Pathfinder 2nd Edition?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Nah, we lost it because we sold it to the Yanks for arms to win WWII.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh, everyone knows Australians are tougher than Americans, what with needing armor skin to survive everything trying to kill them.
Often it is a high reflex save. Spiders in the dunny, swooping attack birds, crocodiles chasing you up banks, snakes being random encounters on bike rides.

...and drop bears. Never forget the drop bears.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tandriniel wrote:
I am afraid that the alternative is that money streams to Paizo dry out, and they are either forced out of their market position, or are preasured by business logic to make a completely new version, in order to sell books to their customers. This is Wizards failed business model, and it does not work in 2012

One thing to remember is that Paizo's business model is NOT Wizards' business model and never has been. As a customer, I don't know the entire nuts and bolts of course of Paizo's model, but my understanding is a major part of their profits comes from the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, and secondarily the general subscription model they use to sell their products in-house. This is not what Wizards did in 3.x, which is rely on the rulebook as the major seller, not adventures.

In some respects, at least as I understand it, Pathfinder RPG is actually a support system for the Adventure Paths. It provides a living set of rules which the Adventure Paths' mechanical aspects are based on, so if folks run the APs straight out of the book, they've got supported rules to work with. However, I think one of the reason Paizo has been successful so far is that they've been able to make the Adventure Paths transcend edition to an extent -- the Adventure Paths predate PFRPG by a year or two. Some people who still loyally subscribe to Adventure Paths never switched from 3.x to Pathfinder--they just use the general material and convert as needed. Still others run the Adventure Paths in D&D4E or other systems--I've heard of a few people running them in Savage Worlds for instance.

The nice thing about relying on adventures and setting material and game accessories as part of your profits as that as long as you're providing stuff anyone can use regardless of system, you don't have to worry as much about interest in the RPG rulebook itself going stale.

Now, at the same time, there's of course a symbiosis -- since PFRPG is the default ruleset for the APs, that can turn people on to that RPG system and earn more sales --- but that also means if the ruleset changes eventually, it can turn people on to switching to the new one (while still knowing, as has been proven by the current situation, they can still use the APs in their preferred system with some conversion work).

Now of course there are people like me who are only interested in the rules and not the APs (I did subscribe to one path, which I enjoyed, but generally they're not my cup of tea). But I also accept that I am an exception that proves the rule (and even they got me to subscribe to that one path).

But one thing I do hope for, as someone who is a rules buyer--and one who only buys books when I really feel they have something new to offer (an irony is that Wizards put out way more rulebooks than Paizo, but I've bought more PFRPG splats than 3.x because the fewer, higher quality ones have more consistently appealed to what I seek in a gaming book)---is that since Paizo does not NEED to keep updating/revising/rebooting/whatever word gamers would not argue over (ha!) to keep up with a wheezing business model, since it does not USE said business model, it will only create a new version of the ruleset when it feels the old one has legitimately had its run, and new ideas worth exploring are then explored.

Hopefully there was something that made sense in that ramble.


Fabius Maximus wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh, everyone knows Australians are tougher than Americans, what with needing armor skin to survive everything trying to kill them.
Often it is a high reflex save. Spiders in the dunny, swooping attack birds, crocodiles chasing you up banks, snakes being random encounters on bike rides.
...and drop bears. Never forget the drop bears.

I used to work with an Aussie, and he told me all about the drop-bears...


Dabbler wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh, everyone knows Australians are tougher than Americans, what with needing armor skin to survive everything trying to kill them.
Often it is a high reflex save. Spiders in the dunny, swooping attack birds, crocodiles chasing you up banks, snakes being random encounters on bike rides.
...and drop bears. Never forget the drop bears.
I used to work with an Aussie, and he told me all about the drop-bears...

Honestly it's our plants ya gotta watch out for. Like the Yank I met on a Jungle Training Course who tried to wipe his a$$ with leaves from a GYMPIE bush.

Look it up. See what the hairs do to your skin. Now imagine that on your butt.
;)

As for us being tougher? Well that's what happens when you take a bunch of crims and stick them on an island. 200years later. Every Hollywood action star is an Aussie and the Brits get smashed by us in just about every sport.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They could make things that shouldn't be conjuration or transmutation spells into the proper school. It'd be nice if mage armor was abjuration and healing spells were necromancy.


STR Ranger wrote:
Every Hollywood action star is an Aussie and the Brits get smashed by us in just about every sport.

So...what happened to you in the Olympics? I mean, last I checked we only got beaten by the Chinese (huge population to choose the best from) and the Yanks (bags more money than anyone). Australia...didn't do very well for a sporting nation...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jackissocool wrote:
They could make things that shouldn't be conjuration or transmutation spells into the proper school. It'd be nice if mage armor was abjuration and healing spells were necromancy.

This guy knows what I'm talkin' about.

"So, Mage Armor... What school should we make it?"
"Well, it's pure force energy (evocation) what's sole purpose is to protect you from harm (abjuration)."
"But, you create it from nothing... creation! Conjuration! Sounds good, next spell!"
"But... that's the weakest school argument!"
"I SAID NEXT SPELL!"
"Fine... how about the Cure line? It's obviously necromancy since it's 'life and death' so I'll just put down..."
"No! Necromancy is evil and icky and I won't have healing spells being related to evil ickyness! Conjuration for the Cure line!"
"But that doesn't even make a little bit of sense!"
"It's too late! Next spell!"


Know what you mean, Neo.

Actually I think a number of spells could easily belong to several schools at once - mage armour being a good example.


Dabbler wrote:
STR Ranger wrote:
Every Hollywood action star is an Aussie and the Brits get smashed by us in just about every sport.
So...what happened to you in the Olympics? I mean, last I checked we only got beaten by the Chinese (huge population to choose the best from) and the Yanks (bags more money than anyone). Australia...didn't do very well for a sporting nation...

I admit, my countries worst outing at the games for decades. We usually finish 5-7. Not bad for a nation of only 20 mil. But yes, I'll give you the Olympics this year was not our finest hour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
"It's too late! Next spell!"

.

Amen to that.
.
Taking the Cure line of spells from Necromancy into Conjuration, then stuffing the barrage of fear-inducing spell into Necromancy rather than Enchantment (a school messing with emotions); to accentuate the fact that Necromancy is ICKY AND SCAAAAAARY is one of the pet peeves I have with 3.X.

Same with your Mage Armor example. It's a g$~+~%n force spell, which has Evocation written all over it, with a possible second entry into Abjuration.

Someone just had to make double sure to make Conjuration the most useful school EVAH.

</rant>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really see a 2nd edition coming soon, but I'd them to fix a few rules, like the feats:
- Instead of having to pick an entire feat tree, have one feat that gets stronger as you level up and meet the prerequisites. For instance, if you pick Two-Weapon Fighting, then that feat "becomes" Improved Two-Weapon Fighting if you get your Dex score to 17 and have a BAB of +6. Same goes for Vital Strike, Weapon Focus and any "Improved" and "Greater" feat. I mean, why WOULDN'T you or I pick these enhanced feats ? With this, you have 2 or 3 feats for the price of one.

That's probably the only glaring problem I would fix in a 2nd edition, but again, WotC made the changes from 3.5 to 3.75 without much of a hassle.


JiCi wrote:

I don't really see a 2nd edition coming soon, but I'd them to fix a few rules, like the feats:

- Instead of having to pick an entire feat tree, have one feat that gets stronger as you level up and meet the prerequisites. For instance, if you pick Two-Weapon Fighting, then that feat "becomes" Improved Two-Weapon Fighting if you get your Dex score to 17 and have a BAB of +6. Same goes for Vital Strike, Weapon Focus and any "Improved" and "Greater" feat. I mean, why WOULDN'T you or I pick these enhanced feats ? With this, you have 2 or 3 feats for the price of one.

That's probably the only glaring problem I would fix in a 2nd edition, but again, WotC made the changes from 3.5 to 3.75 without much of a hassle.

I imagine that a fighter wouldn't choose two weapon fighting for the same reason he doesn't now, it does less and costs more than using a greatsword. (costing more referring to the cost of the weapons rather than the feat cost)


JiCi wrote:

I don't really see a 2nd edition coming soon, but I'd them to fix a few rules, like the feats:

- Instead of having to pick an entire feat tree, have one feat that gets stronger as you level up and meet the prerequisites. For instance, if you pick Two-Weapon Fighting, then that feat "becomes" Improved Two-Weapon Fighting if you get your Dex score to 17 and have a BAB of +6. Same goes for Vital Strike, Weapon Focus and any "Improved" and "Greater" feat. I mean, why WOULDN'T you or I pick these enhanced feats ? With this, you have 2 or 3 feats for the price of one.

That's probably the only glaring problem I would fix in a 2nd edition, but again, WotC made the changes from 3.5 to 3.75 without much of a hassle.

What would this look like? Would you still get to choose other feats as you leveled up? Would you be "locked in" to that tree?


Evil Lincoln wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I don't really see a 2nd edition coming soon, but I'd them to fix a few rules, like the feats:

- Instead of having to pick an entire feat tree, have one feat that gets stronger as you level up and meet the prerequisites. For instance, if you pick Two-Weapon Fighting, then that feat "becomes" Improved Two-Weapon Fighting if you get your Dex score to 17 and have a BAB of +6. Same goes for Vital Strike, Weapon Focus and any "Improved" and "Greater" feat. I mean, why WOULDN'T you or I pick these enhanced feats ? With this, you have 2 or 3 feats for the price of one.

That's probably the only glaring problem I would fix in a 2nd edition, but again, WotC made the changes from 3.5 to 3.75 without much of a hassle.

What would this look like? Would you still get to choose other feats as you leveled up? Would you be "locked in" to that tree?

Yeah, you would still be able to choose other feats as usual, and no, you wouldn't be locked in. The whole idea is that the feats themselves would have the benefits of the improved and greater versions if the prerequisites are met. The feats would become progressively stronger.

Let's say you picked Weapon Focus as your first feat. Well, instead of picking a 2nd feat, Greater Weapon Focus, when you hit level 8, the Weapon Focus feat becomes Greater Weapon Focus and for you, the feat grants you +2 to attack rolls with you chosen weapon, just like having both Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus would do stacked together, leaving you to choose another feat at level 8 instead of spending it to upgrade a previous chosen feat.

See ? Feats should be upgraded by themselves as you level up and meet the requirements. I just think it's annoying to manually have to upgrade them.


I like this, in theory.

In practice, what do you do about branching feat trees?

If there's an elegant way to tie this all together, you'll have made a believer of me.


JiCi wrote:
I don't really see a 2nd edition coming soon, but I'd them to fix a few rules...

The problem is that not everyone agrees as to which few rules need to be fixed. :)

For example, I hate, hate, hate iterative attacks & the associated need to take a full attack action. The full attack is probably the single greatest contributor to static melees, and it is completely unnecessary. Hit points are explicitly not physcial durability, so why not just scale weapon damaage with BAB rather than grant iterative attacks? Just an odious piece of design that should never have made into 3.0, let alone Pathfinder.

By the time to speak to decent sample of Paizo's customer base, you'll have a list as long as your arm...hence new editions.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

I like this, in theory.

In practice, what do you do about branching feat trees?

If there's an elegant way to tie this all together, you'll have made a believer of me.

If the feat doesn't have an "Improved" and/or "Greater" version, then multiple feats would be required.

You take Improved Unarmed Strike: the feat doesn't change because it doesn't "evolved"... unless you houserule that Superior Unarmed Strike is usable. Since IUS doesn't change incrementally, you would still have to choose Stunning Fist, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple and Gangnam Sty-I mean, Scorpion Style (Sorry, I just had to... XD). However, Deflect Arrows would eventually become Snatch Arrows, Improved Grapple would eventually become Greater Grapple and Scorpion Style would eventually become Gorgon's Fist and then Medusa's Wrath.

If I re-take the TWF feats as examples, the feats would cover only Improved TWF and Greater TWF. You would still need to take Double Slice, but that feat would eventually become Two-Weapon Rend.

In short, any feat that actually upgrade other previous feats wouldn't be necessary, since the intitial feats would become stronger with levels.


Multiple attacks have been around since AD&D, but I confess the decreasing BAB is a little silly. More attacks being an option at higher BAB, and allowed at a penalty, makes much more sense to me.


Midnight_Angel wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
"It's too late! Next spell!"

.

Amen to that.
.
Taking the Cure line of spells from Necromancy into Conjuration, then stuffing the barrage of fear-inducing spell into Necromancy rather than Enchantment (a school messing with emotions); to accentuate the fact that Necromancy is ICKY AND SCAAAAAARY is one of the pet peeves I have with 3.X.

Same with your Mage Armor example. It's a g%#+*%n force spell, which has Evocation written all over it, with a possible second entry into Abjuration.

Someone just had to make double sure to make Conjuration the most useful school EVAH.

</rant>

Fear was my next example! Not only that, the various co,mand undead or whatever spells should be enchantment, too. That way enchanters will have something to do against undead for once. I think pain spells could go eiher way.

More examples that sicken and baffle me:
Pretty much every (creation) [force] spell should be evocation or abjuration.
Ki Arrow should be evocation. How is filling an arrow with your inner power and then throwing it conjuration?
Snapdragon Fireworks also needs to be evocation.
Dust of Twilight should should also be evocation.
Adoration should be enchantment.
Whispering wind should be evocation.
Blink should be conjuration.

That's just from a single read through of sor/wiz spells up to level three. This kind of misassignment goes on all the time.


bugleyman wrote:

The problem is that not everyone agrees as to which few rules need to be fixed. :)

For example, I hate, hate, hate iterative attacks & the associated need to take a full attack action. The full attack is probably the single greatest contributor to static melees, and it is completely unnecessary.

... and people who agree on what needs to fixed don't necessarily agree on how to fix it.

I too dislike the concept of iterative attacks, but I'd like more granularity than hit-and-deal-massive-damage and miss-and-deal-nothing-at-all.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:
I too dislike the concept of iterative attacks, but I'd like more granularity than hit-and-deal-massive-damage and miss-and-deal-nothing-at-all.

You could increase the crit range/multiplier instead of adding a flat bonus to damage.

Sovereign Court

Star wars saga fixed that nice with some feats that added second attacks albeit with a penalty...because you do not have iterative attacks in that system...

I think that many great things can be taken from d20modern (character customisation at it's greatest) and star wars saga (skills and magic easy and fun)...


Midnight_Angel wrote:
Same with your Mage Armor example. It's a g$&##@n force spell, which has Evocation written all over it, with a possible second entry into Abjuration.

Eh. Mage armor has the excuse that it's always been that way, while healing was necromancy in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D.

(AD&D 1st edition's Unearthed Arcana and AD&D 2nd edition's PHB both had armor listed as a conjuration, and mage armor is very obviously a 3rd edition evolution of the spell.)

Sovereign Court

Healing was necromansy in 3.0 if i recall correctly and they changed it in 3.5


Nope. It was still necromancy in 2nd, but they changed it to Conjuration (Healing) in 3rd. (Just checked my first printing 3.0 PHB.)


I've always loved the idea of normalizing the schools of magic, but in practice all you're going to do is screw over a bunch of existing specialist wizards.

I'd like to not have to throw out my characters folder when a revised edition comes around.

Allowing spells to have multiple schools is a potential workaround, but that gets really complex really fast.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Allowing spells to have multiple schools is a potential workaround, but that gets really complex really fast.

I don't remember it being that complicated in 2E AD&D, although I understand that schools of magic had a less profound implication back then.

Sovereign Court

Indeed. And even if it was complex it was also functional which means it should be just fine. Gamers can handle complex. If the rules don't actual work is when you get problems.


Laurefindel wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Allowing spells to have multiple schools is a potential workaround, but that gets really complex really fast.
I don't remember it being that complicated in 2E AD&D, although I understand that schools of magic had a less profound implication back then.

Presume that mage armor is somehow abjuration+evocation. Can an abjurer prepare it in their bonus slot? Is the spell now prohibited for twice as many wizards? How does this interact with feats like spell focus (okay, mage armor is a bad example there).

Convince me it's simple and you'll send me down a nightmarish path of houseruling and data entry... yet again.


A spell being in two schools is simple: Treat it as the school most advantageous for you to treat it as.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Presume that mage armor is somehow abjuration+evocation. Can an abjurer prepare it in their bonus slot? Is the spell now prohibited for twice as many wizards? How does this interact with feats like spell focus (okay, mage armor is a bad example there).

Convince me it's simple and you'll send me down a nightmarish path of houseruling and data entry... yet again.

1. Yes, so long as evocation is not his prohibited school.

2. If a wizard has banned both evocation and abjuration he cannot prepare it at all. If he has banned only one of them, he prepares it as a normal, non-banned non-specialized spell. One slot, cannot be in his bonus slot.
3. Multiple spell focus feats do no stack. The same as multiple weapon focus feats. You would only get the bonus once.

(Come on, how could I resist that challenge?)


I'm a compulsive buyer when it comes to RPG books, so if they release a 2nd Edition, I'll get it.

However, I don't really see an urge to speed things up. Current version works great and has a boatload of material, both official and 3rd party, that would take a good while to make its way into a new edition.

What I would like to see is a new presentation of the Core Rulebook. I love my big tome, but I've already had to buy 2 of them due to the wear and tear they endure (while I use an iPad when DMing, having the core rulebooks on the table is a sacred duty). The book's quality of life has improved since I decided to get each of my players their own Core Rulebook for their respective birthdays (hey, they made me a discount at the store if I got 6 of them), but I'd love the material splitting into the more classical Player/DM format.

I like the idea of Paizo exploring other game systems, though. D&D/Pathfidner will forever remain my main game, but as a previous poster mentioned, having something new on the side never hurts.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

Presume that mage armor is somehow abjuration+evocation. Can an abjurer prepare it in their bonus slot? Is the spell now prohibited for twice as many wizards? How does this interact with feats like spell focus (okay, mage armor is a bad example there).

Convince me it's simple and you'll send me down a nightmarish path of houseruling and data entry... yet again.

For what I remember of 2e AD&D, such spells could be taken as a bonus spell if it belong to a school in which you specialized and was not prohibited even if if also belonged to an opposed school (although I'd have to check if there were any such cases, prohibited schools being set by specialty and not at player's choice). I don't remember this being very difficult; perhaps because they listed spells by schools (and thus had spells repeated in several columns).

I don't see this being that much more difficult than spells by class. As a cleric, scorching ray is not on your spell list and is therefore prohibited, unless you have it on your domain list, at which point it's a bonus spell.

As TOZ said, bonus of the same type doesn't stack, so I don't see this being that difficult either.

For the record, I'm not convinced spell should be allowed to belong to two schools at once, but I don't see this as being overly difficult to implement.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Presume that mage armor is somehow abjuration+evocation. Can an abjurer prepare it in their bonus slot? Is the spell now prohibited for twice as many wizards? How does this interact with feats like spell focus (okay, mage armor is a bad example there).

Convince me it's simple and you'll send me down a nightmarish path of houseruling and data entry... yet again.

1. Yes, so long as evocation is not his prohibited school.

2. If a wizard has banned both evocation and abjuration he cannot prepare it at all. If he has banned only one of them, he prepares it as a normal, non-banned non-specialized spell. One slot, cannot be in his bonus slot.
3. Multiple spell focus feats do no stack. The same as multiple weapon focus feats. You would only get the bonus once.

(Come on, how could I resist that challenge?)

Too complicated. if a dual school spell falls in one of your banned schools you treat it as such,even if the other school is your school of specialty.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay, that IS simpler.


LazarX wrote:
Too complicated. if a dual school spell falls in one of your banned schools you treat it as such,even if the other school is your school of specialty.

That would certainly make the Universalist popular again.


Dabbler wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Too complicated. if a dual school spell falls in one of your banned schools you treat it as such,even if the other school is your school of specialty.
That would certainly make the Universalist popular again.

That's definitely a plus to me.


I always pegged healing spells for transmutations myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The publication of the advanced class guide shows that pathfinder needs a second edition. Basically, 15 years of d20 have pretty conclusively what things work well with the system and what things do not. This doesn't mean overhauling the system but lots of things like hit points, saving throw modifiers, skill modifiers should be revised to reflect how things have turned out in play.

That said, the biggest thing that is needed is for the races and classes in the core book to incorporate the things that have worked in the "ultimate" and "advanced" series books.

The core book should have paladin/magi/bard/ranger with spell casting up to level 6. It should have wizards/clerics/druids who use the rules arcanists do for memorizing spells (this would also allow there to be 1 set of rules metamagics instead of 2). The fighter, the rogue, the monk, and the barbarian need to have access to a system that is functions like the gunslingers "grit" system with some of the better fighter feats, rage powers, and rogue talents turned into grit abilities and available at much lower level. Honestly, paladin/magi/bard/ranger should probably have a small grit pool as well considering their hybrid nature but that might be too fidly.

Finally, multi-classing should be limited, revised or even removed. Pathfinder has done a pretty good job of releasing hybrid classes that function for 20 levels without being broken or useless. These classes have worked MUCH better than multi-classing ever has.

The fact is that Pathfinder has done a good job with the d20 system but pathfinder is starting to look like 2E D&D in about 1998 when the core rulebooks were an afterthought because the suppliments have all the new interesting content. This happened to gurps, shadowrun and earthdawn as well and the solution is a new edition.

The Exchange

I disagree with everything you suggested about fixing the system.

edit: I am willing to bend on allowing similar class mechanics being released at the same time, but not changing classes to be more similar.


GeneticDrift;

Specific disagreements are more meaningful. I have read the thread and realize I am in the minority, but pathfinder really does need a new edition because the core book isn't relevant anymore. Further, the idea that gamemasters set the content is simply not the case with pathfinder. The content that is used in the ADVENTURE PATHS defines what is the defacto "base" rules for the game. Those tend to make use of every rulebook published up to their point of publication.

The ranger, the paladin, and the bard already ARE hybrids. However, unlike the magi and the bard the ranger and the paladin are left with legacy casting mechanics. pushing them to level six casting does not homogenize them any more than giving clerics/druids spells to level 9 homogenized them with wizards. The spell lists they have will still be different and unique.

Similarly, grit and panache show how this system would work in play. The idea is not that fighers/thieves/barbaians would have the SAME grit powers but that they would have the same kind of system and the thing that defines the classes would be exactly the different kinds of things that they could do with the power. Certainly some things would probably be identical or duplicate in their lists, but the same is true for the caster spell lists. However, the "defining" powers of the classes would not be shared.

There are other issues that are honestly simpler to handle that a new edition could resolve as well. Saving throws grow to slowly while hit points grow to fast. The advanced class guide exists because the pathfinder devs long ago figured out that the d20 multi-classing rules that were originally written into 3.0 D&D failed to create effective multi-class characters and they have put lots of effort towards rewarding players for staying single class.

Again, the point of a pathfinder 2.0 would not be to make any fundamental changes to the d20 system mechanics. It would be to collect the things that have worked well from the all the "ultimate" and "advanced" guides and push them into the core, update the classes to make them more interesting and reflect the great design work pathfinder has done on its class design over the years, and adjust the math of high level play to reflect a basic level of player optimization without changing the actual mechanics themselves.


The one thing that would really make my buy a second edish immediately would be dropping the d20 system and bringing back THAC0 and old percentile dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old School Nick wrote:
The one thing that would really make my buy a second edish immediately would be dropping the d20 system and bringing back THAC0 and old percentile dice.

You necro'd this thread for that?

Edit: also, on the list of all things that could ever conceivably happen ever; that is not one if the items.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey, this thread! I remember this thread. Good times.


Holy thread necromancy Batman!

But while it is up... I'm not personally ready for PF2.0, but give it another few years... sure. The developers themselves said they were conservative with the changes to allow more backwards compatibility, and didn't do everything they wanted. Some of the stuff that is later books - including Unchained - really improves the core rules, and there are numerous items in the FAQ that could be addressed in core. Personally, I'd like to see more flexibility within classes so they covered more concepts, meaning less need for so many base classes. (While I like the advanced classes, I also feel a lot of them are close enough to core stuff that they could have been archetypes, especially given how many of the mechanics that make them different have been added to core class archetypes anyhow.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old School Nick wrote:
The one thing that would really make my buy a second edish immediately would be dropping the d20 system and bringing back THAC0 and old percentile dice.

Lol - those were two of the worst things abut 2nd ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm ready for 2.0

If by 2.0 you mean a republication of the core rulebook that's basically identical but is entirely rewritten with clear and consistent language (and probably renaming of certain actions/other terms so that they don't share a name with something else), includes information from other books so that those ones don't need to be rewritten, and maybe an adjustment on what spells belong to which school.

Sovereign Court

Flame Effigy wrote:

I'm ready for 2.0

If by 2.0 you mean a republication of the core rulebook that's basically identical but is entirely rewritten with clear and consistent language (and probably renaming of certain actions/other terms so that they don't share a name with something else), includes information from other books so that those ones don't need to be rewritten, and maybe an adjustment on what spells belong to which school.

So basically an update which is to Pathfinder what D&D 3.5 was to 3.0?

Liberty's Edge

For myself and my gaming group it all depends. More of the same and chances are good were not going to be interested. Let alone reinvest in the same thing twice. New art and better production values notwithstanding. With 5E and 4e an to a lesser extent 13th Age they have to imo offer something new. The problem is they risk alienating a portion of their fanbase whichever way they go. Too little change and chances are good it will not sell as well. Too much and fans are unhappy. Personally I can't see any major flaws in the system being fixed without major changes.

One thing I would not bother with is backwards compitabilty. Unless their market research shows that a significant number of PF fans use 3.5. I would not bother. Too often here and outside of the forums. All i hear is "no 3.5. only PF" or "pf core and nothing else". My experience with 3.5. material is little to almost none of it is used. Or PF fans wait and hope a 3pp release a version.

101 to 150 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder 2nd Edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.