Pathfinder, as an RPG system, became a success precisely because lots of people did not want to switch to a new game system. I'm pretty sure the Powers What Be at Paizo realize this. I'm confident they won't make any sweeping changes to the system.
QFT
|
Pathfinder, as an RPG system, became a success precisely because lots of people did not want to switch to a new game system. I'm pretty sure the Powers What Be at Paizo realize this. I'm confident they won't make any sweeping changes to the system.QFT
It is also a system based on correcting flaws in an existing system while remaining largely compatible...which is basically what those of us calling for a newer version are looking for.
Just sayin'
Pathfinder, as an RPG system, became a success precisely because lots of people did not want to switch to a new game system. I'm pretty sure the Powers What Be at Paizo realize this. I'm confident they won't make any sweeping changes to the system.QFTIt is also a system based on correcting flaws in an existing system while remaining largely compatible...which is basically what those of us calling for a newer version are looking for.
Just sayin'
BAH! Humbug!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it odd that people who claim to have hated the idea of switching to a new system because they did not want to buy new books...
refused to buy new books for 4E...
but bought the all new books for Pathfinder...
just an odd observation...
and as for compatibility... all game systems, regardless of publisher, mechanics, or edition are compatible. All it takes is imagination.
I do think it odd that people who claim to have hated the idea of switching to a new system because they did not want to buy new books...
I also said it's because I don't like change...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I don't have new books to buy, I feel sad.
but bought the all new books for Pathfinder...
because of the need to stay current. I don't live in a vacuum. When Pathfinder came out if I was to keep playing 3.5 I wouldn't have had anyone to play it with...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I don't have new books to buy, I feel sad.
I agree, but if I'm buying all the same books over again for a new system it don't feel like I'm buying new books at all sadly.
My wish list for Pathfinder 2.0:
1. Replace the magic item system with something that allows characters to shine instead of being walking slot machines.
2. Create a reasonably workable magic item crafting system that doesn't cheese up the game, create inter-party conflict or violate economic common sense.
3. Get rid of the class system entirely. Replace it with open ended ability based character creation and advancement. If my arcane spellcaster wants to learn how to use a sword, let him invest in doing so without arbitrary restrictions based on outdated concepts of role-based party dynamics.
4. Ruthlessly pare the feat system down and get rid of any feat that should truly be a role playing choice.
5. Get rid of the single attribute skill system and implement skills that can be based on multiple attributes. Climbing should be equally advanced by strength OR dexterity. Every skill should be associated with at least two attributes.
Oh, heck. Never mind. If they do all that it won't be Pathfinder 2.0, it will just be a new and much better RPG system entirely.
;-)
Sounds very fantasy-WOD.
The setup we designed is nowhere near the complexity of Pathfinder or 3.x. Even so, it required significant amounts of work and an assumption that we would not be expanding most of the core system. In fact, only the bestiary is expandable at this point, and that's by design.
I agree with a lot of the design principles you've laid out and I think that a system can be made with it. The complexity of such, though, is daunting. Not so daunting that I'm disinterested, but definitely a large project, to say the least.
Magic is the most difficult part. Balancing useful tricks with crunch is tricky. The most important thing is to make things that feel unique without being total GM fiat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I disagree with everything you said this is the only part I wanted to comment on: As we both know there is a feat called weapon proficiency that does this already. (sorry if I come across as snide [I just realized I might after typing this]).My wish list for Pathfinder 2.0:
3. Get rid of the class system entirely. Replace it with open ended ability based character creation and advancement. If my arcane spellcaster wants to learn how to use a sword, let him invest in doing so without arbitrary restrictions based on outdated concepts of role-based party dynamics.
Well, this was poorly worded, I'm not talking about the ability to use a sword, I'm talking about things like BAB progression, feat trees and that sort of thing. Giving a wizard sword proficiency doesn't actually do much to make a wizard an actual threat with a sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Get rid of the class system entirely. Replace it with open ended ability based character creation and advancement. If my arcane spellcaster wants to learn how to use a sword, let him invest in doing so without arbitrary restrictions based on outdated concepts of role-based party dynamics.
In that regard, party dynamics are "almost" a side-effect thing. The primary reason to that is the sheer flavour of the archetypal (mortal) wizard (or pick whatever other class, it's about the same): wise and all, but frail and nearly incapable in martial skills. A flavour that, personally, I like to see maintained.
Then, in the average Pathfinder/D&D setting, you have a lot of exceptions and variants, but the base is the same. And, as someone else pointed out, you already have the rules to do that. Or do you want free extra feats or free extra class levels?Beyond that, I could like a classless system. In some game that is not Pathfinder 2* but something different altogether.
* Please, everyone, if you really have to name a new version of Pathfinder, just call it Pathfinder 2; do not add to the abomination by putting a .0 behind it, hinting at possible future .5s that no sane mind would ever like to witness.
|
|
I do think it odd that people who claim to have hated the idea of switching to a new system because they did not want to buy new books...
refused to buy new books for 4E...
but bought the all new books for Pathfinder...
just an odd observation...
and as for compatibility... all game systems, regardless of publisher, mechanics, or edition are compatible. All it takes is imagination.
Agreed and seconded. I like Pathfinder yet it's just 3.5 with some houserules added to it. The only new thing I read in the books was the CMD/CMB mechanic. If it was not for the fact that I sold a;; my 3.5 books thinking I would never play it again I would have never made the switch. It is kind of odd that they would rather not buy new material yet at the same time have no problems buying the same material repackaged. Then again we gamers are a weird strange contradictory bunch imo.
As much as Paizo has to make the fanbase happy they also meed to look after their own interests as a company. If Pathfinder 1E is no longer as [profitable as it was they would be insane to keep losing money as a company for the sake of a certain segment of the fanbase. If PF 1E remains profitable for another 10 years good for Paizo. If not they need to do what is good for them as a company first the fanbase a definete second imo.
3. Get rid of the class system entirely. Replace it with open ended ability based character creation and advancement. If my arcane spellcaster wants to learn how to use a sword, let him invest in doing so without arbitrary restrictions based on outdated concepts of role-based party dynamics.In that regard, party dynamics are "almost" a side-effect thing. The primary reason to that is the sheer flavour of the archetypal (mortal) wizard (or pick whatever other class, it's about the same): wise and all, but frail and nearly incapable in martial skills. A flavour that, personally, I like to see maintained.
Then, in the average Pathfinder/D&D setting, you have a lot of exceptions and variants, but the base is the same. And, as someone else pointed out, you already have the rules to do that. Or do you want free extra feats or free extra class levels?Beyond that, I could like a classless system. In some game that is not Pathfinder 2* but something different altogether.
* Please, everyone, if you really have to name a new version of Pathfinder, just call it Pathfinder 2; do not add to the abomination by putting a .0 behind it, hinting at possible future .5s that no sane mind would ever like to witness.
In any open system (like WoD, for example), you can certainly maintain the archetypal characters. Choosing to be a glass cannon wizard or big dumb fighter is just a matter of how you allocate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldnt blink if they brought out a second edition - I'd keep buying everything, I suspect.
I would feel irked if they then began "updating" all the campaign material - Varisia 2.0, Absalom 2.0, Elves of Golarion 2.0, etcetera would bug me far more.
My group played 2E for a solid decade. When 3.0 came out, we skipped it. Heck, when 3.5 came out... we skipped that too. We had a LIBRARY full of books that fleshed out our Realms game and a DM with the time and inclination to write epic stories...
We didn't NEED a new edition. We house ruled everything we didn't like. Some worked, some didn't.
About a year... maybe a year and half... it got a bit overwhelming with new jobs and such. We heard about Pathfinder and their APs and decided to go for it.
Now we have a ton of books for Pathfinder.
I have also played, TSR's Marvel Superheroes, Robotech, world of darkness, Indiana Jones, and many many other games.
There is NO perfect system.
Every system, and every EDITION of every system has it's plusses and it's minus'
Pathfinder 2.0 will NEVER fix everything that people want fixed. All it will do is bandaid a few things, present some new problems, and the forums will light up with brand new arguments that all sound the same as what we have now.
I would like to see new Core books with the Errata in them. I'm FINE with that. As long as once they print their new Core.... I still have my APG, UC, and UM books that are still RELEVANT.
Any 'edition change' that will require us to start from scratch to play the same game... will NOT be embraced by our group. Of that I'm very sure!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any open system (like WoD, for example), you can certainly maintain the archetypal characters. Choosing to be a glass cannon wizard or big dumb fighter is just a matter of how you allocate.
I didn't say the opposite. Class or classless, you have an anyway limited amount of resources to build a character, and the more you diversify her abilities, the less she becomes effective in any given area.
And, in fact, in Pathfinder you can make a Wizard with a knack for physical combat, in exchange for effectiveness in both combat and magic, as much as you could in a classless system.It seems to me, though, that some people have the feeling with different systems they could get characters who shine in everything they choose. Well, if the game wants to stay balanced, you can't, regardless of the system, because you'll always have a limit in resources to allocate.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If PF 2.0 will significantly move away from the 3.5 D&D paradigm, it will die in flames shortly. There's an entire generation of RPG gamers, who likely account to majority of purchasing power on the market, that got so deeply integrated with the 3ed ruleset that any major deviation from it (say, getting rid of iteratives or always-hitting magic missiles) is doomed to fail.
FantasyCraft set out to be a "better 3.5 D&D". It moved significantly from several paradigms of the ruleset. Where is FantasyCraft now? Never got as far as its older brother SpyCraft got.
Trailblazer set out to be a "better 3.5 D&D". It boasted to be "a better revision of 3.5 than Pathfinder". It moved significantly from several paradigms of the ruleset. Where is Trailblazer now? It didn't even manage to get a monster book out, that's how great a trail it blazed.
4E set out to be a "better 3.5 D&D". It moved significantly from several paradigms of the ruleset. Where is 4E now? Pretty much abandoned and quietly swept under the rug to make way for 5E which is trying to be an amalgam of previous editions in an effort to win their fans back. That's where making magic missiles that require rolls to hit and saying that succubi are devils now because screw you Gygaxian traditions gets you.
Tangentially, I'm very curious how 13th Age will fare, but given that it's trying to be a hybrid between gamist/simulationist D&D paradigm and narrativist "anti-D&D indie" paradigm, it might be an entirely different animal from the rest of the bunch.
Pathfinder set out to be a "better 3.5 D&D". It didn't move significantly from paradigms of the ruleset. It's the best selling RPG that runs circles around the Former Illustrious Industry Leader. Why? Because it's 3.5 D&D and everything you expected to see is here, except beholders and illithids. And all the changes are of the "oh this works a bit different" instead of "oh, that's something totally new and we have to change the way we think about this part of the game".
And no, it's not because "Paizo has superior marketing and rabid fanbase". WotC's marketing budget is x times bigger (heavens, they bought an article in Washington Post that was basically a "we're working on a new edition" announcement), and it's fanbase is every bit as emotionally charged.
So, a better presented (fact: PF Core Rulebook isn't newbie friendly) book that maybe makes a few baby steps more in terms of rules (say, a New Monk) in 10 years or so? Why not. A "new better D&D"? That's never going to pay the bills for Paizo.
I'd love to see a Pathfinder 1.x/2.0. What do I want from it? Well I think PF is already pretty good as is. I'd love to see is that the new edition address, clarify, or rewrite the more problematic sections of the rules. These can usually be identified because they have skillions of forum threads devoted to them. Just a list of things that could be done better in a new edition (in no particular order):
1. class balance (think monk/rogue here)
2. CMB/CMD scaling with level
3. bizarre, unintended rule combos (pounce with a great sword, twf gun-slinging with weapon cords, etc.)
4. feats that shouldn't be feats (Strike Back et al.)
5. obnoxious feat taxes (Combat Expertise)
6. un-nerfed 3.5 carryover spells (e. g. Finger of Death got nerfed but Flesh to Stone is the same old SoD effect)
7. new and improved stealth/perception rules
8. odds and ends (can a witch cackle all day? What's the duration of the Ice Tomb hex? How can Fireball melt lead without setting clothes on fire?)
This is what I want see and I'd gladly rebuy all the hardcovers to get it.
|
|
I have to disagree that a completely new edition of PF will crash and burn. White WolF released the New World of Darkness and they are still around. Wotc released a new edition of D&D with 3E and when it hit store shevles did not go under. Shadowrun is going to be on it's 5E in 2013. Gamers like to think that because they spent X amount of dollars on the previous edition that somehow a new edition is going to crash and burn. By the simple virtue of them having spent so much money on books. Forutnately the gaming market for other rpgs besides D&D does not work that way imo.
Paizo could release a new edtion while still supporting to a lesser extent Pf 1E. White Wolf NWOD was still going strong yet they saw that thye could make extra money by rereleaseing Classic World of Darkness products. Catylst games the owners of Shadowrun also rereleased in PDF form older edition SR products.
I rather Paizo not release a new edition of PF at least for another 5 years or more. Yet also realize that eventually a new edition is needed from a profit standpoint as well as to address certain issues of the 3.5 rules. And yes one can houserule yet imo it's not a selling point of any rpg. Gamers like myself want to use as much as the RAW. We houserule only when we need to houserule. Not because we can houserule. Take Palladium rules. Those who like them no the casual gamer like me the more hardcore fans insist all you need to do is ignore it's faults and just houserule them. A valid point yet it has not and never will increase the popularity of the Palladium rules.
|
|
Because it's magic. Same case with lightning bolts underwater :)How can Fireball melt lead without setting clothes on fire?)
Agreed and seconded. Dragons the size of Jumbo jets should not fly either. Let alone find enough food to survive. Imo you don't bring logic and physics to a genre like fantasy that breaks them.
The 2E to 3E transition, and I assume the White Wolf transition, didn't have a publicly available ruleset that other companies could keep using.
That allowed Paizo to become a competitor to WOTC, since all the fans of 3E who didn't want to start over or didn't like 4E could simply keep buying Pathfinder products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now WotC is going to do D&D 5.0 wich in my eyes shows they've lost and know it.4e was a disaster, it was too fundamentally different for players to enthusiastically embrace it ... if it was high enough quality it would have pulled the majority of players along (like 3e did) but it wasn't.
So now they want to harken back to the past, unfortunately they are skipping right past 3e ... mostly because 3e is the pulp version of RPGs, a focus on character building, rules as physics anti-realism with super-hero PCs ... everything a proper roleplayer is supposed to loathe.
It's always somewhat foolish to try and speculate on others' motives, but in my view their focus on the pre-3E feel is driven by a sense of the market. I think they're hopeful of pulling the 4E people along with them - getting those with 3E preferences to switch involves going up against PF. Trying to capture the "old school crowd" involves competing with a disparate collection of poorly resourced smaller companies who will each struggle to match WotC's quality and quantity of releases.
As I said, just foolish speculation, but I don't think the decisions about how to position 5E within the rpg market are necessarily being made based on consideration of game design principles.
I think a new edition of Pathfinder in, say, five to seven years would be great, with the devs already quietly gathering feedback on what aspects could still use major revision.
Although I really have to ask, will we ever see a 3.x edition based D&D/Pathfinder game which doesn't have have blatantly obvious balance loopholes? Because if we did that, what would the developers do 10 years down that line, when it's time for a new edition and they can't really make a better one? ;)
\
4E set out to be a "better 3.5 D&D". It moved significantly from several paradigms of the ruleset. Where is 4E now? Pretty much abandoned and quietly swept under the rug to make way for 5E which is trying to be an amalgam of previous editions in an effort to win their fans back. That's where making magic missiles that require rolls to hit and saying that succubi are devils now because screw you Gygaxian traditions gets you.
While 4E might not be as good as it can be (I liked 3.5 better), it is the longest running D&D system.
Unlike 3.0 and 3.5, which are meant to take each others place, Essentials ran like Tome of Battle sourcebook, rather than a new edition. So 4.0 is still running (8 years); and it will run until 5th is out (not just playtesting)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the ideas that were in Beta were what Paizo wanted PF to be but the backward compatibility issues kept coming up so they ditched them - read "canned”
I fully expect a PF2, and it will not be backward compatible because Paizo no longer need that to keep us on board. What would the alternative be? 4.0 - no, 5th Ed - no. I think most of us are here for the long haul and although we'll probably grumble a bit, it won’t stop us buying it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the ideas that were in Beta were what Paizo wanted PF to be but the backward compatibility issues kept coming up so they ditched them - read "canned”
I fully expect a PF2, and it will not be backward compatible because Paizo no longer need that to keep us on board. What would the alternative be? 4.0 - no, 5th Ed - no. I think most of us are here for the long haul and although we'll probably grumble a bit, it won’t stop us buying it.
I'm pretty sure that at some point somebody at WotC said "We don't need backwards compatibility in 4E, our customers are with us for like ever, we're the industry leader duuuuh!"
Personally I would rather see a Paizo slow down their PF line to a slow crawl when it starts to get run out of ideas, but keep it alive with the current edition. And instead start a new line focused on Sword & Planet and planetary romance style game play.
I'd much prefer that, then another version of PF just so they can start reprinting all the same ideas over again with a slightly different mechanical direction.
Of course, I still play and prefer 3.5, so my view my be skewed. I would love to see the idea of SRD/PRDs continued no matter what. I am willing to game in a PF game specifically because I can just use the PRD. This helps the rest want to keep playing and purchasing material from Paizo. So ultimately win-win for everyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While 4E might not be as good as it can be (I liked 3.5 better), it is the longest running D&D system....So 4.0 is still running (8 years)
4E has been out for 8 years? That's some might fuzzy math you are using there. It's barely been 4. 2E was much longer running.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4E has been out for 8 years? That's some might fuzzy math you are using there. It's barely been 4. 2E was much longer running.
While 4E might not be as good as it can be (I liked 3.5 better), it is the longest running D&D system....So 4.0 is still running (8 years)
Yeah, the release date for Player's Handbook is June 6, 2008. Not sure where you're getting 8 years from.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was starting to question that as well. My understanding was that 4E was essentually the shortest version, even if you count 3.0 and 3.5 as different editions, but again my understanding, is that 4E Essentials IS 4.5, 4E fans just don't want to view it that way.
I actually hope that a PF 2.0 is on the way sooner rather than later. I fully expect that Paizo would wait until at least a year aftr 5E is out so as to not compete or cause any bad feelings. Stagnation will simply kill PF. It will not be too much longer before new blood just doesn't come in, and we are at the point where Golarion is getting close to FR, everything has been explored and holds no more secrets for players to discover.
That being said, PF has a lot of issues. Additionally, with the newer books, it's really about time to take some of the newer mechanics and lessons learned and apply them back to the core classes. Take a look at what does work, what just doesn't and refine it all a little more. While it's true that that might invalidate some material, the truth is, the longer we wait, the more that just becomes a greater issue. The more the existing cracks start to stretch.
Pathfinder is already suffering from significant power creep and content bloat. In five years it will repeat 3.5's history.
There are fundamental issues with the entire RPG market and business model which drive most of the problems that new editions are always trying to fix. The problem is that they are sticking tiny bandaids on huge sucking wounds.
But that's going to continue because the market is so ingrained into a particular mechanical model that the things that would fix the problems are "too strange" or "too new" or "too hard to learn" for the people who keep reaching into their wallets, and there's too much entertainment competition to really drag in an entire new market base.
RPGs need a new "killer app" to break out of this self-defeating paradigm. I have been thinking for years that the killer app would be a fully on-line gaming system with flexible role playing opportunities, awesome graphics, full immersive interactivity, persistent character history, full character mobility (meaning my character could go into anyone's campaign) and the ability for GMs to create custom content that was fully consistent with existing content for an infinitely expandable gaming universe.
The technology is just about there. But I don't see anyone pulling this all together yet.
I still think they will. And when they do, the paper based game will become the refuge of true grognards.
|
|
I always find it interesting to read how because 4E was too different that it was doomed to fail. It's a part of the reason yet for the most part it's because of Pathfinder and the OGL. When 3E came out the players who wanted to stick with 2E either bought and learned 3E or remained with 2E. There was no OGL for 2E and the retro old school gaming movement is imo just not popular enough. No OGL for 3E would mean no Pathfinder. I think there would still be a 4E since once again there would be two options. Either players remained with 3E/3.5 or bought and learned 4E. Which is why I would be very surprised to see a OGL for 5E. I doubt Wotc wants to give anyone the ability to become their competion a second time.
Memorax, I can absolutely tell you why my group won't play 4e. It's because they don't believe 4e is "D&D." We continued to play 3.5 for over two years before the group finally agreed to give Pathfinder a try. After a single campaign with Pathfinder, the whole group agreed to convert all of our active characters and campaigns.
But if Pathfinder hadn't given them that "D&D feel" they'd still be playing 3.5. 4e simply is not something they will play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not planning on purchasing a new version of anything that has any of the following concepts:
1. Alignment
2. Vancian spellcasting
3. Armor as anything but damage reduction
4. Gameplay that is not as fun and fluid at the highest points of player character power as it is when the characters are first created.
Ummm....
1. I like the Alignment system, sure it pigeonholes some people, but hell I'm mostly LN in real life. I hate Anarchists ( CE people in real life) and most people and groups can fit into the system.
2. Maybe you don't like it but I've always liked it. The only wrinkle I like was the old 'spellpoints' and 'mana' tweaks in 3.5 but even then it felt to much like an MMO which is something a tabletop RPG should strive to avoid.
3. Disagree 100% Armor is not a sponge. Unless it's armor made from a sponge. I tried BESM's system that does that, and it's system of hitting and armor use is throughly horrible and time consuming.
4. A good GM can make that all the difference. I've had some fun lvl 15-20 games, and some bad low level ones. The 3.5 system power scales up in fairly balanced way IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that, one day, Paizo will publish a new version of Pathfinder. However, I don't think we're ready for it yet.
To me, there are two good reasons (and lots of bad reasons) to publish a new version of a game. First, you need a new version if you realize that your previous version is bad. I know "Bad" is an open-ended term, but like pornography, I know it when I see it. For example, the first edition of Witchcraft didn't include the correct rules for building a character, and in the first version of Changeling, it was so difficult to enact powers that the most effective character simply didn't use any. I've read, played, or playtested quite a few RPGs that were flawed to the point of being unplayable. Try again, do better next time!
Second, you need a new version of a game if the state of the art of game-writing has changed so much that your previous edition is bad in comparison. There's a technology of game design that advances with time, just like any other technology. The tabletop RPG invented at essentially the same time as the mobile phone, and I would certainly not trade my Android phone for a model from the 70's! Similarly, I wouldn't trade Pathfinder for Red Box Dungeons & Dragons.
Pathfinder did not suffer from the first problem, their original game being quite good. On the other hand, they are susceptible to the second scenario. Should Paizo be reprinting the same Pathfinder book in 2029 that they debuted in 2009? I don't think so.
To me, the important question is not, "Should there ever be a new edition?" To me, the important question is, "When is the right time for a new edition?" Given the target audience of Pathfinder, the rate of change in the market, the rate of change in the industry, Paizo's business model, the histories of other games, and the particular niche filled by Pathfinder, my best estimate is 8-10 years, or 2017-2019.
----------------------------------------
Publication history of D&D
Ignoring the D&D basic line, which was published in parallel to the advanced line and is comparable to Pathfinder's Basic Box, this is the publication history of D&D:
1974 (original)
1977 (AD&D)
1989 (AD&D 2nd Edition)
2000 (D&D 3rd edition)
2003 (D&D v3.5)
2008 (D&D 4th edition)
2013? (D&D Next)
Looking at the lifespan of each version:
D&D original - 3 years
AD&D 1st - 4
AD&D 2nd - 11
D&D 3rd - 3
D&D 3.5 - 5
D&D 4th - 5?
That's an average of 5 years per edition.
A few other successful tabletop RPGs, lifetime of each edition in brief:
Shadowrun 3, 5, 7, 8
Call of Cthulu 2, 3, 3, 4, 6
Vampire 1, 6, 6
Many others follow this pattern.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always find it interesting to read how because 4E was too different that it was doomed to fail. It's a part of the reason yet for the most part it's because of Pathfinder and the OGL. When 3E came out the players who wanted to stick with 2E either bought and learned 3E or remained with 2E. There was no OGL for 2E and the retro old school gaming movement is imo just not popular enough. No OGL for 3E would mean no Pathfinder. I think there would still be a 4E since once again there would be two options. Either players remained with 3E/3.5 or bought and learned 4E. Which is why I would be very surprised to see a OGL for 5E. I doubt Wotc wants to give anyone the ability to become their competion a second time.
I can only tell you what my experience was, but here it is. I had no problem going from 3.0 to 3.5 because it was the same game at heart. I was also excited about 4e coming out until I learned more about it. I bought Pathfinder to tweak my 3.5 game with and I still buy Pathfinder products to use with my 3.5 game.
If 4e had been, in my opinion, more in keeping with D&D traditions, I would never have bought Pathfinder and I suspect others would not have either, we would have just bought 4e. There would have been no need for Pathfinder. I don't believe the OGL created the competition for WOTC, I believe that 4e created the competition. I believe that 4e is responsible for Pathfinder. I know that it is for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually hope that a PF 2.0 is on the way sooner rather than later. I fully expect that Paizo would wait until at least a year aftr 5E is out so as to not compete or cause any bad feelings. Stagnation will simply kill PF. It will not be too much longer before new blood just doesn't come in, and we are at the point where Golarion is getting close to FR, everything has been explored and holds no more secrets for players to discover.
At the point where everything has been explored in Golarion?
Umm...The vast majority of the Inner Sea region nations have yet to appear in the Campaign Setting line, not to mention most of it's major cities. The Tian Xia continent has a single gazeteer, which only provides a brief description of each nation. Southern Garund, Vudra, Casmaron, Sarusan, Azlant, and Arcadia have barely any information about them. Distant Worlds and The Great Beyond both have only small gazeteers. I struggle to imagine how you think that equals "Everything is explored"
I also think it's a bad idea to produce a major edition overhaul right on the heels of 5E. One of the strengths Pathfinder will have with the new D&D release is that their will be a wealth of material available for people interested in Pathfinder. It will take time for 5E to crank stuff out, and until there is more material out there Pathfinder might very well look more appealing, especially if you are a 4E stalwart not happy with the transition.
I would say, best case scenario...4 years until a new edition, and even then I don't think it will be a major overhaul, but a tweaking. More likely 5-6 years
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Publication history of D&D
Ignoring the D&D basic line, which was published in parallel to the advanced line and is comparable to Pathfinder's Basic Box, this is the publication history of D&D:
1974 (original)
1977 (AD&D)
1989 (AD&D 2nd Edition)
2000 (D&D 3rd edition)
2003 (D&D v3.5)
2008 (D&D 4th edition)
2013? (D&D Next)Looking at the lifespan of each version:
D&D original - 3 years
AD&D 1st - 4
AD&D 2nd - 11
D&D 3rd - 3
D&D 3.5 - 5
D&D 4th - 5?
As Kthulu said, your 1st should have gone 12 years, not 4.
Of course with that said, there was essentially a 1.5 (not marketed like 3.5 was), which included a different reprint of the PHB, and included Unearthed Arcana which made a number of new rules changes, it screws up the timeline.
2nd Ed also had a "Revision" phase (in 95) which also shortens that lifespan.
It happens.
Dungeons & Dragons (not AD&D) btw, had 5 editions, spanning from 74 till 2000), with the last going 9 years......I think it was more "given up on" than just existing. When 3rd Ed came out, it was "officially dead".
If I've heard right, TECHNICALLY, Pathfinder has included Errata with each reprinting of the rules. Which means it's already had a 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and a 1.4 set if you want to look at it that way.
PDF sales should help keep editions around longer (since they lower costs drastically) in theory, but when the Core Rulebooks do slow down in sales (which they will), a more major "Revision" will occur.
And like the people who still play 1st &/or 2nd Ed AD&D, some will stay with Pathfinder 1st, others/most will move on to 2ndish. The only thing constant is Change.
Blueluck, might wanna check your math on the length of AD&D 1e. Looks more akin to 12 years than 4.
Oops! Thanks for the correction. I wish I could still edit:(
I wonder if there is some relationship between average length of college study and average lifetime of role-playing game.
Publication history of D&DAs Kthulu said, your 1st should have gone 12 years, not 4.
Of course with that said, there was essentially a 1.5 (not marketed like 3.5 was), which included a different reprint of the PHB, and included Unearthed Arcana which made a number of new rules changes, it screws up the timeline.
2nd Ed also had a "Revision" phase (in 95) which also shortens that lifespan.
It happens.
Dungeons & Dragons (not AD&D) btw, had 5 editions, spanning from 74 till 2000), with the last going 9 years......I think it was more "given up on" than just existing. When 3rd Ed came out, it was "officially dead".
Yeah, there were some rough spots in there when TSR had financial problems too.