Pathfinder 2nd Edition?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Is there any word out about Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

I´ve seen no product anouncements for 2013. For the past few years there have been at least some. Usualy targeting August for big ones. None i have seen so far.Neither AP (besides Pathfinder Adventure Path #66: The Dead Heart of Xin) nor core or supplements.

Is that a clue to a possible new Edition? Or justa different setting besides Golarion.

Actualy marketing would annouce new Edition way ealier...just curios what you think?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not for awhile. It's been discussed.

As for product announcements, look up the PaizoCon blogs. Ultimate Campaign. Gamespace. Etc.


I think you're a week too early for new announcements. GenCon starts next Thursday, and that's when they'll do the next big round of product announcements.

Also, I'd bet my bottom dollar that PF 2nd edition isn't going to be among the announcements ;) I also highly doubt they'll change from Golarion, as many times as they've stated they wouldn't.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As others have said Gencon is when they announce the first half of the next year with new products. I imagine when 2nd arrives we will know at least a year in advance. I bet they do another year+ long play test and that the changes will not be major, more along the lines of the changes from 3e to PFRPG maybe a bit closer to the gap the original beta rules had.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Not for awhile. It's been discussed.

As for product announcements, look up the PaizoCon blogs. Ultimate Campaign. Gamespace. Etc.

It's been discussed, but not as a real imminent possibility. Personally given that unlike WOTC, Paizo isn't throwing the bulk of it's eggs in selling us rules as opposed to scenarios, it's questionable whether there will ever be a need for a second edition. Maybe a streamlined repackaging of the current game perhaps, but it seems to me that doing a 2nd edition for the sake of it would create for Paizo the same problems that drove former WOTC customers here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
It's been discussed, but not as a real imminent possibility.

That's what I said.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

LOL

One doesn't fix what isn't broken.

Paizo's making good products and profit; the current rules are good and more supplemental material is still needed.

Unlike other companies that don't produce good rules systems, adventures, supplemental materials (or anything else), and as result, need to fix what they've both broken and bloated out, Paizo is good.

Next year will make 5 years and I think sometime considerably closer to 10 years is likely. Call back in 2015; then we can start a countdown (Not that it'd be a throwaway of the D20 system, just a revision -- not too unlike 3.5 was to 3.0).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yup I believe it has been said at 10 years they'd *look* at releasing a new edition. Paizo makes its profits off having a secure and fully supported system, not selling more books by reinventing the wheel.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually, Paizo makes money on APs and setting books. The system is there to make sure that there's a valid ruleset in print that you can run Golarion in.

It's a reverse of WotC philosophy, where rules books are sales carriers and setting material is an addition. As a result, Paizo doesn't have to rely on rotating an edition every few years or so to generate a profit surge.

This is something that many people forget - Paizo's heavyweight products are the ~40 Golarion books they do annually, not the 3 RPG line books.


I wouldn't mind a "light" CRB. By that I mean something smaller, more akin to the 3.5 PHB in size. I love the giant, all encompassing CRB, but I find that most of the time I'd rather not carry something so large. My standard kit would be the slimmer book + ipad.


From what I understand the next big thing is gamespace and Pathfinder online. Might be mistaken but I am guessing that the announcement will be at gencon.


Wasnt it 7 to 10 years they said? Well, it doesn't mater much. If they just make further cleanups like the attempt with stealth rewrite it will be fine IMO, but it won't come anythime soon.


A new edition involves not only new rules, the monk certainly needs a revision, are bestiarys, the master guide and supplements involving exotic categories that are not in the basic rules ...

fan´s time and money

you better be very sure

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zmar wrote:
Wasnt it 7 to 10 years they said?

I believe James Jacobs has said this his *personal opinion* was that it might take ten years... but James was *not* speaking for Paizo. We don't even *have* a timeline... but it won't be soon.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Wasnt it 7 to 10 years they said?
I believe James Jacobs has said this his *personal opinion* was that it might take ten years... but James was *not* speaking for Paizo. We don't even *have* a timeline... but it won't be soon.

Mójate.

what´s your bet?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There'd be nothing wrong with reissuing the existing rules in a more polished format. The CRB has a lot of dead weight in it, especially with the GMG and Ultimate Equipment correcting a lot of the (inherited) structural issues.

That's something I'd really like to see. But that's not what most people think of when they head the words "new edition" in the RPG scene.

If it were up to me, we'd call it a "version" when they were different enough to be separate games, and the word "edition" would be available for reorganization and compilation of the existing rules. But, it is not up to me. :( There's no time machine available to get "D&D Versions 1, 2, 3, 4" added.

Pathfinder could benefit from a new edition, by the above standard. Pathfinder does not need, and would not benefit from, a new version.

Grand Lodge

When it does happen -- after 2015, closer to 2020 -- I hope they decide to eliminate all the crap Tweet did from the 3.0 PHB that was just offal and has held the game back for a dozen years.

Hopefully they'll completely rewrite most of the Core Classes to actually make sense and, for example,
Fav. Enemy won't be only the Ranger's,
Combat Style will belong to the Fighter not the Ranger,
Monks will be so different as to not be recognizable,
Wizards will be playable at early levels without being broken at higher levels,
Druids won't have to have Wild Shape,
Clerics' Domains will define the Cleric as opposed to remaining a small-print footnote,
Bards won't exist at all

Basically just use Cook's Arcana Evolved and Paizo's Sorcerer, Wizard and APG as guidelines and completely rewrite the Core Classes to reflect nothing of Tweet's pathetically designed 3.0 PHB.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

No offense intended, but that sounds awful. Why would we want to turn Pathfinder into what seems to be an entirely different game? Then again, I grew up playing the 3.5 system and think Pathfinder is pretty good as-is, so I am certainly biased on the matter. I can't help but ask, if all of that is basically Arcana Evolved, then why not just mod Arcana Evolved yourself to make use of your suggested changes? It sounds like you have a pretty good idea of what you want.


If we do not change, how will we explore new possibilities?

Any new edition of pathfinder, should have the base classes and all the archetypes right there, in the main book. Balance them as much as can be done, make some changes. Also include some build ideas for players and dms.

If its a rulebook, make it a damn good rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo doesn't need a second edition. The rules as is are pretty good. Maybe they could use a tweak here or there (like moving through threatened squares), but all in all, the Pathfinder system is good and it works.

As someone mentioned above, what isn't broken doesn't need to be fixed.


I think it's great the way it is. Why tinker with it? If there's enough clamor for a different set of rules similar to 3.5's "Unearthed Arcana" that might be interesting. But leave the rest alone.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Second Edition talk is blasphemy! LOL! But in all seriousness, I hate it when people talk about Second Edition Pathfinder. It makes me feel nauseous, just like when WotC announced 4E. Pathfinder is IMHO as pretty close to a perfect "Legacy" system as we'll probably ever get. Call me a grumpy Graybeard, but if Paizo does do a Second Edition, I won't be following them. I'm happy with Pathfinder. It's better than D&D ever was (and I've been playing since AD&D 1st ed). I see no reason to "fix" what clearly isn't "broken".


I wish I could be as happy as you evil genius prime. :D

Dark Archive

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
I wish I could be as happy as you evil genius prime. :D

Sorry you're not. I weep for your unhappiness. :P

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I think it's great the way it is. Why tinker with it?

The same reason Jason tinkered with 3.5.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post. Attacks on industry figures will not be tolerated.


While I understand the desire for new toys, I do so hope it is a long time before they make a whole new addition of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

When it does happen -- after 2015, closer to 2020 -- I hope they decide to eliminate all the crap Tweet did from the 3.0 PHB that was just offal and has held the game back for a dozen years.

Hopefully they'll completely rewrite most of the Core Classes to actually make sense and, for example,
Fav. Enemy won't be only the Ranger's,
Combat Style will belong to the Fighter not the Ranger,
Monks will be so different as to not be recognizable,
Wizards will be playable at early levels without being broken at higher levels,
Druids won't have to have Wild Shape,
Clerics' Domains will define the Cleric as opposed to remaining a small-print footnote,
Bards won't exist at all

Basically just use Cook's Arcana Evolved and Paizo's Sorcerer, Wizard and APG as guidelines and completely rewrite the Core Classes to reflect nothing of Tweet's pathetically designed 3.0 PHB.

I like most of those ideas, but bard will live on. Too many people like them.


Agreed. I could get behind all of that except removing the bard. Although it would not be bad to see it adjusted here and there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are multiple problems with the current rules that I'd like to see fixed.

For example, if you want to play a stealthy type of character and no one else does, you are pretty much never going to have the chance to use stealth. Because no one else is going to want to run an adventure or even an encounter using a skill that they don't have.
A character with stealth should be able to help other characters with their stealth roll.

There are a lot of feats that shouldn't exist. "Bounding Hammer"? These kinds of feats shouldn't exist. Instead, weapons should automatically be able to do these things in the hands of a character with martial weapon proficiency.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency needs to be designed to be mathematically worthwhile to take. Also, it shouldn't be tied to a particular weapon. It should be regional. After all, in Hyborea everyone knows how to handle a Bastard Sword.

The list goes on and on.

What we don't need is a radical change like we saw between 3.5 and 4.0 or 4.0 and 5.0. The rules should be wide ranging but subtle enough that the modules and bestiaries don't need rewritten.


I think the next revision of PRPG would be similar enough to retain broad compatability,
i.e. you could PROBABLY use a PRPG 1.0 Feat, as much as you can use 3.5 material,
or you could run APs/modules between either rule-set MOSTLY interchangeable (again, just like 3.5/PRPG),
anything else would be nuts for them at this point because it would disrupt sales of their PRPG (1.0) setting material.

but on the other hand,
Paizo would be alot more free, both to fix broken stuff like Stealth/Perception/Craft,
and more broadly to be able to break free from merely miming what was in the 3.5 SRD,
and having class design/feats exist merely because they did so in 3.5.
Alot of the original PRPG 'design' was hamstrung by miming 3.5 literally in structure,
the second time around I expect alot broader vision to seep into every aspect of the design.
Doing that would pretty easily result in an easier to read, easier to play system that is less confusing.

And finally: whatever they do will piss somebody off, and somebody just happens to use the internet! ;-)


I don't need a 2nd edition, I need a 2nd inner sea world guide...I've used the covers off my old one =D If it ain't broke, don't fix it...imho of course.


javi ballesteros wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Wasnt it 7 to 10 years they said?
I believe James Jacobs has said this his *personal opinion* was that it might take ten years... but James was *not* speaking for Paizo. We don't even *have* a timeline... but it won't be soon.

Mójate.

what´s your bet?

¡Eh! ¡Otro latino!

¿De dónde eres?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they do a PF 2.0, I hope it's more like the "3.0 to 3.5" change was.

The foundation of the game is already here, but there's a ton of tweaks and streamlining that could be done to make things a lot better.
As someone said, Classes could use some adjusting so they work/feel better.
Spells need a pretty serious overhaul. (Healing is Conjuration instead of Necromancy? Transmutation has more spells than any 3 other schools combined? Etc.)
Feats need to be adjusted and cut back some. (Too many "must-have" feats, too many "useless" feats, too many feats period.)
Etc.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder 2 I think really should just be cleaning up of the rules, and better organized than the current version which takes too many cues from 3.x especially with organization. The rules are too spread out and unorganized, and too many vague phrasing.

But other than that, personally, I just don't see what use a Pathfinder 2 would be.

Grand Lodge

W E Ray wrote:

When it does happen -- after 2015, closer to 2020 -- I hope they decide to eliminate all the crap Tweet did from the 3.0 PHB that was just offal and has held the game back for a dozen years.

Hopefully they'll completely rewrite most of the Core Classes to actually make sense and, for example,
Fav. Enemy won't be only the Ranger's,
Combat Style will belong to the Fighter not the Ranger,
Monks will be so different as to not be recognizable,
Wizards will be playable at early levels without being broken at higher levels,
Druids won't have to have Wild Shape,
Clerics' Domains will define the Cleric as opposed to remaining a small-print footnote,
Bards won't exist at all

Basically just use Cook's Arcana Evolved and Paizo's Sorcerer, Wizard and APG as guidelines and completely rewrite the Core Classes to reflect nothing of Tweet's pathetically designed 3.0 PHB.

Get rid of Bards and Monks and I'll be a happy camper!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Jonathan Tweet is the man behind my favorite RPG system ever (Ars Magica). I wouldn't diss on his contributions so lightly.


I have no interest in Pathfinder 2E.

If they must, I'd rather they release a "rules options" book down the road with variants, etc. than release a new edition.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Seeing as how the DnD 3.0 Player's Handbook kicked off the single largest growth surge in PnP RPG products in the history of roleplaying games, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree on the bashing of Jonathan Tweet's contributions. They may not be everyone's cup of tea, but they have largely stood strong for over a decade (with some significant revisions between editions, granted).
<br /><br />
As far as PF 2.0, I really hope that we're looking at another 5 years minimum before it's announced. First off, the whole system still feels new and unexplored (we haven't even touched psionics or level 21+ yet, since Mythic != level 21+ rules, technically speaking), and second, I don't think that announcing a new set of pending sourcebooks, with their associated financial costs, is a good idea when the prevailing attitude amongst gamers is that we all seemed to be particularly strapped for cash.
<br /><br />
Now, like the silly goose that I am, I'm going to contradict myself (slightly). While I don't fancy the idea of spending money on a new set of sourcebooks for a version upgrade of PF, what would be pretty cool is for Paizo to release a new game system, not d20 based. Let me explain.
<br /><br />
I've been playing RPGs since 6th grade, circa 1984. While, yes, the vast majority of my formative RPG years was spent on DnD 1st edition, I also have VERY fond memories of taking breaks to play other systems, notably Champions, Villains and Vigilantes, Top Secret, Star Frontiers, and a few others I can't recall the names of. Later, I would take breaks from Dnd 2nd and 3rd edition to play TORG (a freaking AWESOME game), Vampire-Werewolf-Mage(anything World of Darkness, another great system) and Alternity. We tried Rifts and probably would have stayed with it longer had Palladium actually published some full adventures for it instead of just more sourcebooks, but I digress. One of the biggest draws for my gaming group to these other games was that it was a fresh set of rules that got us away from whatever DnD was doing at the time.
<br /><br />
Right now I'm GMing/playing in one Pathfinder session a week, for 8 hours at a crack, through a VTT (d20Pro with HeroLab). This is the formula I've been following for 5 years, since I got my old DnD group to try the Pathfinder softcover beta rules (we were still smarting from the let down of trying 4th edition DnD). Things are starting to get a little, well, stale, at times. And that's not a knock on Pathfinder. If anything, it's a compliment that PF has been able to hold our attention for as long as it has. But having something else available would be great.
<br /><br />
Now, I'm not oblivious to the other offerings that are currently available in the industry. First off, pdfs of every game that I mentioned above are available at DriveThruRPG.com (not sure about Star Frontiers or Top Secret, though), so my group could just use those, which would be fun if only for nostalgia's sake. Then there are the more current systems. The later version of the World of Darkness games kind of left me cold; it seemed like after Mark Reinhagen left (sp?) they became a little...souless, maybe? Anyway, there's also Mutants and Masterminds, but that's d20-based IIRC, and that's what I'd like to take a break from so, meh. There's also FGG's Swords and Wizardry, but that system seems a little too lean and stripped down for my group. Not enough min-maxing opportunities, to put a fine point on it.
<br /><br />
With Paizo created products, I have more trust and overall good experiences. They just seem to get it, at least as far as what my gaming group looks for in RPG products. So, while there are some other games out available that we could try, seeing an announcement from Paizo about them looking into a non-fantasy, non-d20 based game would really sprinkle giggle dust on my happy places.
<br /><br />
Okay, I'm gonna wrap up my rambling trip down memory lane by reiterating my original point: I don't want a 2nd edition of Pathfinder anytime soon, but I'd shell out cash (grudgingly) for a brand spanking new system from Paizo, preferably in a non-fantasy setting, as long as it wasn't based on the d20 system.

1 to 50 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.