Next game with Pathfinder 2E rules? [Devs?]

[Keyastian]

So, I wonder if the next game of the series the rules will be based on the 2nd Edition of Pathfinder. I've been playing it, a campaign with some friends, and we're loving it. The actions economy is fantastic and brings a lot of strategy to combat.

I recommend it.

[Schlumpsha]

Probably not. It's more likely they would stick with the already implemented 1e classes, archetypes, races, spells and feats. Much easier that way for a new Pathfinder game to add new stuff. Switching to 2e would require a massive ruleset revamp. It's simply less work to use things which are already present and usable.

On the other hand I really wouldn't mind to have the Inventor class available in the future. Love that steampunk mechanic theme of it to death.

[Drake]

The 2E are really not rtwp friendly, the 3 actions need the turn based method.

[Nyx]

Originally posted by Drake:

The 2E are really not rtwp friendly, the 3 actions need the turn based method.

To be honest switching to fully turn based would be better for them. There is a reason RTWP games basically died out and modern dev's eventually switch away like obsidian.

[Schlumpsha]

Originally posted by Abhorash:

To be honest switching to fully turn based would be better for them. There is a reason RTWP games basically died out and modern dev's eventually switch away like obsidian.

It would do them more ill than good in all honesty. The resulting backlash of such a move would be like Larian switching to RtwP for their next game and ditching TB somewhere on the way. Won't be pretty.

It's also factual incorrect to state that RtwP games died out. As proven by Owlcat themselves. Or Black Geyser which recently left its Early Access period.

[seeker1]

BG3 appears to be sticking to their guns of TB only. Not by entire popular acclaim. I've looked at THEIR forums and boy are some people exploding over it.

I haven't tried the Early Access. I avoid that and betas unless I'm being paid for testing or given other perks.. I understand they've made an effort to make the TB very zippy. I guess we'll see.

I guess they will not change their minds, but then, I also suspect, it's something you'll see mods on soon.

To thread topic: PF2E seems to move more toward "bounded accuracy" and I happen to like that. We have no idea what's next. Starfinder? They aren't married to Paizo, I don't think, but then that would probably upset people if they went to 5E, homebrew, or something else.

Guess we'll find out.

[Nyx]

Originally posted by Schlumpsha:

Originally posted by Abhorash:

To be honest switching to fully turn based would be better for them. There is a reason RTWP games basically died out and modern dev's eventually switch away like obsidian.

It would do them more ill than good in all honesty. The resulting backlash of such a move would be like Larian switching to RtwP for their next game and ditching TB somewhere on the way. Won't be pretty.

It's also factual incorrect to state that RtwP games died out. As proven by Owlcat themselves. Or Black Geyser which recently left its Early Access period.

There have been a few modern RTWP games sure and they can do all right but when you compare the sales of POE2 or Wrath to say divinity the first one both fall way behind. As for RTWP dying out there aren't very many modern ones and for a decent period of time there really weren't any at least none that got much attention. Turn based is the better system because its what the rules were made for so it flows much more smoothly and allows for much more tactical play. Its the reason why a game like say DAO was able to do so well when at that time RTWP CRPG's were dying. To explain DAO is real time but it was built from the ground up with RTWP in mind (plus original rules) and so it was able to make very smooth gameplay in a way no other RTWP CRPG has really been able to pull off.

As far as it being worse for Owlcat yeah I'm sure the handful of people with Nostalga for infinity engine will whine but the numbers speak greater than any noise they could make. Turnbased sells RTWP can do okay but there is a limited amount of people who can tolerate that style anymore.

[Immortal Reaver]

In addition there are not many paths to choose from. 22 paths for 1E. 7 paths for 2E. They would have to also rework more things for RTwP.
For me, few features I hate turn it into big no from me. Things like, the way shields work, Spell attack roll, way multiclassing works. (We stopped using shields for everybody, both DM and players always forgot to Raise it anyway)

[Finrod]

Team 1E

[Schlumpsha]

Video games =! Tabletop. Deviation of rules are inevitable as a result of adapting the ruleset to a completely different medium. I would also argue that playing WotR in RtwP gives players the better overall experience due to the game being designed that way. Specificly its encounter designs. But you do you.

As for TB selling better than RtwP... that oversimplifies the situation quite a bit. D:OS sold because of brand recognition. Larian already was like the "European Bioware" of old way before their kickstarter campaign for D:OS. Both studios were even created around the same time. The sales numbers likely would be similar even if the whole franchise stayed RtwP (such as earlier Divinity titles made by Larian in the past). It doesn't come as a surprise that their sales numbers would have been greater still if the games allowed for both RtwP and TB gameplay. As proven by PoE2 and WotR for instance.

RtwP doesn't really cater towards nostalgia any more than TB does. In fact, TB has a much longer history in video game development and as such an older fanbase. If anything, Larian catered specificly to this TB nostalgia with D:OS and BG3.

[Frostfeather]

People are concerned over turn based vs real time or 1e vs 2e. But the real problem is Owlcat... we shouldn't want them to attempt to make anything at all because they'll absolutely butcher it, then re-butcher it every patch for a year or so.

But if they did, I guess 2e turn based would be best as it would simplify things for them. And that means fewer things to screw up.

[forkofspite]

Have not played much 2E (playtest + one or two short scenarios), but to me, it seemed like I needed to scratch and claw for every +1 bonus. If that's how it actually plays out, it seems like min/maxing would be even more important; character creation is different, but it seems like "optimal builds" would be required more.

How would that interact with Owlcat's history of throwing in items with outrageous bonuses (items with +10 bonuses on various skills are common in their games)? Inflating monster stats to compensate?? Seems like it wouldn't work well, but who knows.

[jsaving]

Pathfinder 2e adds a large number of 4th edition D&D elements to PF1e, which is not too surprising since the guy in charge of PF2e was a dev for 4th edition D&D. It's also polarized the Pathfinder fanbase the same way 4e did, and for the same reasons. I wouldn't personally want to see Owlcat embrace PF2e, though PF2e does have some strengths like a revamped action system and an innovative take on the sorcerer and bard classes.

[Keyastian]

Originally posted by jsaving:

Pathfinder 2e adds a large number of 4th edition D&D elements to PF1e, which is not too surprising since the guy in charge of PF2e was a dev for 4th edition D&D. It's also polarized the Pathfinder fanbase the same way 4e did, and for the same reasons. I wouldn't personally want to see Owlcat embrace PF2e, though PF2e does have some strengths like a revamped action system and a sorcerer that puts 5th edition D&D's to shame.

The action system is the best, for sure

[Drake]

Originally posted by forkofspite:

Have not played much 2E (playtest + one or two short scenarios), but to me, it seemed like I needed to scratch and claw for every +1 bonus. If that's how it actually plays out, it seems like min/maxing would be even more important; character creation is different, but it seems like "optimal builds" would be required more.

How would that interact with Owlcat's history of throwing in items with outrageous bonuses (items with +10 bonuses on various skills are common in their games)? Inflating monster stats to compensate?? Seems like it wouldn't work well, but who knows.

2E prohibits you from having overpowered items left and right (for example you can only have a limited number of + X to an ability, so if you get some + X to dex for example you can't wear an item with a + X to STR, and all magic items have to be toggled to work, and you have a limit to the number you can toggle each day), and CR actually matters (1 CR difference in P2E can be a big challenge). So messing with balance by bloating mob stats wouldn't be advised. The rules are very, very tight level wise (especially with DCs and checks that rely a lot on level and bonuses being limited with the trained/expert/master/legendary specs).
That said, it's actually better for a computer game since there are less crazy combo that can happen, it's a lot more controlled. And I'm not even talking about misses and crits (for those that played pillars of eternity, it's exactly the same system with miss/glanced/hit/crit thresholds, except it applies to everything, attacks, spells, skills, actions etc. with added mechanics to transform hits in to crits or glanced into miss etc.).

That said about options, the additional rulebooks added a lot, 2E is becoming more and more diverse, especially with unique archetypes and heritages.

[forkofspite]

yes - i remember about some character trait that limited the number of items you could activate each day. However, given Owlcat precedent, it seems like they would just increase the abilities of each item. In 1e, +8 stat bump items don't exist - fairly common in Kingmaker and Wrath. Goggles that provide +15 on all knowledge and lore?? Boots that number of ranks in mobility to charge attacks (combine that with pounce attacks)??? Seems like every magic weapon does "something extra". If anything like that is implemented in a 2e game, how would the developers change the challenges to try to keep them a challenge?

The 2e crit implementation (successes & failures) increases outcome variance significantly. In general, that's bad for the players since enemies don't need to worry about surviving to face the next challenge. Doesn't matter if you have a million good rolls if the next bad one ends things.