How did CoDzilla happen in Dungeons Dragons

Welcome! Log in.

In order to write or comment, you have to register.

Do you have a user account? Sign up here here.

Log in
  • Well, as a harbinger of D & D4e, WotC Paizo has not extended the license for the magazines Dungeon and Dragon. The own world of Golarion and Pathfinder as a book series with adventure paths was new. In this respect, it was already foreseeable for Lisa Stevens & Co. at the time that D & D3.5 would not be around for much longer.

    PF 2.0 is NOT D&D 4.0 ... D&D 4.0 was "Hallenhalma for advanced students" with such a strong equal treatment of the classes (via the Powers) that one class hardly differs from another from reading.

    The introduction of the focus spells in PF 2.0 and the drilling of the magic tricks is a measure to bypass the 5-minute adventurer's day. The abolition of multiple attacks lets the full round action fizzle out and brings more movement into the fights, but you can carry out several attacks in the round anyway (even on the 1st level) only with a deduction of -5 (or -4 at) Agile weapons).

    Is PF2 a little too far away from PF1 for me? For me yes. I would also like to be able to use my old things and see a considerable conversion effort for this. But maybe I'll try it out on my current "project" (I'm preparing a PF1 campaign and maybe converting it to PF2 too, let's see).

    Is PF2 Pathfinder? Yes. It's really, really similar to PF1, except that you have more options in exploration mode (so you can have more "adventures" before you have to rest). Try it out, watch the Let's Plays by Oblivion Oath and Kights of the Everflame, the review by "Know Direction" is also helpful.

    Pathfinder fan from the very beginning

  • You really ask yourself why you have completely rebuilt the system? It would have been enough just to include the various rule changes, some of which were already introduced with starfinder, in the 2e basic rule book and leave the rest, character creation, skills, etc., as it is.

    Hence the comparison with D&D 4e. There were just too many and far too radical changes. And the new rules are more really compatible.

  • Then the following problems would not have been addressed:

    - 5 minute adventurer day

    - not easy high-level play for non-mathematicians

    - Classes are subject to different levels of power (i.e. Codzilla, Full Spellcaster, ... Mönch) and are therefore unbalanced.

    - Too complex system of advancement for skills for too little benefit.

    - Hardly any player (apart from specialists for the respective maneuver) uses combat maneuvers.

    I can just say ...

    Try it once:

    - whether it feels like Pathfinder (because it does).

    - whether you have lost the variety of options (it is not, except for the fact that, of course, no 10 years of publication history can be used),

    - whether the SL now has it easier to lead a lap (because it is)

    - whether a group is now more balanced (the balance between the classes has actually been significantly improved)

    - whether the classes in PF2 feel like their counterpart in PF1 (except for the sorcerer, but he has now become much more versatile as a magician).

    Pathfinder fan from the very beginning

  • That may be all, but I still think all the changes, no matter how useful they are, are a big mistake. Incidentally, it is always a mistake to change all the rules for a new rule edition so that you end up with a completely new game. You can fall flat on your face with it, for example with the D&D 4e. When TSR was planning AD&D 2e at the time, they had a lot of ideas, some of them very radical, but they didn't implement them for one reason: they didn't want to annoy the fans. This small but very important lesson was forgotten by their successors, which then became a disaster for WotC at D&D 4e. And I am not only referring to WotC, but also to other publishers, and thus also to Paizo. No matter how good the system may be now, you have simply rebuilt far too much and already annoyed a lot of fans. You may not care, but others care. Far too much has been changed for you. For them, this is no longer Pathfinder, but a completely new role-playing game that is sold under this name.

  • Then D & D3 should have been a terrible flop too.

    The very fact that the problem was addressed with high-level play changes all of the math behind the system.

    You have an almost linear progression for the characters (constant GAB increase with additional points from attribute increases, magical objects and talents) compared to an exponential increase for the monsters (e.g. 2 monsters A correspond to encounter CR + 2, i.e. CR +16 corresponds to 2 high 8 monsters A, that's 256).

    This also eliminates the Christmas tree effect (the following items are required for level X play ... increase primary attribute by +6, increase AC, etc.) (the items for attribute increase are still there, but they are apex items, i.e. 17 . Level + for manufacturing). These "standard subjects" are no longer necessary due to the change in mathematics.

    As long as you have not played the game yourself or watched a game, you cannot judge it as a mistake.

    I also think that there are a lot of changes that will make it difficult for me to use all my old stuff (trust me, that's a lot, especially from 3PPP). Nevertheless, I think the new system is good and I will use it.

    Pathfinder fan from the very beginning

  • Then D & D3 should have been a terrible flop too.

    It was a risk. And WotC was lucky back then. But it could have turned out differently.

    To the rest I just say one thing:

    Regardless of whether the changes make sense or not, the more changes and the bigger the changes, especially when it comes to basic game mechanics, the more likely there are people who will reject these changes. And since comparisons with D&D 4e were already being made during the play tests in the Paizo forum, it was actually already possible to foresee at the time that quite a few were against it. At the time, many had hoped that Pathfinder 2e would be a further development of Starfinder, so that it has an uninterrupted rule tradition that can be traced back to the D&D 3e, and not a completely new development that is no longer compatible. In this regard, Pathfinder 2e is a bug. We don't yet know how successful the Pathfinder 2e will be, but we do know that the original plan to overthrow the D&D 5e with Pathfinder 2e has definitely failed because it doesn't contain anything that would make D&D 5e players can attract, because many it somehow reminds of the really hated D&D 4e. Paizo apparently forgot why Pathfinder was a success back then.

  • To overthrow D&D 5 was not the plan. You can't get past the D&D brand (movies and game evenings in Big Bang Theory) alone. That Pathfinder had made it in between was a miracle (and not a small one).

    PF2 wants to position itself as an alternative to D & D5 and, based on a similar mechanism (D20), offer a more complex game with more options. So if D & D5e is too simple for you and offers few options, you should look at PF 2. You can't get past the giant itself.

    Pathfinder fan from the very beginning

  • To overthrow D&D 5 was not the plan. The D&D brand alone (movies and game evenings in Big Bang Theory) cannot be ignored. That Pathfinder had made it in between was a miracle (and not a small one).

    Because WotC did everything wrong with D&D 4e and Paizo did everything right with Pathfinder. Don't forget that D&D 3.5 was very popular back then and you just couldn't understand why WotC wanted to sell you such a completely different system from D&D, even though you knew Hasbro was very angry about the introduction of the OGL and insisted that the next edition should be completely incompatible with the predecessor. Paizo, on the other hand, realized that you could still make money with D&D 3.5. They were also extremely dissatisfied with the terms of the D&D 4e license.

    PF2 wants to position itself as an alternative to D & D5 and, based on a similar mechanism (D20), offer a more complex game with more options. So if D & D5e is too simple for you and offers few options, you should look at PF 2. You can't get past the giant itself.

    It was a long time ago. The rules would not have had to be completely redesigned for that.

  • A very interesting discussion. For me now, however, if PF2 is indeed a completely new rule system, why should I start playing it? Then why don't I switch to another system?

    We currently have a lot of material in our offline group, so there is no need to change the system for the time being. In my online round, however, we are faced with the question of what happens next? I will get the PF2-GRW and make my own picture. But based on what I have read so far, I tend to start with a completely different system (e.g. Splinter Moon). It's actually a shame, because I was also hoping for further development. So according to the motto "evolution instead of revolution".

  • Take a look at the PF2-GRW and maybe a little adventure to go with it (The Fall of Plaguestone, if it might also be available in German). Try it out and see if you like it. In the game, a lot becomes clearer that may not be a problem about the rules themselves.

    Otherwise, I can recommend anyone who is reasonably able to speak English to check out the YouTube channels on Obsidian Oath, Knights of the Everflame and the GRW review of "Know Direction". The latter in particular were not very enthusiastic about the playtest, but were convinced by the GRW.

    Pathfinder fan from the very beginning

  • Review of the GRW of "Know Direction"

    Thank's for the Tipps. Both look very interesting. I'll take a closer look at them later.

    Nice that there are also votes for PF2

  • It's actually a shame, because I was also hoping for further development. So according to the motto "evolution instead of revolution".

    Unfortunately, industry giants tend to rely on "revolution instead of evolution", although it makes a lot more sense the other way around, unless the control system is so broken that only a revolution can help. But that would be another discussion now.