoM style stuff except offsetting a lot of the BAB into there (maybe make everyone half-BAB and SoM style tricks on level up make up the difference, so a swordmaster is stronger than a normal person but only gets to really show off his power when he's holding a sword or something that passes for one).

If damage doesn't scale then you don't need higher hp monsters/characters (which goes against that people are being able to endure more), or if you keep hp as is, then fights drag longer (which isn't what you want). Worse, since magic still scales, you make martials even worse.

What I wouldn't mind is - similarly to ABP - having the damage scale, because you are higher level. Without attuning or something. Just use the same spoon, but because you're 20th level, you can eviscerate enemies instead simply embarrassing yourself.

[thelastorphan]

Just use the same spoon, but because you're 20th level, you can eviscerate enemies instead simply embarrassing yourself.


This makes me think of the tea cup scene in Chronicles of Riddick. And that's the kind of thing a high level character should be able to do to a lower level one.

Scaling damage is fine. But I feel it should have been tied to class not item. The way 4e powers work by multiplying weapon damage at higher level. So the weapon matters but so does your training. Not just picking up a 10d6 blaster rifle. But a 2d6 weapon in the hands of a master does 10d6.

[Florian]

Why should weapons scale though?

The main question is, what exactly are we modeling here? The physical properties of a weapon or the effectiveness of the sword skill of someone wielding that exact weapon?

That is a problem with the AD&D legacy: Physical objects are modeled as type A, while fantastic objects are modeled as type B. Fireball auto-scales with "magic power", PF1 had to come up with weapon and armor mastery to represent "skill" in a rather awkward way, because it leaves out the non-Fighter classes.

[OgresAreCute]

The main question is, what exactly are we modeling here? The physical properties of a weapon or the effectiveness of the sword skill of someone wielding that exact weapon?

That is a problem with the AD&D legacy: Physical objects are modeled as type A, while fantastic objects are modeled as type B. Fireball auto-scales with "magic power", PF1 had to come up with weapon and armor mastery to represent "skill" in a rather awkward way, because it leaves out the non-Fighter classes.

Scaling magic power comes from taking levels in a spellcasting class, not from having a fancier spellbook or using funky spell components. In the same way, you could say that a martial character's scaling physical power should come from class features, not from fancier weapons.

[Almadelia]

If damage doesn't scale then you don't need higher hp monsters/characters (which goes against that people are being able to endure more), or if you keep hp as is, then fights drag longer (which isn't what you want). Worse, since magic still scales, you make martials even worse.

What I wouldn't mind is - similarly to ABP - having the damage scale, because you are higher level. Without attuning or something. Just use the same spoon, but because you're 20th level, you can eviscerate enemies instead simply embarrassing yourself.

Well that's my point though, by offloading your BAB onto SoM style abilities, you'll get ways to deal more damage with any weapon that you have a reasonable chance of using. So while a level 1 Fighter is trained in using a longsword, a level 20 Fighter with a stick from the ground is just so damn good with the stick he can blow the level 1 with a +5 Keen Vorpal Longsword of Epicness out of the water because he's just that good.

Automatic Bonus Progression is fine but I'd like it remain its own subsystem. I actually like the idea and use something similar in my own games but it's a very specific concept, this idea that it's not necessarily "Caliburn" that's a big deal but rather "The Sword of King Arthur" that's a big deal. I think you could do it better with the above idea of offloading these +1s onto a track based on class, so a Wizard 20 might have one or two weapons he knows how to use pretty well but not like the Paladin 20 who is a lesser god with a fauchard or even just a long tree branch.

[Florian]

Scaling magic power comes from taking levels in a spellcasting class, not from having a fancier spellbook or using funky spell components. In the same way, you could say that a martial character's scaling physical power should come from class features, not from fancier weapons.

You fail to answer the question: Wy does Fireball scale?

[Almadelia]

The main question is, what exactly are we modeling here? The physical properties of a weapon or the effectiveness of the sword skill of someone wielding that exact weapon?

That is a problem with the AD&D legacy: Physical objects are modeled as type A, while fantastic objects are modeled as type B. Fireball auto-scales with "magic power", PF1 had to come up with weapon and armor mastery to represent "skill" in a rather awkward way, because it leaves out the non-Fighter classes.

A Wizard generally doesn't need his special robes or the Staff of Power to cast his spells. They might help him (and the Staff of Power desperately needs to be worth anything other than kindling), and they're rather impressive to have, but he's not crippled without them. At its basis, a level 20 Wizard operates the same way, with a spellbook and a spell component pouch. A level 20 Cleric is just the same holy symbol, maybe gilded by now. If you're a level 20 Fighter you should get your benefits from being just that good, the weapon itself should be auxiliary. Obviously there should be the ocassional Caladbolg level weapon dropped around that blows away half a mountain with each strike, but a normal fighter should be able to deal massive amounts of damage with a tree branch if he needs to.

[Almadelia]

You fail to answer the question: Wy does Fireball scale?

Because it's a more powerful Wizard casting it. What are you trying to point out? Fireball as a spell formula doesn't get any better or more complicated as time goes on. It's not a different fireball. It gets better because the Wizard gets better. The Fighter should get better independent of his weapon, not be married to it and dependent on it for his damage output. The Fighter is the one who's swinging the sword with more skill, the sword itself gives no damns.

[Florian]

Because it's a more powerful Wizard casting it. What are you trying to point out? Fireball as a spell formula doesn't get any better or more complicated as time goes on. It's not a different fireball. It gets better because the Wizard gets better. The Fighter should get better independent of his weapon, not be married to it and dependent on it for his damage output. The Fighter is the one who's swinging the sword with more skill, the sword itself gives no damns.

Ok, either we model everything on Type A, then the Fireball is a Fireball with no changes, same as the Longsword, because we model the object, not the skill behind the object. Or we model type B, while models skill and effectiveness at using the object, then both, Fireball as well as Longsword should scale in relation to skill. Either we have 5d6 and 1d8, or we have level/d6 and level/d8 o use a consistent approach.

[Almadelia]

Ok, either we model everything on Type A, then the Fireball is a Fireball with no changes, same as the Longsword, because we model the object, not the skill behind the object. Or we model type B, while models skill and effectiveness at using the object, then both, Fireball as well as Longsword should scale in relation to skill. Either we have 5d6 and 1d8, or we have level/d6 and level/d8 o use a consistent approach.

Man are you trying to act like you're clever, but in this case, we don't even need to go deep. Check out the school for Fireball. See how it's Conjuration? Get how that means the Wizard is physically making the object you're 'modelling'? There is no such thing as a "Fireball". There is a "CL 5 Fireball", and a "CL 10 Fireball", but no "Fireball". I agree that a CL 5 Fireball should be 5d6 excepting unusual circumstances such as Evocation specialization powers. I agree that a Longsword should be 1d8+Str;19/x2, excepting unusual circumstances such as oversized weapons. There's no argument here, Florian.

[Cosi]

I never really understood the care about the weapons people use. In my experience of the source material, the particular weapon characters use is rarely character defining, and when it is it's usually because the character has a magical weapon. King Arthur isn't famous for being good at using a longsword, he's famous for having a longsword that made him invincible and king of England.

Martial characters should just get level appropriate abilities. Whether they use those abilities with a sword or a mace or a hammer or a flail or whatever shouldn't matter, particularly because focusing on the weapon turns characters into one trick ponies. If your whole thing is hitting people with a sword, you're going to have trouble dealing with flying enemies.


Ok, either we model everything on Type A, then the Fireball is a Fireball with no changes, same as the Longsword, because we model the object, not the skill behind the object. Or we model type B, while models skill and effectiveness at using the object, then both, Fireball as well as Longsword should scale in relation to skill. Either we have 5d6 and 1d8, or we have level/d6 and level/d8 o use a consistent approach.

fireballs and longswords are different things. They can absolutely work in different ways.

[Almadelia]

Martial characters should just get level appropriate abilities. Whether they use those abilities with a sword or a mace or a hammer or a flail or whatever shouldn't matter, particularly because focusing on the weapon turns characters into one trick ponies. If your whole thing is hitting people with a sword, you're going to have trouble dealing with flying enemies.

Depends on the character, there's quite a few historical and legendary characters who were known for specific weapons or at least being far more deadly with that weapon that without it. Also, flavor does matter and if you want to make a fast spear user who's best with a spear you shouldn't be denied the ability to specialize.
I'm not claiming that you have the ability to do so in base 3.PF, though, since +1 to hit is not 'specialization' it's just boring. Spears, swords, hammers, picks, and glaives should have their own specialties for investing into.

[Morty]

To me, the answer is simple. Whether damage scales with character level or the weapons their use, either way, the damage scales. And it has to scale, otherwise they can't keep up with the health bloat. Tying damage scaling to the characters' own level instead of having them replace their weapons every so often just cuts down on needless bean-counting. Which, granted, apparently is grievously against the spirit of D&D.

[Almadelia]

To me, the answer is simple. Whether damage scales with character level or the weapons their use, either way, the damage scales. And it has to scale, otherwise they can't keep up with the health bloat. Tying damage scaling to the characters' own level instead of having them replace their weapons every so often just cuts down on needless bean-counting. Which, granted, apparently is grievously against the spirit of D&D.

It does more than that because it lets you stick with weapons that you found early in the game. There's very few mythological heroes who constantly swap out weapons, and tying damage to weapon "level" will cause a treadmill even harsher than the one we already have, which is ridiculous - when was the last time you imagined your protagonist tossing away legendary magic swords because he got too badass for the sort-of-legendary sword and now needs the sort-of-more-legendary sword? Sure, if his original is broken - or if this is his first magic weapon - or if it's been say five levels - that's reasonable. But having a treadmill tying your direct damage output to a weapon would mean swapping weapons as soon as it were physically possible to do so, and it'd be crippling not to.

[OgresAreCute]

It does more than that because it lets you stick with weapons that you found early in the game. There's very few mythological heroes who constantly swap out weapons, and tying damage to weapon "level" will cause a treadmill even harsher than the one we already have, which is ridiculous - when was the last time you imagined your protagonist tossing away legendary magic swords because he got too badass for the sort-of-legendary sword and now needs the sort-of-more-legendary sword? Sure, if his original is broken - or if this is his first magic weapon - or if it's been say five levels - that's reasonable. But having a treadmill tying your direct damage output to a weapon would mean swapping weapons as soon as it were physically possible to do so, and it'd be crippling not to.

Not to mention you might end up with a situation where martials constantly struggle to keep up with said treadmill, spending a fat chunk of their WBL in the process while casters get their damage scaling for free. Damage scaling should just be part of your class progression for everyone, and magical staves, fancy robes and mountain-cleaving swords should be extras on top.

[Florian]

@Cosi:

Associated effects and options. A skilled martial character should be able to gain a lot out of the individual fighting style, not out of the individual weapon. Look at some of the really great Wuxia movies: The swordsman will always eclipse the blade.

@Almadalia:

Could be that I am being clever here, because I take a critical look at the underlying Simulationist roots.

[Almadelia]

Florian here's the problem I see, if we're going simulationist.
The weapon is an object, hence it must always be treated as an object independent of its wielder. I'm all for Gram actually dealing 8d6 damage - that's fine, honestly it is. The problem is that once you let that in, you need to make a staircase to it - unless of course you treat it like an artifact. Weapons shouldn't scale up significantly with exceptions for the really artifact class magic weapons. What you should do to add additional damage or effects is add it to its wielder, who is good enough at using the blade to let its true power shine. A martial artist doesn't have enchanted fists or something, he's just good enough to know where and how to hit you. Similarly a high level martial should be able to do more damage because he knows what he's doing, he should be able to use a weapon to its fullest potential (and maybe unlock new weapon properties and tricks that are actually worth a damn) - not just "oh, he has better sword, he unga bunga harder".

[Slithery D]

Hints of the final shape of PF2.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42evx?Top-5-things-to-expect-for-the-final-edition#1

[Cosi]

Depends on the character, there's quite a few historical and legendary characters who were known for specific weapons or at least being far more deadly with that weapon that without it. Also, flavor does matter and if you want to make a fast spear user who's best with a spear you shouldn't be denied the ability to specialize.

I don't care that much about historic figures, because history isn't the source material for fantasy games. My recollection of legendary figures is that they are, as I mentioned, mostly associated with particular weapons of power. Thor, for example, isn't a hammer specialist, he's a guy with a hammer that is very magic.

As far as allowing people to specialize, I don't think it's a concept that should be specifically forbidden, it's just a concept that tends to trap martial characters in underpowered niches ("spear guy" is not a concept that lends itself well to high level play) and that shouldn't be taking up real estate in the core books.


Not to mention you might end up with a situation where martials constantly struggle to keep up with said treadmill, spending a fat chunk of their WBL in the process while casters get their damage scaling for free. Damage scaling should just be part of your class progression for everyone, and magical staves, fancy robes and mountain-cleaving swords should be extras on top.

Yes. Classes should be level appropriate on their own. Magic items should be a bonus, because then you can get rid of WBL (good) and have random magic items (also good) and have magic items feel unique and special (also good).


Could be that I am being clever here, because I take a critical look at the underlying Simulationist roots.

I guarantee that anyone who is talking about things in GNS terms is not being clever.


Hints of the final shape of PF2.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42evx?Top-5-things-to-expect-for-the-final-edition#1

So the top five things we should expect out of the new game include "it has flavor text", "we re-wrote a chapter", and "it doesn't have a mechanic you hated that PF already didn't have"? How is any of that supposed to sell me on switching from PF 1e to PF 2e? How is any of that supposed to sell me on PF 2e at all?

Also, those proficiency bonuses are still only +2 relative, which is still tiny.

[Pex]

Hints of the final shape of PF2.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42evx?Top-5-things-to-expect-for-the-final-edition#1

No Resonance

Good

[137beth]

The "number 1 change,"

Untrained: You get NOTHING, not even your level, you will suck hard my friend!
Trained: LVL + 2
Expert: LVL + 4
Master: LVL + 6
Legendary: LVL + 8

The fundamental issue remains: a flat number boost is not special, interesting, or "legendary." It doesn't matter how many descriptors your wrap it in, a flat number bonus will always be utterly mundane. It's what I expect in any game with numerical modifiers. If you want something to seem "legendary," you have to make it do something unique. Doing the exact same thing you could already do, but with higher numbers, is not legendary.

Paizo seems to have looked at the complaints about the proficiency bonuses and said "oh, people don't think a flat +5 bonus is special. Let's change it to a +8!"

That said, I do like that the +level thing only applies to trained skills. I just don't believe that it is the innovative, ground-breaking, revolutionary change that Paizo seems to think it is.

[BWR]

Paizo seems to have looked at the complaints about the proficiency bonuses and said "oh, people don't think a flat +5 bonus is special. Let's change it to a +8!"


Except a lot of the feedback on the Paizo boards at least was that they liked the general idea of UTEML but had issues with the exact numbers.

Personally, I'll permit myself a small measure of woundglee at the removal of Resonance and Focus (and the wails of despair from those who liked it) and the near universal buffing of magic. Granted, we don't know what they will do to replace resonance though I suspect they will think up something less stupid than resonance but still more pointless and cumbersome than the slot system, and buffing magic doesn't mean they will improve it enough for my taste. Still, it's an improvement.
I still doubt the final product will be anything I want to play, much less buy, but it is looking like less of a trainwreck than it used to.

[Morty]

It does more than that because it lets you stick with weapons that you found early in the game. There's very few mythological heroes who constantly swap out weapons, and tying damage to weapon "level" will cause a treadmill even harsher than the one we already have, which is ridiculous - when was the last time you imagined your protagonist tossing away legendary magic swords because he got too badass for the sort-of-legendary sword and now needs the sort-of-more-legendary sword? Sure, if his original is broken - or if this is his first magic weapon - or if it's been say five levels - that's reasonable. But having a treadmill tying your direct damage output to a weapon would mean swapping weapons as soon as it were physically possible to do so, and it'd be crippling not to.

That is certainly true. My point was more that even if we disregard this, scaling weapons don't give anything that scaling damage doesn't.

I'd personally be in favor of just making attack damage depend on your class and level and distinguishing weapons by tags and moves. Which PF2E claimed would do, but it ended up just a damage number here and there as usual. I'd also be in favor of severely cutting down on health bloat, but that would veer into "not D&D" territory for many. And some measure of passively scaling health is probably unavoidable.

[Almadelia]

I don't care that much about historic figures, because history isn't the source material for fantasy games. My recollection of legendary figures is that they are, as I mentioned, mostly associated with particular weapons of power. Thor, for example, isn't a hammer specialist, he's a guy with a hammer that is very magic.
History isn't the source material for yourfantasy games but sometimes I like to put an Augustus Caesar expy or a Li Shuwen expy into my games.


As far as allowing people to specialize, I don't think it's a concept that should be specifically forbidden, it's just a concept that tends to trap martial characters in underpowered niches ("spear guy" is not a concept that lends itself well to high-level play) and that shouldn't be taking up real estate in the core books.
Only if you think small, otherwise you could easily argue "wizard guy" is not a concept that lends itself well to high-level play because "who cares it's just a bigger fireball". Here's an example - in a lot of myths, spear users are fast. Like, really goddamn fast. There are multiple legendary spear users who are called "Finger of God", "Lightning Spear", and so on. Now obviously, being "fast" (perhaps fast enough to simply teleport?) isn't a spear-exclusive thing, but it could be that whatever a spear lets you do will encourage it. Maybe a spear allows you to take a specific stance that means when you move, every square you pass through gets hit by an attack. Maybe you can have a zone of denial - like a threatened area, but you can, say, attack anyone who attacks out of a square too, or parry ranged attacks that have to cross it. You get my gist - there are things that synergize well with certain weapons, and giving weapons properties that make them play differently will help to make these shine. Maybe at high levels you can even pull a Robilar's Gambit and attack anyone who attacks you at all in melee with a non-reach weapon, even after they're adjacent to you or interrupt casting whether or not they cast defensively as long as you decline to do damage (by using the haft to basically wrestle their arms into the wrong positions).

For an example of what I mean by "plays differently", look at arguably one of the only weapon properties that actually tends to matter - reach. A reach weapon leads to different tactics and synergizes with different abilities. Different feats become more or less useful with a Reach weapon and it opens up enough new ways of fighting that a longspear, for example, can't be construed as "just another 1d8 x3" like so many weapons can be. You have different active choices with a reach weapon, ones that aren't +2 to this or that manoeuvre but also one that doesn't need to define your build. We need more of these properties, ones that make people actually think whether or not it's worth giving up for a better damage number or a better multiplier, that actually alter how parts of your build can fit together. And a lot of those minor worthless tricks that got a feat in Complete Warrior and were promptly forgotten? Here's where they can go, so we have unique and flavorful weapons whose abilities can actually matter into the later game because they change how you approach a fight.


That is certainly true. My point was more that even if we disregard this, scaling weapons don't give anything that scaling damage doesn't.

I'd personally be in favor of just making attack damage depend on your class and level and distinguishing weapons by tags and moves. Which PF2E claimed would do, but it ended up just a damage number here and there as usual. I'd also be in favour of severely cutting down on health bloat, but that would veer into "not D&D" territory for many. And some measure of passively scaling health is probably unavoidable.

I'm so goddamn tired of "+1d6!!! Exciting!". +number or +dx isn't a feature, it might be a progression but it's not a toy I can actively play with. Of course, you appreciate an upgrade to an old feature, and in well-designed encounters the new boost is palpable, but there's a point where even the newest of players just sort of shrugs and asks "so when do I get something new".

[Cosi]

History isn't the source material for yourfantasy games but sometimes I like to put an Augustus Caesar expy or a Li Shuwen expy into my games.

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I meant "things historic people historically did are not good source material for superhuman abilities that high level characters might use to overcome high level challenges".


Only if you think small, otherwise you could easily argue "wizard guy" is not a concept that lends itself well to high-level play because "who cares it's just a bigger fireball".

"fireball guy" isn't a high level concept. It's a 5th level concept, because that is the level at which you get fireball. Defining your character in terms of a specific mechanical ability they use is defining them as being at whatever power level that ability is appropriate. "Fire Mage" is a fine concept. "Mage who uses a specific fire spell" is not. Similarly, "fights with a spear" is not a high level concept. A high level character is someone like Sun Wukong, who wields a seven-ton iron staff. High level weapons are crazy supernatural nonsense. The distinction between spear and sword is kind of irrelevant at that point.


spear users are fast

And so are a bunch of people who don't use spears. Lots of people are fast. "Fast" is a fine ability. But there's no reason to tie it to spears.


but it could be that whatever a spear lets you do will encourage it.

Why would we want to do that? Seriously, why would we want to write a bunch of spear-exclusive abilities? You thought the content-stream demanded by PrCs was bad? Now we have to write an ability suite for every single weapon in the game, and all this just to support the tiny subset of characters that are specifically "sword guy" or "spear guy" rather than "wilderness warrior" or "assassin" or any weapon-agnostic concept.

And, setting things up this way means that now everyone cares about their weapon. Because you're balancing the game on the assumption that people are going to be on one of the approved weapon-style combos, so now all the other combos are invalid. Let's say we set up all our lightning speed abilities to work with a spear. You lash out in an AoE or whatever. Now what happens when I want to make a guy who is really fast, but uses a longsword? All the speed abilities work for spears, not longswords, so I'm hosed. Setting up these kinds of synergies demands that you winnow out a tiny percentage of the playspace as actually being viable. And all so that "spear guy" can be mechanically meaningful. On the other hand, you could just make "spear guy" an aesthetic, and then there'd be no problem.


You get my gist - there are things that synergize well with certain weapons, and giving weapons properties that make them play differently will help to make these shine.

D&D has a bunch of weapon properties. The only ones people care about are the ones that tweak damage, and Spiked Chains. I am not optimistic this is workable, and even if you can in theory make a bunch of properties that are all desirable, you're putting a big constraint on ability design -- namely that the have to call back to those properties -- for, again, the tiny percentage of people that want "sword guy" to be a mechanically well-defined thing, rather than an aesthetic. I'm not saying those properties can't exist, but there's no good reason to build the whole game around them being important. Just make the weapons roughly equal, and give people independent abilities.

[zlefin]

I like the sound of those tweaks; makes me slightly hopeful PF2 might turn out alright.

[Rhedyn]

That wasn't "we reworked all abilities to actually be interesting".

Flavor text won't help that.

[Almadelia]

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I meant "things historic people historically did are not good source material for superhuman abilities that high level characters might use to overcome high level challenges".
Do people play games exclusively at high levels? Exaggerating historic feats into supernatural powers is what legends are about, there are entire franchises which are based off taking mundane historical figures and giving them insanely broken magical powers based on what they accomplished.




"fireball guy" isn't a high level concept. It's a 5th level concept, because that is the level at which you get fireball. Defining your character in terms of a specific mechanical ability they use is defining them as being at whatever power level that ability is appropriate. "Fire Mage" is a fine concept. "Mage who uses a specific fire spell" is not. Similarly, "fights with a spear" is not a high level concept. A high level character is someone like Sun Wukong, who wields a seven-ton iron staff. High level weapons are crazy supernatural nonsense. The distinction between spear and sword is kind of irrelevant at that point.
Yeah, and my point is that if you think of fire mage as 'fireball mage' you'll end up concluding it's not a good concept. If you limit your thinking of weapons to being low level 'guy at the gym' feats then of course your conclusions maintain that 'guy at the gym isn't a good idea'. Sun Wukong is barely even a martial character, he has a constant Shapechange effect on him. Are bows also not a good thing to focus on? Remember I'm not saying that they should be nothing outside of their weapon, simply that their weapon should let them do crazy things that aren't "I full attack" because holy smokes that is boring.



And so are a bunch of people who don't use spears. Lots of people are fast. "Fast" is a fine ability. But there's no reason to tie it to spears.
I immediately followed it with 'it's not exclusive.



Why would we want to do that? Seriously, why would we want to write a bunch of spear-exclusive abilities? You thought the content-stream demanded by PrCs was bad? Now we have to write an ability suite for every single weapon in the game, and all this just to support the tiny subset of characters that are specifically "sword guy" or "spear guy" rather than "wilderness warrior" or "assassin" or any weapon-agnostic concept.

You may as well complain that there's thematic abiltiies at all. The number of weapon agnostic 'concepts' vastly outstrip the number of realistically different weapons in the game. I didn't say write something for every weapon. Boil the weapons down, I'm pretty sure there's a nontrivial number of mechanically identical weapons out there even without getting rid of the irrelevant abilities that nobody remembers even exist like Brace. Either get rid of the identical ones or make them actually different.



And, setting things up this way means that now everyone cares about their weapon. Because you're balancing the game on the assumption that people are going to be on one of the approved weapon-style combos, so now all the other combos are invalid. Let's say we set up all our lightning speed abilities to work with a spear. You lash out in an AoE or whatever. Now what happens when I want to make a guy who is really fast, but uses a longsword? All the speed abilities work for spears, not longswords, so I'm hosed. Setting up these kinds of synergies demands that you winnow out a tiny percentage of the playspace as actually being viable. And all so that "spear guy" can be mechanically meaningful. On the other hand, you could just make "spear guy" an aesthetic, and then there'd be no problem.

But I didn't say to make it exclusive, just to give weapons things that let them play differently. You may as well complain that glaives get reach and halberds don't - a valid complaint, but in the end there's not much you can do, is there? If your weapons play the same then why have different weapons at all? Just list a ton of weapons and have them all do the same thing.



D&D has a bunch of weapon properties. The only ones people care about are the ones that tweak damage, and Spiked Chains. I am not optimistic this is workable, and even if you can in theory make a bunch of properties that are all desirable, you're putting a big constraint on ability design -- namely that the have to call back to those properties -- for, again, the tiny percentage of people that want "sword guy" to be a mechanically well-defined thing, rather than an aesthetic. I'm not saying those properties can't exist, but there's no good reason to build the whole game around them being important. Just make the weapons roughly equal, and give people independent abilities.

If the ability doesn't ever matter and inspires no new forms of play (or enhance existing forms of play), then it shouldn't exist. I don't see how you can possibly disagree with this assertion. If you want to keep those abilities, then make them matter.

[Erloas]

I think many weapons could be similified into groups, which is already done inconsistently. But I think many different weapons could be made more distinct by using more weapon abilities. There are a few on weapons now, but almost all of them are class specific or exotic weapons. Maybe each weapon has 3 "traits", with some of the more powerful or exotic weapons having 4-5 and some of the simpler weapons having 1-2. That way you can tailor your weapon to your concept, and if you need some other ability for a while you pick a weapon that switches the trait you need for one you don't.

Not sure how they would all work mechanically, but at least a general idea. We already have trip, disarm, reach, brace, blocking. Maybe countering, parry, fast, aggressive, etc.. Then make those abilities mean more. Maybe instead of tying trip, disarm, etc. to feats you instead remove the feats and put it as part of the weapon, so no more feat tax to disarm, but you can only do it with some weapons and not with others. Blocking wouldn't just work when fighting defensively, countering gives extra attack if the attacker misses, fast gives extra AOO or AOOs in situations that normally wouldn't give them.

As just broad examples.

Then you could specialize in a group of weapons, and get the benefits of specialization, but also switch out exactly which weapon you use in that group to fit your style or specific situation.

I think there is also room for multiplicative as well as additive bonuses for martial abilities. Multipliers would make the difference between weapons seem better, 1d6+10 and 1d8+10 really aren't that different, but 3d6+3, and 3d8+3 are quite a bit different in power. So it isn't just bonus and the weapon damage is mostly irrelevant.

edit: is there a link to the interview? a 5 point list simplified that much isn't really worth much.

[Cosi]

Do people play games exclusively at high levels?

High levels exist, and the paradigm you use for designing abilities should support them.


Sun Wukong is barely even a martial character, he has a constant Shapechange effect on him.

Sun Wukong is a high level character. He does crazy stuff like "permanent shapechange" because that is what high level characters do.


Are bows also not a good thing to focus on? Remember I'm not saying that they should be nothing outside of their weapon, simply that their weapon should let them do crazy things that aren't "I full attack" because holy smokes that is boring.

You can't give people weapon-dependent abilities without committing to writing more content -- and more dead content -- than the game can support.


I immediately followed it with 'it's not exclusive.

It is implicitly exclusive if there are substantive synergies available to spear-wielders but not other speedsters.


You may as well complain that there's thematic abiltiies at all.

Themes constrain. That's why you have to be careful about what themes you include. "Uses this specific weapon" is a bad theme. Time you spend supporting that is time you don't spend supporting "Death Knight" or "Thunder Warrior".

[Sir Chuckles]

I missed out on a lot of discussion that happened, but to loop back to the scaling weapons of fireball vs. longsword, we have to look at the Monk. His fists do more damage as he levels. Rogues gain more conditional damage as they level. Fighters and Barbarians use magic items and build resources to pump their +<numbers> up.

In Starfinder, everyone gets a small amount of +<numbers> through leveling. Weapon Specialization is given freely to all classes, applying to the weapons they're natively proficient in. Even Dwarves get this from just being a Dwarf.

But a Lv20 character using a basic Combat Knife will still do a piddly 1d4 damage. They might have a 1d4+12 instead of 1d4+3, but if they want to match the bestiary's scaling they need the monofilament plasma thingamajigger in order to be doing their 20d6+12 damage.

This is compounded with the recent playtest, where we get a new class that is essentially a not-monk. In the initial playtest packet, they're doing a measly 1d3 damage with their Unarmed Strike. But it scales up to 12d6, which is almost exactly on-par with normal weapons, if not stronger than some weapon classes that don't have a Lv20 option.

Part of the reason I dislike scaling damage with weapons is that it requires martials to spend large chunks of their wealth on shiny new weapons in order to keep up with basic game math. A 1st level character is supposed to have 1,000 Credits and the book says a character should not spend more than 25% of their wealth on weapons. A standard Lv1 semi-auto pistol costs 260 credits. Most weapons of equal level cost more than 25% of the WBL chart. And selling your old weapons is at a 10% rate.

[Silly Name]

The issue with static weapon damage to me looks like it essentially boils down to the same old Caster/Mundane disparity: a wizard has scaling damage built in her spells and her only "spending" is learning and preparing those spells, while the fighter has to invest many resources (feats, money, ability points...) to increase his weapon damage.

Consequently, I would agree that one way to fix this disparity, without a ridiculous nerf of magic, would certainly be to have weapon damage scale with level - somehow. The idea isn't that far removed from what has been a staple of Rogues for many years: sneak attack; or, as other have pointed out, Monks have been doing it too. Just let Fighters, Barbarians, Paladin and Rangers have their own form of damage scaling (they don't have to scale at the same rate or in the same ways) NOT in the form of piddly cumulative +1s, and don't have them spend boatloads of money into enchanting or buying weapons capable of doing more than cuts to level-appropriate encounters.

[Amiel]

I played in a converted Rise of the Runelords game ran by a friend of ours using the PF2.0 rules. While the game itself was fun, especially the roleplaying elements, we found the PF2.0 mechanics to be adequate in some areas and actually rather bad in others, and overall it was a disappointingly mediocre experience.

We really liked the three-action economy, it made actions seem really fluid, flowing and dynamic. What we didn't understand was the aversion to movement being its own thing irrespective of an action and the penalties to iterative attacks. Even with 10 over the AC being a crit, we found with the penalties to iterative attacks we could barely hit anything.
Our characters managed to roll quite high on our attacks, skill checks and other rolls but found we were summarily beaten by enemy rolls.
Our characters, especially with everything locked behind gated levels, didn't feel heroic. And the proficiency system contributed greatly to feeling unheroic. Our characters just felt mediocre.

What was telling was that our friend who was running the game really likes PF and especially dislikes 5e, he felt disappointed with the rules as well finding them too rigid, and he'll actually be running a 5e game for us.

[Morty]

The discussion about weapon traits feels academic, because it's not like you can't have different moves and traits without making them central to the character. The important thing to me is that characters shouldn't have to pay feats for special weapon moves, because that does box them in. As far as scaling goes... either we come up with high-level weapon moves or we accept that weapon-specific abilities are low-level and will be eventually overshadowed, but remain available as the bread and butter reliable ones. But different weapons having different abilities is a very intuitive and obvious way to differentiate martial characters, so it shouldn't be discarded.

The D&D weapon list as it exists now is mostly concerned with misapplied realism and cosmetic differences masquerading as mechanical variety. It doesn't really satisfy or support any particular playstyle or preference. It just looks the way it always has so it's familiar.

[Silly Name]

I too agree with the idea of further mechanically differentiating weapons. As it is, the biggest difference between weapons is the range of their critical threat and what reach they have. Apart from those two, most players will instinctively go for whatever weapon they can use and which deals the most damage. Rarely, damage type is of some importance.

Maybe Florian's idea seems a bit excessive, but I don't think it would be bad to have, for example, weapons which make it easier to disarm or can be used in more interesting ways which don't suck. For example, see the various weapons in 3.5 which could be used to make trip attempts: if tripping didn't suck and didn't force players to pigeonhole themselves into "the tripping guy", those would see far more use and spice up combat.

There are some maneuvers and properties which could be written in the weapons themselves, and perhaps a few weapons could be bundled into more generic capacities (how many polearms does a system really need?), via the use of tags (a la 5e Finesse).

Feats/class features to do certain things don't even have to be throw out completely: yeah, you can use flails to better disarm your opponents, but making a whirlwind attack or cleaving through foes is independent of the weapon you are using and thus remain as feats.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Hey, what if, hear me out, instead of giving scaling damage to weapons we gave martial guys abilities whose damage scale with level. Like, you know, martial maneuvers do. Maybe Power Attack should do +1d6 damage per two character levels. Maybe there should be a feet that gives you +5 feet of movement per level.

Rage is a half good concept of how this works, since it grants you a scaling bonus which increases. Same with Sneak Attack. They're not bad ideas. The issue is that WotC and Paizo seem to think that Sneak Attack and Rage are such strong abilities that them being the major thing a character gets is OK.

Maybe a better case would be the Magus' Arcane pool. It scales automatically and can be used to get a lot of different utility abilities and damage. Maybe martials should get something similar that granted them things like temporary ability boots, extra actions, extra damage, bonus to rolls and so on. That, to me, seems to better represent the concept of a character getting better at his job as he levels up.

[Rhedyn]

You guys should check out the Rules Cyclopedia for weapon masteries.

Weapons started out alike, but as you get more skilled with them they diverged and got different special abilities. Some were better against monsters than humanoids while others were better against humanoids. You could deflect attacks with some weapons while others did other things I forgot about since deflect seemed so strong. Damage dice, attack bonuses and even AC would get bonuses depending on mastery and what type of creature you were facing.

I think this book did all that in like 3-4 pages. It is Basic D&D after all.