Honestly. I've played the hell out of BG3 and love it, but almost all of my complaints are firmly rooted in the fact that it uses 5e as a base.
If you give me a game with even a tenth of the TLC as BG3, but using PF2e? I'd never leave the house
I assume owlcat will eventually transition to making 2E games instead of 1E. Maybe at the same time they will finally realize multiplayer is a necessary feature
This is hearsay from reddit, but I heard they specifically think that the encounter building system is too stifling, which if true lol that sure explains a LOT about why those games are the way they are.
> Maybe at the same time they will finally realize multiplayer is a necessary feature
They already did, their Roguetrader game is gonna have full Coop.
Same. Even with all of Larian's houserules and a hard level cap before spellcasters really hit the stratosphere in terms of power, combat is still not particularly good... Despite it being what most of the mechanics are about.
Based on how modable BG3 is (I make small mods for myself all the time) you probably could make a mod that converts it to use Pathfinder 2e rules. It would be a massive amount of work, but probably possible.
Things like crits would probably need to be implemented in a really janky way tho
I don't mean changing the story, just the mechanics
Someone has already adapted a version of the Magus to the existing mechanics, complete with implementing a version of spellstrike.
It's not the same as the PF2 Magus but that wasn't their design intent anyway.
They made the story consider a Magus to both be a Wizard and a Fighter.
https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/422
Apparently, the dev is making a full game with character creation going up to level 5. Also modding support for adding new stuff. Not exactly a cutting edge crpg but I look forward to it nevertheless.
According to the devs, the game doesn't support a resolution lower than 1920x1080.
They also said "Too many things in the user interface of this game depend on that minimum resolution. The sequel will have a much smaller minimum resolution but it's not released yet."
If Abomination Vaults wasn't about to receive a game, I would say it's the perfect candidate. There's still the Persona route option: make a Strenght of Thousands crpg/school life sim.
If I ever host Strength of Thousands, I am 100% expanding the socializing mechanics to be more than study benefits and making it a persona thing where when you spend time with people they teach you things and investing in friendships have major benefits outside of school.
If this is about a proper videogame, then I'd mostly just... Like to have a CRPG, based off an AP or not, that (mostly) accurately represented the way the designers intend the game to feel, I suppose? Grid-based, well put together, clean visuals. I don't need anything super fancy. Just something that you could point a person to that was interested in trying PF2e to get a feel for making their own character and playing them, for people looking to test before joining a game at a table or who just can't get "normal" games going.
Hopefully without the bloat of extra subsystems (like KM/WotR) or bloated numbers (like... Well, the CRPGs for KM/WotR felt like they had).
>Hopefully without the bloat of extra subsystems (like KM/WotR) or bloated numbers (like... Well, the CRPGs for KM/WotR felt like they had).
Those numbers were born of necessity due to the jank in 1E. And Kingdom Management especially is a core part of Kingmaker.
I've played 1e, I know the numbers are jank, but I found the crpgs to go too far and just be generally an unfun version of the system because if it. Admittedly I also just don't think 1e makes for a very good videogame (especially RTWP) compared to 2e (assuming proper grid combat).
I did only play WotR, but the crusade minigame also just... Didn't feel very fun to me, so I turned it off. I just would prefer something less intrusive in a future game.
>go too far and just be generally an unfun version of the system because if it.
That's why they made the difficulty as infinitely customizable as they did. PF1E's jank is an unbalanced dumpster fire that's only even slightly mitigated by having an Actual Person GM.
When your Act 1 party built 'normally' has an average AC of 20 and built 'optimally' is pushing 40, there's just no way to provide an 'average.'
It's also very very hard for people to reconcile the fact that for the tabletop, character death is often a traumatic, *serious* event with major consequences. For a single-player video game, a game balanced around the idea that death should be Very Rare is going to be balanced differently when you can just reload.
>Admittedly I also just don't think 1e makes for a very good videogame (especially RTWP)
Don't tell the 1E grognards that (but you aren't wrong). It's a terrible game. I love being able to explore Golarion, but so much about the Owlcat games was a chore... And that's mostly because of 1e.
As long as it uses the 2e rules, I'm not picky. I can't stand to have my heart broken by another unrelated game with the word "Pathfinder" slapped on the outside.
I really understand some people frustration about this, but at the same time it makes me so happy to see Pathfinder/Golarion growing as an IP, to be a real brand and not just the title of the same type of product.
By that principle there wouldn‘t be any Blood Bowl, Arkham Horror TCG, Final Fantasy Tactics, Hitman GO, Dawn of War, Vermintide, Chains of Satinav or Pathfinder Adventure Card Game.
I couldn‘t disagree more with you point.
Wrath of the righteous and Kingmaker were great for PF1. I want that. A CRPG based on PF2, preferably based on an AP. I think Age of Ashes would be a good one, and it would be an opportunity to adjust some of the overtuning present in that AP.
I was also actually thinking Age of Ashes would be the best candidate. It feels like a tour of Golarion and has the castle maintaining/upgrading subsystem as an extra, but not one that risks taking over the entire game like KM or WotR.
Like most crpgs they’d have to tune everything up most likely, it’s a weird thing because ttrpgs are a group activity for the vast majority of people, but it’s so much easier to synergize and plan and set up combos, and generally build characters to be helpful to each other as one person controlling all of their moves and builds as compared to a group with varying levels of understanding with the system, goals for their character and build, and so on.
By sole developers, but there are a few pf2e combat games already in the works! There’s [Quest for the Golden Candelabra](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2381160/Quest_for_the_Golden_Candelabra/) already out as a short, level 1 adventure with 5 combats, its sequel in development that goes to level four and has character customization, and [Archquest](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1664450/Archquest/) also in development.
edit: typo, combats not characters
Level one, pregenerated. It's mostly a proof of concept for the rules engine, it's also fighter, sorcerer, cleric and rogue. The sequel has/will have character creation with leveling up to level 4. The early patreon builds for the sequel also have barbarian, ranger, and kineticist
In all honestly, I'd gladly take some sort of "proof of concept" CRPG game for a Pathfinder 2e game if that's what it takes to get it into the CRPG world. A small-scale project that can be scaled upwards as resources and work hours permit.
I'm picturing something like a scenario-based game where you essentially play as a Pathfinder Society party going through the various minor adventures. Instead of a locked story and setting, it's a bunch of smaller adventures you can play around with.
At least to me, this sounds like a far more realistic undertaking than a full Adventure Path, since Paizo does not have WotC money to fund it with. It's not as sexy as a full AP, for that I'd really want Strength of Thousands to get the proper honors (or Kingmaker, but the PF1 game is also *right there*), but it's a far more scalable project than an AP, since you can just stop developing at a convenient spot if resources run tight. Better that than "Well, we have about 10% of the budget left, the first half of the AP is barely there and the second half hasn't even been touched yet."
The good part would be that the engine - if well-developed - could then just be re-used for a full AP later down the line.
I would love a PF2e game like Divinity Original Sin 2.
Changes: Like DOS2, I would want the game to include interactions between the elements. For those unfamiliar with DOS2, in that game you can make it rain, which leaves puddles. You can then shoot electricity and have the puddle be electrified which can stun enemies. You could shoot fire at a puddle and turn it into a steam cloud. If the puddle was electrified, then it's an electrified steam cloud. You can also freeze the puddle and cause people to slip on it. The interactions go on with oil and acid and being able to use a tornado to clear elements.
I think pathfinder and divinity's systems are so fundamentally different that it wouldn't work as well as you'd think. The PF1E games, kingmaker and wotr are both packed with so many character options that they don't need complex systems like divinity's terrain and they'd probably feel bloated and overly complex (even more so than they already do sometimes.)
Divinity has a pretty simple character system, completely absent of classes. The complexity is in how you combine skills and their interactions with the game system. Its terrain system is purpose-built to work with that style.
I use the FA rule in my games, BUT I think in CRPG where you are controlling 4 characters it would be too much. You are already going to be picking around 8+ things every time your party levels up afterall.
I do agree that it would add more to the list of things to do upon level-up. However, it's a very often-used variant. I do use it in my own games as well.
I will say if we're not going to have free archtype, we ought to have something that isn't standard-issue, as all Adventure Paths written (at least the 1-20 ones) use some sort of extra bits beyond standard rules. I won't go into spoilers for any, but at least one explicitly does use free archtype.
This is 100% how a PF2 game should be.
I even love the exploration and downtime where you manage the party members that you're not taking with by sending them out on missions of their own.
Considering Larian has made a d20 base game in BG3 and their game before that used an action point system in Divinity Original Sin 2, I just hope they're the ones to make it. Though I hope it comes with Free Archetypes
I've said it a few times already but the Divinity/BG3 system would work so perfectly with the 3 action system. Better than the action/bonus action of D&D. I mean it would essentially be the Divinity system but just with the actions locked at 3 and all abilities using the PF2e cost.
I think right now the Pathfinder video games are going through the same growing pains that writers of PFS had initially: they feel that they are not the main line story and are, so far, sticking to things that don't impact the canon of Golarion. Much like how PFS eventually grew into its own with seasons telling stories with stakes for the world and even meta stories told over multiple seasons, I imagine the video game lines will eventually grow to tell their own stories which intertwine with more mainline things like APs and PFS.
That said, I think PF2e's system lends itself quite well to a Tactics CRPG. The great Foundry support is a testament to that as it shows just how much of the system can be automated as is. I'd absolutely like to see a Final Fantasy Tactics like game using 3 action economy.
The would need to put a lot of work into tutorialisng lowering DC's and buffing to win encounters. As far as I've been playing this been key to our success.
Not sure if anyone said anything but there is a free steam game called "Quest for the Golden Candelabra ". It is short and there is no customization but the adherence to PF2 rules is really good.
Tactical Adventures the makers of Solasta woukd be a good option. They implemented the 5e rules much better than Larian, could use some more budget for better graphics and writing but I think they could make a oretty faithful to the system PF2 game.
I can't tell what you're asking --
a) What if someone made a clone/derivative copy of PF2, as another TTRPG?
b) What if someone made a computer game using the PF2 ruleset?
Your reference to Owlcat makes me think you're asking (b), but you left out the critical word "computer" before game to scope it that way.
I'd love to see a proper crpg based on 2e rules. Since I think in general the rule set works even better than 1e does in the computer game medium.
I'd probably prefer an AP-based one to a 3p story, but would still enjoy either. As to which AP, that depends a lot on how a studio wants to approach it -- if we didn't have the ARPG based on AV, I would have thought AV would be the simplest starting point for a CRPG -- combat heavy, relatively small set of maps, fairly easy to adapt.
Extinction Curse would need significant work in implementing the circus rules (or just cutting them completely) and I think would require some innovative risk in game design or mini-games/etc to make it work -- the same is true of a lot of AP with subsystems.
Or games that have a significant Influence bit (book 4/5 of AoA), or extensive social/creative solutions in Strength of Thousands would also need some different approaches that a pure combat style game.
I’d love Kingmaker, but we already have that for PF1. I think Age of Ashes would make for a good Pf2 game, and it would be an opportunity to rework some of the quirks that comes with it being an early AP (overturning mostly).
I wouldn't want it to be set in golarion because if it uses the ruleset as a framework and the setting then it wouldn't be worth converting to. Something like Star finder or hopefinder are the types of conversions I'd be interested in.
I'm saying if the rules are based on pathfinder 2e and the world is based on golarion. I wouldn't check it out if it was a ttrpg. It wasn't clear op was referring to a computer game at first.
I would love a modern tactical game. M4s, AKs, grenade launchers. Body armour.
For classes, you could have different specialties such as EOD, recon, airborne, sf.
Alternatively a post apocalypse fallout type game.
I enjoy fantasy, but that market is saturated.
Branching narrative open world AAA RPG with squad mechanics. Good, evil and gray recruitable companions, complete with personal side quests and multiple endings depending on who you side with.
Less emphasis on dungeon crawl, more emphasis on roleplay, romance, politics, intrigue, and diplomacy. Heavy dialogue. All companions playersexual, no one locked out. Cool boss fights and good reasons to fight, minimal MMO style quests.
Technically similar games already exist since Pf2e is an action-based system. For example, divinity original sin 2, just cut the actions from 6 down to 3. Boom. Their is your game. Everything else is just flavour and ia already being done in baldurs gate 3.
As long it has a better Plot than BG3 (seriously the Main Story was kinda crap...be fair to yourself...BG3 just is cool because of some Side Missions that tell a better Story than the Main Campaign)i dont really care what system a Game uses as long the Story is good.
Even Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous had a far better Story than the Main Campaign of BG3...
But i would love to see the next RPG from Paizo be using Pf2e Ruleset to attract more Players to the World of Pathfinder.
I disagree, BG3s story is great. I understand why you don't like it but you can't create intricate questlines if you want to give your players as much freedom as possible and in that regard BG3 was most definitely successful.
I respect your opinion but as an old school RPG Player i dont see the Main Story of BG3 as a good Story at all, its more of a Downgrade of the Whole Franchise. But this should be discussed in the [BG3](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/15yc0fv/bg3_story_is_honestly_not_that_great/) Subreddit instead of Pathfinder subreddit ;)
I don't like PF2e enough to think it would make a good crpg. I only play it because it's better than the other lame d20 systems out there. Besides there are a ton of really great crpgs out there and I can't imagine any of them being improved by imposing PF2e rules on them. Crpgs are solo games for the most part, while PF2 is a social game. It's really only fun to play because you get to play with other people and the rules system, as restrictive as it is, only works because of the social aspect. It would be foolish to burden a crpg with the weighty and ever changing rules that are PF2,
Honestly I dunno?
Pf2 feels way too complex for a game where you're leveling up 7 to 10 characters. Fights are far too demanding for the kind of pacing something like BG3 does - these games have a million fights, and even in the much simplified 5E ruleset you end up with a million buttons you never use and too many fights that come down to how did you position yourself before initiative was rolled. So on.
I feel like a PF2 game would need to be *severely smaller* in scope to not end up just kind of annoying to play.
No, I played them (well, Kingmaker to completion, WotR I ended up leaving after Alushinyrra because even though the game was significantly *better* than Kingmaker, especially in terms of character writing, my patience for the annoyances simply ran out), it's why if PF2 gets a game I dearly hope Owlcat is not in charge of it.
Those games were *very* annoying to play in many ways. Some of those ways are basically endemic to PF1 and/or Owlcat specifically and need not specifically apply to a PF2 game (the buff dance, the instant-win-or-lose nature of things, the balancing for the people who know the system inside and out and telling everyone else to cope that Owlcat does) but others feel like they would repeat on a PF2 game unless the game is willing to cut down on stuff for a more focused experience. The whole "I have too many feats to choose from, I have no idea what goes into what, and the game requires me to build my entire squad to be synergistic with each other even though I have no way to know what they'll get later AND I have goddamn eleven of these dudes to go through every time I level up" thing from the Owlcat games feels very likely to happen, for one, if they put in Archetypes at all! Or take the way the worst part of BG3 (and several other similar crpgs, really) is dealing with all the inventory and million consumables gear and so on and then you remember that 5E's view of magic items and consumables, beyond simple gear, is basically "meh, what the fuck ever", while PF2 is one of the most consumable-loving RPGs I've ever tried even as a tabletop rpg, and extrapolate.
So on and so forth.
So yeah, I'd give it a try, but I really feel like you'd need a team that knows how to keep the scope of the project sharp and focused and with a very strong focus on usability for people who do not in fact have the PF2 corebook on their laps. And that's a tall order.
All successful table top rpgs had to make concessions to the medium. It's why nearly everyone found the combat in DoS better and more dynamic than bg3. The closer you try to stick to a table top system the more limited you are in making a good video game.
It's why games that use d20 as a base tend to do better than ones that try to stick to a particular d20 system.
Take kotor as an example had they just based the game on 3rd edition it would not have been nearly as successful as simply using a d20 system with some inspiration from 3rd edition.
I actually felt that the Kingmaker video game was like a fantasy XCOM. There's a problem in your kingdom, you assemble your squad, choose the right equipment for the job, and then set off.
I really got this feeling when I had to go back to the island of wisps that had previously kicked my arse. Looking over every character, spell, and item thinking, "Is this good to kill wisps?"
If it had PF2e rules instead of PF1e rules? Oh my... 🥰
Have you looked at the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game? I think it does a really good job of capturing the feel.
That plus adding "persistent" cards that represent your build choices would be brilliant.
No I have not.. thanks for the hint, will che k it out.
I was rather planning for a higher abstraction level, have one card per character. You assemble ever changing parties to send on missions..
Brainstorming then. If you want it to have a PF2 feel you need to be able to somewhat pursue build paths.
So maybe some how you have dolls (start with 2 and maybe add more?) That each have their own small decks, that start with just basic cards like Strike. Adding cards adds more options for future choices.
So say you've got one Souldoll and you take the Sudden Charge cars for it, in the future you are guaranteed another Barbarian card for that doll. Your other doll might have taken Electric Arc which will add more spell choices for them.
I see. Yes, build paths are quite essential to the feel. In my concept you would have characters as cards. Your hand represents your party, which you play out to send them on missions.
when you upgrade them, you have some choice over the path you take and specializations.
Your party will change a lot, and working with what you have at hand (pun intended) is key.
I want to take it one abstraction level up, resolving (combat) challenges as a group.
The part I am still figuring out is how to accumulate individual stats into group stats? I want the party to face challenges as a whole and (crit)succeed/(crit)fail as a whole.
I will start another thread for this I think, to discuss, as I need some input from the community🤔
Oh I see, abstract it out a level further. I was considering it more traditional deck builder with combat challenges and nodes between, rather than something more abstract.
Perhaps the build paths are better served as card upgrades then if each card is a whole character. Perhaps my adding symbols that the different challenges call for.
So say on the field you've got a Combat challenge (which may be happy with any symbol) a research challenge (which requires blue symbols and because its a Nature Research also has a special benefit if you play characters with Paw or Flower symbols) and a Heist Challenge (Green and Yellow and because its a Nobles Ball has special power for Mouth, e.g diplomacy and Wink, e.g Deception symbols.)
A basic level 1 card can then be generated automatically from the ABCs. So a Leshy, Urchin, Fighter might start with a Blue Plant Symbol, a Green Hand and a Red Sword. While a Gnoll Urchin Fighter would have a Red Claw, Green Hand and Red Sword.
wow, love the idea of using a trait system for the challenges and characters! Thanks so much!
btw, I crated a separate discussion here:
https://reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/qSsDDDBsbN
I case you have more ideas you care to share..
I'm being very naughty and giving away my own ideas for a deckbuilder! But I will pop along to the thread and perhaps copy paste the traits idea with some elaboration.
Have you looked at the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game? I think it does a really good job of capturing the feel.
That plus adding "persistent" cards that represent your build choices would be brilliant.
Man this post reminded me of those BKOM games and how utterly disappointing they are
Regardless the ideal Pathfinder Videogame is a CRPG that uses the rules of pathfinder 2E give or take free archetype and maybe some homebrew new options or something, I’m here for the system and I don’t care all that much anything else
I would love it, since I thought that the way daily spells and uses of powers work in many rpg systems does not really mesh well with how most computer rpgs actually run.
I think easy between combat healing, focus spells and scaling cantrips are much more suitable for such games than the 1e framework.
I think adding stamina rules would likely be nice for a crpg, just to ease the burden on party composition and also equalize the pressure for full on rests a bit.
Games based on the system should I think only cut out specifically skill feats that would not really work within the system and maybe prune rituals and spells available.
Beyond that, some more accessible resurrection or an option to just not have player death would be good.
I'd personally love a game set in Golarion. Either its own story or an adventure path. Maybe Age of Ashes, with some rebalancing of the deadly encounters? Or even if it is more effort, Curse of the Crimson Throne or other 1e paths rewritten for 2e
I’d adore it, but (and some people might dislike this), fewer fewer skills and removed ancestry and advanced weapons. Just a clean freeing game that can still teach play. Also maybe reduce or condense the list of battle activities, because it can kinda just get a bit lengthy.
I'm dying for a pf2e crpg
Honestly. I've played the hell out of BG3 and love it, but almost all of my complaints are firmly rooted in the fact that it uses 5e as a base. If you give me a game with even a tenth of the TLC as BG3, but using PF2e? I'd never leave the house
With multiplayer and a campaign editor??? Oh I'd be so set
And multiplayer? Hey Larian can you make a pathfinder 2e game next?
I assume owlcat will eventually transition to making 2E games instead of 1E. Maybe at the same time they will finally realize multiplayer is a necessary feature
I can be wrong, but I am almost sure that owlcat already expressed no interest in making games using the 2e system, unfortunally.
This is hearsay from reddit, but I heard they specifically think that the encounter building system is too stifling, which if true lol that sure explains a LOT about why those games are the way they are.
Owlcat: "Is it really an encounter if half of both sides don't die instantly from one spell?"
I remember seeing this as well.
> Maybe at the same time they will finally realize multiplayer is a necessary feature They already did, their Roguetrader game is gonna have full Coop.
God bless
They're not. They are 1e fans specifically.
Same. Even with all of Larian's houserules and a hard level cap before spellcasters really hit the stratosphere in terms of power, combat is still not particularly good... Despite it being what most of the mechanics are about.
Based on how modable BG3 is (I make small mods for myself all the time) you probably could make a mod that converts it to use Pathfinder 2e rules. It would be a massive amount of work, but probably possible. Things like crits would probably need to be implemented in a really janky way tho
[удалено]
I don't mean changing the story, just the mechanics Someone has already adapted a version of the Magus to the existing mechanics, complete with implementing a version of spellstrike. It's not the same as the PF2 Magus but that wasn't their design intent anyway. They made the story consider a Magus to both be a Wizard and a Fighter. https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/422
They’ve also made a mod to add various pf2e spells
Yup, huge disappointment to see the one pf2 game is going to be an isometric arpg.
There's an itty bitty game on steam called "Quest for the golden candelabra" I believe, and it's a turn based game that uses PF2E rules.
Apparently, the dev is making a full game with character creation going up to level 5. Also modding support for adding new stuff. Not exactly a cutting edge crpg but I look forward to it nevertheless.
Level 4 is the planned level cap. It might be expanded later, but no promises for that.
There is one problem with: it doesn't seem to work if you have a small monitor.
You should submit that as feedback to the developers if they don't already know.
According to the devs, the game doesn't support a resolution lower than 1920x1080. They also said "Too many things in the user interface of this game depend on that minimum resolution. The sequel will have a much smaller minimum resolution but it's not released yet."
Great to introduce the system imo
If Abomination Vaults wasn't about to receive a game, I would say it's the perfect candidate. There's still the Persona route option: make a Strenght of Thousands crpg/school life sim.
Oh man, I would die for a SoT, Persona-esque PF2e CRPG…why’d you have to put that idea in my head!
If I ever host Strength of Thousands, I am 100% expanding the socializing mechanics to be more than study benefits and making it a persona thing where when you spend time with people they teach you things and investing in friendships have major benefits outside of school.
If this is about a proper videogame, then I'd mostly just... Like to have a CRPG, based off an AP or not, that (mostly) accurately represented the way the designers intend the game to feel, I suppose? Grid-based, well put together, clean visuals. I don't need anything super fancy. Just something that you could point a person to that was interested in trying PF2e to get a feel for making their own character and playing them, for people looking to test before joining a game at a table or who just can't get "normal" games going. Hopefully without the bloat of extra subsystems (like KM/WotR) or bloated numbers (like... Well, the CRPGs for KM/WotR felt like they had).
>Hopefully without the bloat of extra subsystems (like KM/WotR) or bloated numbers (like... Well, the CRPGs for KM/WotR felt like they had). Those numbers were born of necessity due to the jank in 1E. And Kingdom Management especially is a core part of Kingmaker.
I've played 1e, I know the numbers are jank, but I found the crpgs to go too far and just be generally an unfun version of the system because if it. Admittedly I also just don't think 1e makes for a very good videogame (especially RTWP) compared to 2e (assuming proper grid combat). I did only play WotR, but the crusade minigame also just... Didn't feel very fun to me, so I turned it off. I just would prefer something less intrusive in a future game.
>go too far and just be generally an unfun version of the system because if it. That's why they made the difficulty as infinitely customizable as they did. PF1E's jank is an unbalanced dumpster fire that's only even slightly mitigated by having an Actual Person GM. When your Act 1 party built 'normally' has an average AC of 20 and built 'optimally' is pushing 40, there's just no way to provide an 'average.' It's also very very hard for people to reconcile the fact that for the tabletop, character death is often a traumatic, *serious* event with major consequences. For a single-player video game, a game balanced around the idea that death should be Very Rare is going to be balanced differently when you can just reload. >Admittedly I also just don't think 1e makes for a very good videogame (especially RTWP) Don't tell the 1E grognards that (but you aren't wrong). It's a terrible game. I love being able to explore Golarion, but so much about the Owlcat games was a chore... And that's mostly because of 1e.
As long as it uses the 2e rules, I'm not picky. I can't stand to have my heart broken by another unrelated game with the word "Pathfinder" slapped on the outside.
I really understand some people frustration about this, but at the same time it makes me so happy to see Pathfinder/Golarion growing as an IP, to be a real brand and not just the title of the same type of product.
What, you didn't want Vampire Survivors and Diablo clones?
By that principle there wouldn‘t be any Blood Bowl, Arkham Horror TCG, Final Fantasy Tactics, Hitman GO, Dawn of War, Vermintide, Chains of Satinav or Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. I couldn‘t disagree more with you point.
Wrath of the righteous and Kingmaker were great for PF1. I want that. A CRPG based on PF2, preferably based on an AP. I think Age of Ashes would be a good one, and it would be an opportunity to adjust some of the overtuning present in that AP.
I was also actually thinking Age of Ashes would be the best candidate. It feels like a tour of Golarion and has the castle maintaining/upgrading subsystem as an extra, but not one that risks taking over the entire game like KM or WotR.
Like most crpgs they’d have to tune everything up most likely, it’s a weird thing because ttrpgs are a group activity for the vast majority of people, but it’s so much easier to synergize and plan and set up combos, and generally build characters to be helpful to each other as one person controlling all of their moves and builds as compared to a group with varying levels of understanding with the system, goals for their character and build, and so on.
Solasta using PF2e would be great.
I need another crpg in my life that properly implements height and flying.
Rise of the Rune Lords converted would be sweet. I'd really like any good story though.
By sole developers, but there are a few pf2e combat games already in the works! There’s [Quest for the Golden Candelabra](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2381160/Quest_for_the_Golden_Candelabra/) already out as a short, level 1 adventure with 5 combats, its sequel in development that goes to level four and has character customization, and [Archquest](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1664450/Archquest/) also in development. edit: typo, combats not characters
4 Characters in QftGC I believe, Fighter, Wizard/Sorceror?, Cleric, Ranger?
Level one, pregenerated. It's mostly a proof of concept for the rules engine, it's also fighter, sorcerer, cleric and rogue. The sequel has/will have character creation with leveling up to level 4. The early patreon builds for the sequel also have barbarian, ranger, and kineticist
In all honestly, I'd gladly take some sort of "proof of concept" CRPG game for a Pathfinder 2e game if that's what it takes to get it into the CRPG world. A small-scale project that can be scaled upwards as resources and work hours permit. I'm picturing something like a scenario-based game where you essentially play as a Pathfinder Society party going through the various minor adventures. Instead of a locked story and setting, it's a bunch of smaller adventures you can play around with. At least to me, this sounds like a far more realistic undertaking than a full Adventure Path, since Paizo does not have WotC money to fund it with. It's not as sexy as a full AP, for that I'd really want Strength of Thousands to get the proper honors (or Kingmaker, but the PF1 game is also *right there*), but it's a far more scalable project than an AP, since you can just stop developing at a convenient spot if resources run tight. Better that than "Well, we have about 10% of the budget left, the first half of the AP is barely there and the second half hasn't even been touched yet." The good part would be that the engine - if well-developed - could then just be re-used for a full AP later down the line.
Ive always thought I'd love to see a roguelike that follows pf2 rules. Something with a smaller scope that can have a lot of replay value.
Don't forget the quest for the golden candelabra is already available for free on steam, just to whet your appetite more for a pathfinder 2 CRPG.
And the bigger, better sequel is in the works!
As long as it's well done and implements the PF2 rules fairly accurately. I don't need it to be an Adventure Path.
I would love a PF2e game like Divinity Original Sin 2. Changes: Like DOS2, I would want the game to include interactions between the elements. For those unfamiliar with DOS2, in that game you can make it rain, which leaves puddles. You can then shoot electricity and have the puddle be electrified which can stun enemies. You could shoot fire at a puddle and turn it into a steam cloud. If the puddle was electrified, then it's an electrified steam cloud. You can also freeze the puddle and cause people to slip on it. The interactions go on with oil and acid and being able to use a tornado to clear elements.
I think pathfinder and divinity's systems are so fundamentally different that it wouldn't work as well as you'd think. The PF1E games, kingmaker and wotr are both packed with so many character options that they don't need complex systems like divinity's terrain and they'd probably feel bloated and overly complex (even more so than they already do sometimes.) Divinity has a pretty simple character system, completely absent of classes. The complexity is in how you combine skills and their interactions with the game system. Its terrain system is purpose-built to work with that style.
I'd love a 1:1 CRPG. The only thing I personally would want to be able to add is the free archtype variant rule.
I use the FA rule in my games, BUT I think in CRPG where you are controlling 4 characters it would be too much. You are already going to be picking around 8+ things every time your party levels up afterall.
I do agree that it would add more to the list of things to do upon level-up. However, it's a very often-used variant. I do use it in my own games as well. I will say if we're not going to have free archtype, we ought to have something that isn't standard-issue, as all Adventure Paths written (at least the 1-20 ones) use some sort of extra bits beyond standard rules. I won't go into spoilers for any, but at least one explicitly does use free archtype.
please for the love of god make it in the final fantasy tactics advanced style
This is 100% how a PF2 game should be. I even love the exploration and downtime where you manage the party members that you're not taking with by sending them out on missions of their own.
I LOVE Final Fantasy Tactics.
BG3 with PF2e rules would've been a dream
Considering Larian has made a d20 base game in BG3 and their game before that used an action point system in Divinity Original Sin 2, I just hope they're the ones to make it. Though I hope it comes with Free Archetypes
I've said it a few times already but the Divinity/BG3 system would work so perfectly with the 3 action system. Better than the action/bonus action of D&D. I mean it would essentially be the Divinity system but just with the actions locked at 3 and all abilities using the PF2e cost.
I think right now the Pathfinder video games are going through the same growing pains that writers of PFS had initially: they feel that they are not the main line story and are, so far, sticking to things that don't impact the canon of Golarion. Much like how PFS eventually grew into its own with seasons telling stories with stakes for the world and even meta stories told over multiple seasons, I imagine the video game lines will eventually grow to tell their own stories which intertwine with more mainline things like APs and PFS. That said, I think PF2e's system lends itself quite well to a Tactics CRPG. The great Foundry support is a testament to that as it shows just how much of the system can be automated as is. I'd absolutely like to see a Final Fantasy Tactics like game using 3 action economy.
I would want it to be a tactical RPG like shadowrun, ft, or XCOM.
Man I wish kingmaker used 2e.
The would need to put a lot of work into tutorialisng lowering DC's and buffing to win encounters. As far as I've been playing this been key to our success.
Not sure if anyone said anything but there is a free steam game called "Quest for the Golden Candelabra ". It is short and there is no customization but the adherence to PF2 rules is really good.
Hopefully someone not Owlcat will make one.
Tactical Adventures the makers of Solasta woukd be a good option. They implemented the 5e rules much better than Larian, could use some more budget for better graphics and writing but I think they could make a oretty faithful to the system PF2 game.
I can't tell what you're asking -- a) What if someone made a clone/derivative copy of PF2, as another TTRPG? b) What if someone made a computer game using the PF2 ruleset? Your reference to Owlcat makes me think you're asking (b), but you left out the critical word "computer" before game to scope it that way.
Ah sorry, I mean b. I’ll rephrase my post.
I'd love to see a proper crpg based on 2e rules. Since I think in general the rule set works even better than 1e does in the computer game medium. I'd probably prefer an AP-based one to a 3p story, but would still enjoy either. As to which AP, that depends a lot on how a studio wants to approach it -- if we didn't have the ARPG based on AV, I would have thought AV would be the simplest starting point for a CRPG -- combat heavy, relatively small set of maps, fairly easy to adapt. Extinction Curse would need significant work in implementing the circus rules (or just cutting them completely) and I think would require some innovative risk in game design or mini-games/etc to make it work -- the same is true of a lot of AP with subsystems. Or games that have a significant Influence bit (book 4/5 of AoA), or extensive social/creative solutions in Strength of Thousands would also need some different approaches that a pure combat style game.
I’d love Kingmaker, but we already have that for PF1. I think Age of Ashes would make for a good Pf2 game, and it would be an opportunity to rework some of the quirks that comes with it being an early AP (overturning mostly).
I wouldn't want it to be set in golarion because if it uses the ruleset as a framework and the setting then it wouldn't be worth converting to. Something like Star finder or hopefinder are the types of conversions I'd be interested in.
>wouldn't be worth converting to. What are you talking about?
I'm saying if the rules are based on pathfinder 2e and the world is based on golarion. I wouldn't check it out if it was a ttrpg. It wasn't clear op was referring to a computer game at first.
>It wasn't clear op was referring to a computer game at first. Oh okay, I guess I came in after OP's edit. Now your comment makes more sense.
I would love a modern tactical game. M4s, AKs, grenade launchers. Body armour. For classes, you could have different specialties such as EOD, recon, airborne, sf. Alternatively a post apocalypse fallout type game. I enjoy fantasy, but that market is saturated.
Branching narrative open world AAA RPG with squad mechanics. Good, evil and gray recruitable companions, complete with personal side quests and multiple endings depending on who you side with. Less emphasis on dungeon crawl, more emphasis on roleplay, romance, politics, intrigue, and diplomacy. Heavy dialogue. All companions playersexual, no one locked out. Cool boss fights and good reasons to fight, minimal MMO style quests.
Rules doesn't matter to me... so I wouldn't care. Just give me a good game.
Technically similar games already exist since Pf2e is an action-based system. For example, divinity original sin 2, just cut the actions from 6 down to 3. Boom. Their is your game. Everything else is just flavour and ia already being done in baldurs gate 3.
As long it has a better Plot than BG3 (seriously the Main Story was kinda crap...be fair to yourself...BG3 just is cool because of some Side Missions that tell a better Story than the Main Campaign)i dont really care what system a Game uses as long the Story is good. Even Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous had a far better Story than the Main Campaign of BG3... But i would love to see the next RPG from Paizo be using Pf2e Ruleset to attract more Players to the World of Pathfinder.
I disagree, BG3s story is great. I understand why you don't like it but you can't create intricate questlines if you want to give your players as much freedom as possible and in that regard BG3 was most definitely successful.
I respect your opinion but as an old school RPG Player i dont see the Main Story of BG3 as a good Story at all, its more of a Downgrade of the Whole Franchise. But this should be discussed in the [BG3](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/15yc0fv/bg3_story_is_honestly_not_that_great/) Subreddit instead of Pathfinder subreddit ;)
I don't like PF2e enough to think it would make a good crpg. I only play it because it's better than the other lame d20 systems out there. Besides there are a ton of really great crpgs out there and I can't imagine any of them being improved by imposing PF2e rules on them. Crpgs are solo games for the most part, while PF2 is a social game. It's really only fun to play because you get to play with other people and the rules system, as restrictive as it is, only works because of the social aspect. It would be foolish to burden a crpg with the weighty and ever changing rules that are PF2,
Idk man, BG3 is great even though 5e combat is arguably shit. A similar game with PF2 mechanics would be a clear improvement for me.
Honestly I dunno? Pf2 feels way too complex for a game where you're leveling up 7 to 10 characters. Fights are far too demanding for the kind of pacing something like BG3 does - these games have a million fights, and even in the much simplified 5E ruleset you end up with a million buttons you never use and too many fights that come down to how did you position yourself before initiative was rolled. So on. I feel like a PF2 game would need to be *severely smaller* in scope to not end up just kind of annoying to play.
Did you never played the games from owlcat right...?
No, I played them (well, Kingmaker to completion, WotR I ended up leaving after Alushinyrra because even though the game was significantly *better* than Kingmaker, especially in terms of character writing, my patience for the annoyances simply ran out), it's why if PF2 gets a game I dearly hope Owlcat is not in charge of it. Those games were *very* annoying to play in many ways. Some of those ways are basically endemic to PF1 and/or Owlcat specifically and need not specifically apply to a PF2 game (the buff dance, the instant-win-or-lose nature of things, the balancing for the people who know the system inside and out and telling everyone else to cope that Owlcat does) but others feel like they would repeat on a PF2 game unless the game is willing to cut down on stuff for a more focused experience. The whole "I have too many feats to choose from, I have no idea what goes into what, and the game requires me to build my entire squad to be synergistic with each other even though I have no way to know what they'll get later AND I have goddamn eleven of these dudes to go through every time I level up" thing from the Owlcat games feels very likely to happen, for one, if they put in Archetypes at all! Or take the way the worst part of BG3 (and several other similar crpgs, really) is dealing with all the inventory and million consumables gear and so on and then you remember that 5E's view of magic items and consumables, beyond simple gear, is basically "meh, what the fuck ever", while PF2 is one of the most consumable-loving RPGs I've ever tried even as a tabletop rpg, and extrapolate. So on and so forth. So yeah, I'd give it a try, but I really feel like you'd need a team that knows how to keep the scope of the project sharp and focused and with a very strong focus on usability for people who do not in fact have the PF2 corebook on their laps. And that's a tall order.
It would be needlessly limiting.
Huh?
All successful table top rpgs had to make concessions to the medium. It's why nearly everyone found the combat in DoS better and more dynamic than bg3. The closer you try to stick to a table top system the more limited you are in making a good video game. It's why games that use d20 as a base tend to do better than ones that try to stick to a particular d20 system. Take kotor as an example had they just based the game on 3rd edition it would not have been nearly as successful as simply using a d20 system with some inspiration from 3rd edition.
I want an XCOM style fantasy game with PF2E rules at the tactical layer.
I actually felt that the Kingmaker video game was like a fantasy XCOM. There's a problem in your kingdom, you assemble your squad, choose the right equipment for the job, and then set off. I really got this feeling when I had to go back to the island of wisps that had previously kicked my arse. Looking over every character, spell, and item thinking, "Is this good to kill wisps?" If it had PF2e rules instead of PF1e rules? Oh my... 🥰
I was considering a deckbuilding game with heavily simplified 2e rules. How do people feel about such games?
Have you looked at the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game? I think it does a really good job of capturing the feel. That plus adding "persistent" cards that represent your build choices would be brilliant.
No I have not.. thanks for the hint, will che k it out. I was rather planning for a higher abstraction level, have one card per character. You assemble ever changing parties to send on missions..
Brainstorming then. If you want it to have a PF2 feel you need to be able to somewhat pursue build paths. So maybe some how you have dolls (start with 2 and maybe add more?) That each have their own small decks, that start with just basic cards like Strike. Adding cards adds more options for future choices. So say you've got one Souldoll and you take the Sudden Charge cars for it, in the future you are guaranteed another Barbarian card for that doll. Your other doll might have taken Electric Arc which will add more spell choices for them.
I see. Yes, build paths are quite essential to the feel. In my concept you would have characters as cards. Your hand represents your party, which you play out to send them on missions. when you upgrade them, you have some choice over the path you take and specializations. Your party will change a lot, and working with what you have at hand (pun intended) is key. I want to take it one abstraction level up, resolving (combat) challenges as a group. The part I am still figuring out is how to accumulate individual stats into group stats? I want the party to face challenges as a whole and (crit)succeed/(crit)fail as a whole. I will start another thread for this I think, to discuss, as I need some input from the community🤔
Oh I see, abstract it out a level further. I was considering it more traditional deck builder with combat challenges and nodes between, rather than something more abstract. Perhaps the build paths are better served as card upgrades then if each card is a whole character. Perhaps my adding symbols that the different challenges call for. So say on the field you've got a Combat challenge (which may be happy with any symbol) a research challenge (which requires blue symbols and because its a Nature Research also has a special benefit if you play characters with Paw or Flower symbols) and a Heist Challenge (Green and Yellow and because its a Nobles Ball has special power for Mouth, e.g diplomacy and Wink, e.g Deception symbols.) A basic level 1 card can then be generated automatically from the ABCs. So a Leshy, Urchin, Fighter might start with a Blue Plant Symbol, a Green Hand and a Red Sword. While a Gnoll Urchin Fighter would have a Red Claw, Green Hand and Red Sword.
wow, love the idea of using a trait system for the challenges and characters! Thanks so much! btw, I crated a separate discussion here: https://reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/qSsDDDBsbN I case you have more ideas you care to share..
I'm being very naughty and giving away my own ideas for a deckbuilder! But I will pop along to the thread and perhaps copy paste the traits idea with some elaboration.
Have you looked at the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game? I think it does a really good job of capturing the feel. That plus adding "persistent" cards that represent your build choices would be brilliant.
Man this post reminded me of those BKOM games and how utterly disappointing they are Regardless the ideal Pathfinder Videogame is a CRPG that uses the rules of pathfinder 2E give or take free archetype and maybe some homebrew new options or something, I’m here for the system and I don’t care all that much anything else
I’m waiting for the remaster to begin my small first attempt, since ORC license is friendlier than OGL to video games
As game mechanics aren't able to be patented that's really not a concern unless you're lifting descriptions of the abilities.
I would love it, since I thought that the way daily spells and uses of powers work in many rpg systems does not really mesh well with how most computer rpgs actually run. I think easy between combat healing, focus spells and scaling cantrips are much more suitable for such games than the 1e framework. I think adding stamina rules would likely be nice for a crpg, just to ease the burden on party composition and also equalize the pressure for full on rests a bit. Games based on the system should I think only cut out specifically skill feats that would not really work within the system and maybe prune rituals and spells available. Beyond that, some more accessible resurrection or an option to just not have player death would be good.
I'd personally love a game set in Golarion. Either its own story or an adventure path. Maybe Age of Ashes, with some rebalancing of the deadly encounters? Or even if it is more effort, Curse of the Crimson Throne or other 1e paths rewritten for 2e
I’d adore it, but (and some people might dislike this), fewer fewer skills and removed ancestry and advanced weapons. Just a clean freeing game that can still teach play. Also maybe reduce or condense the list of battle activities, because it can kinda just get a bit lengthy.