Also, the mmo is being managed by a different company...If Goblinworks takes a loss from the project it shouldn't hurt Paizo, or at least not very much.
|
I'm not sure about the idea that many people turned from 4E after hearing that it played like an MMO, (more like a CCG in my opinion). I know there where a lot that did it after playing it a bit. I would imagine that there where a few that people in their normal gaming group tried it and wouldn't brng it back home, so maybe leaving a member or two without playing it themself.
I remember being at the midnght release though, and talking to a few of the different store owners about 4E early on, which sold amazingly at first, then dropped fairly early (across the board from the 4 or 5 retailers I taked to) a few months later. It was pretty indicitive that once people gave it a try for a bit, they just gave it up rather than a lot of people just never jumping on board to begin with. Especially with the free and very availible (4E) D&D Encounters, even before the game was released and still going on.
I'm having trouble seeing how 4E's "feels like an MMO" is really related to Pathfinder also getting a Pathfinder Online, though. Very different things. I personally do not care about the Online project, and likely will not play it. I don't have time to dedicate to an MMO (any MMO), and it's kind of it's own thing. That doesn't mean it's going to change the PF TT for me in any way, with the minor exception of offering extra TT content in relation to the MMO and possibly incorporating minor rules or hacks for PFS.
|
The point I'm trying to get across is that no matter what. Even if you explain that the PF MMO is different from PF TT and that Paizo and Goblinworks are two different companies people will still make assumptions about the MMO. Many times wrong ones. Or simply because to some 4E=MMO and therefore a PF MMO will equal PF=MMO. When people dislike something logic and a clear explanation are simply ignored.
|
The main change I would like to see in Pathfinder 2.0 is a complete reimagining of the monsters. I personally thought that monster rules in 4e was the one success of that system because it streamlined GMing and made it much easier.
I don't think that monsters need to "play by the same rules" necessarily same as the GM doesn't play by the same rules many times. Having monsters that are simplified without all the feats and PC conventions can streamline play, lessen lookup time, and reduce rules lawyering and the players being all knowing. I like the players to be in the same frame of mind as their PC's should be, that is wondering what the heck this monster can do, and what power that monster just unleashed. Rather than the player just knowing that the monster used a great cleave attack or cast false life.
There is something to be said for both benefits of a different path for monsters.
I like the players to be in the same frame of mind as their PC's should be, that is wondering what the heck this monster can do, and what power that monster just unleashed. Rather than the player just knowing that the monster used a great cleave attack or cast false life.
Unless you make all your monsters from scratch, that potential will still exist. After all if the players have played awhile or have the bestiaries, they will still roughly know what the monsters do.
|
|
Unless you make all your monsters from scratch, that potential will still exist. After all if the players have played awhile or have the bestiaries, they will still roughly know what the monsters do.I like the players to be in the same frame of mind as their PC's should be, that is wondering what the heck this monster can do, and what power that monster just unleashed. Rather than the player just knowing that the monster used a great cleave attack or cast false life.
Sure it eventually does, but any sense of wonder and mystery you can provide to your players keeps their interest and brings back that wonder from playing back in the beginning.
Since each monster has unique abilities with the intent of making the GM's job easier and smoother to run by offering streamlined mechanics, it is for the better.
PC mechanics can afford to be complex because each player can dedicate all of their time to mastering the feats skills weapons and etc. The GM has multitudes of monsters and NPCS that makes it impossible to master - having a shorthand different set of mechanics/powers streamlines play while still providing an immersive and challenging foe for the PCs to face with their complex abilities.
Eventually the players will learn the monster stuff, but it requires them to go out of their way to either get the bestiaries, or GM themselves, rather than memorizing all of the feats, skills. Spells etc, from Player materials.
But many monsters have supernatural and extraordinary abilities already.
I also wonder how you would deal with 0 HD races like goblins or orcs, which also exist as player options. Or for that matter humans, which often find themselves as antagonists.
Presumably you would still have to construct them like you would a PC
- If talking about massive changes for a proper new edition, there could be other things that render old content obsolete. What if *gasp* Pathfinder 2.0 does away with Prestige Classes? That's a whole big chunk of a chapter gone.Archetypes have pretty much taken their place in most cases, and here is someone's work (apologies for lack of credit, but it was linked from these forums, so speak up if it's your work!) that converted the core PrCs minus Dragon Disciple and Eldritch Knight into Archetypes or class options.
Making Archetypes a core concept would be a nice idea, though it would take up just as much if not more space than the current PrCs section.
I was presuming archetypes or whatever their equivalent would still be supplementary in a new version of the game (hopefully called something less vague than "archetypes").
And that indeed would be my preference. Archetypes are nice, but they also add a notable layer of complexity to character building -- especially for a new player or and perhaps even moreso for a new GM.
But this is all theoretical anyway, and hopefully if and when the time comes for Paizo to think about a new version of Pathfinder, they will gauge carefully the various points of view on this matter and others.
Anyway, my point is I think there are ways to trim down the core material without losing the essential content and still keep what was originally "DMG" material.
- In particular, as a continuation of above, if there ever were a new edition of Pathfinder, I especially would love to see a VAST revision of the magic system. Part of this dream vision would be that ALL spells contained text no longer than would make it feasible to include the text in a readable font on a 3x5 index card. If the spell needs more space than that to explain how it works, then it's too complicated and needs to be eliminated, broken down, or otherwise simplified.OH THIS SO MUCH.
Thanks. :) I tried making spell cards once. I think I gave up after trying to get the permutations of dispel magic on one card without shrinking the font to 3 pt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thought on the spell length issue, is I would rather see longer spell descriptions, then to see one spell broken up into several smaller spells (see PF beast/elemental shape versus 3.5 polymorph). In fact, I'd like to see several spells combined. Why have four different cure spells, it would be nicer to have one cure spell and how much it heals is based on what level of spell slot it is cast from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Memorax, concerning 4e Forgotten Realms
They killed Helm. I will never forgive such heresy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main change I would like to see in Pathfinder 2.0 is a complete reimagining of the monsters. I personally thought that monster rules in 4e was the one success of that system because it streamlined GMing and made it much easier.I personally disagree. One of the major let-downs for me regarding 4E was that monsters went back to using different rules than PCs did.
Same. I have always had a standing rule in my games: "Anything you can do, the bad guys can do. Anything the bad guys can do, you can do - it just requires you make the same investments, whether that means participating in the same evil acts, being the same race/monstrous species, acquiring the same item, or some other means."
In a 4E game, that'd be next to impossible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find comparing Helm to Torm like comparing a Guard Dog to a Police Dog.
Very similar in many ways, and in many ways they do the same job, but very very differently and with very different motives, methods, and results.
My thought on the spell length issue, is I would rather see longer spell descriptions, then to see one spell broken up into several smaller spells (see PF beast/elemental shape versus 3.5 polymorph). In fact, I'd like to see several spells combined. Why have four different cure spells, it would be nicer to have one cure spell and how much it heals is based on what level of spell slot it is cast from.
Agreed.
Pathfinder is bad enough when it comes to that... I miss Enlarge and reduce being the same spell just reversible.
But really, is there a good reason for Charm person, Charm Animal, Charm Monster.... Other than Character X knows Y # of spells :-/
The spells all do the same thing.
Given how many non-Humanoid civilized races inhabit my homebrew world, I've allowed there to be an equivalent charm/hold/dominate spell for most creature types (barring obvious things that won't work, like charm fey or near anything on oozes or constructs) at the same level as the one that works on humanoids. Given the setting, it just seems practical that whoever invented charm person would also invent charm monstrous, since half the main races on the world fall under Monstrous Humanoid rather than standard Humanoid.
So while you can theoretically hit almost any creature with the same effect, you have to have the right version of the spell on hand to do it. Meaning Sorcs or other spont-casters have to carry around scrolls/wands or burn another spell known, Wizards have to prep another slot, etc. Or bypass that entirely and go with charm/hold/dominate monster and deal with needing a higher-level spell slot.
The main change I would like to see in Pathfinder 2.0 is a complete reimagining of the monsters. I personally thought that monster rules in 4e was the one success of that system because it streamlined GMing and made it much easier.I personally disagree. One of the major let-downs for me regarding 4E was that monsters went back to using different rules than PCs did.Same. I have always had a standing rule in my games: "Anything you can do, the bad guys can do. Anything the bad guys can do, you can do - it just requires you make the same investments, whether that means participating in the same evil acts, being the same race/monstrous species, acquiring the same item, or some other means."
In a 4E game, that'd be next to impossible.
But 3rd, 4th and PF aren't set up for PvP (even though we all do it anyway).
As a DM, I like the ability to say "This is what my Monster does" because I have a cool concept, and not go through 15 books to find the feats and/or spells and/or abilities to be able to do it.
If I want to throw the PCs at themselves, I either add or take away a Goatee from them and do it that way ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some spells cannot fit on a 3x5 card and it would really suck to either kick it out, simplify it or break it down. A spell can be written on multiple 3x5 cards. Don't go 4th edition on this please.
Obviously I disagree. If it takes that much text just to explain how it works, then usually it's too complicated and is guaranteed to slow the game down as the GM examines the permutations when it's cast. Some spells however could probably be tweaked with more efficient writing than elimination. There is nothing wrong with streamlining things and making them more efficient (although HOW you go about doing so is of course important)---anything that, during gameplay, gets you away from analyzing rules and how they work and back to playing the damn game is a good thing, in my opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if all spells could fit on 3/5 cards.
I don't think it is a reasonable goal for all spells, given how many people find loopholes in the spells written for clarity.
My current bandwagon is having spell sets (and feat sets) for different "levels" of play.
Perhaps it would be a good goal for all spells in the beginner box to be on 3.5 cards.
Perhaps even you could narrowly write spell effects down to a 3.5 for a core rule set.
But many advanced spells prone to abuse need more clarification, not less. So perhaps an advances spell book/series permitted only with GM approval, not for PFS kind of thing.
But 3rd, 4th and PF aren't set up for PvP (even though we all do it anyway).
Not sure what this has to do with that...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not so sure about pathfinder 2.0 however I think many of us could benefit from a pathfinder CRB second edition. What do I mean?
I am pretty happy with the rules and I think that only really small changes if any should be made to the current rules. On the other hand new players like me will enjoy if the book is reorganized and sometimes reworded to be more "friendly".
The beginners box is a good example. The rules have not be changed from the CRB however it is organized on a way that makes it more easy to follow. Both as a page-by-page reading or as reference material. For me a pathfinder 2 sounds like making significant changes to the core rules (wizard's way) but a second edition or printing might just be changing the book not the rules.
|
|
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.I think you are being too harsh on Trailblazer.
I can see why they didn't adopt the marketing policy of describing it as "like D&D 3.5 but worse".
RPGs published by tiny companies are unlikely to set the role-playing world on fire and become the next big thing, however good the games are. I seriously doubt that was the purpose behind publishing Trailblazer.
And the monster book is extremely late, but it will still be published. Per the recent kickstarter update, the contents are now complete and they are moving towards getting print proofs.
For those who are interested, the Trailblazer monster book is now available in PDF.
PFRPG2e, i hope they won´t!!
beter, i prefeer, that they create some alternate systems (for example: iron heroes and make that kind of play in one book, suitable on golarion)
(maybe like White Wolf ages, and for every age of game, they make a system linked to the standar medieval one)
themed campaigns for example: tian xia plays as much as the Lot5R
the other continent plays with steampunk... or even in other place in the world you can play a futuristic campaign, or even starship (letting us playing a lot of flavor supported by one system and everyone campaign has one or two rules to play them diferently)
Besides, at the moment, paizo still needs to figure out how to create solid rules, i mean, every sub rule they try, came broken (piecemeal armor, trust points, caravan, magic duels, performance duels, etc).
so, before they can even think in how they can do that, they first need to learn how to create rules which do not broken at some point (caravan vs cr 14, armor as DR vs a vampire barbarian lvl 18 or something alike)
|
|
Personally, the only real alt settings/times I personally would be interested in would be golarion about 200 hundred years earlier, or a mostly setting nuetral Modern Pathfinder.
I would also be interested in the possibility of another setting completely, (taking no elements of golarion, not even just a different planet) and starting from scratch, but still using the PF rules.
exactly!! for PFRPG 2E we (THE PLAYERS) realy don´t want it, i mean, yes for the updates to the rules, i realy don´t care buy the Corerule Book and the GameMastery Guide with more rules on it... but the entire PFRPG series again and again and again... i was so tired with 3.0 3.0revisited edition and 3.5 edition and then...Pathfinder... i only buy the core for 3.0 and thats all ´till PFRPG.
At the best, I want more suplements with concern the Ages!!
-Modern (something like D20 Modern)
-Victorian Ghotic (like Masque of the Red Death or even Ravenloft)
-Dark Ages (medieval or even before)
-Steampunk (Iron Kingdoms)
-Futuristic (Final Fantassy or something alike)
-Spaceship Adventures (Stars Wars)
-Apocalyptic (Dark Sun)
But all of this with the same pack of rules... because theyre has a compatibility as none other because are theyr own (imagine the posibilities: an adventure traveling time, age, eras, etc. start an adventure in the dark ages with some characters and in another era continuing with the son of the son of the son at modern or so with the other kind of characters/classes/races/etc.)
Personally, the only real alt settings/times I personally would be interested in would be golarion about 200 hundred years earlier, or a mostly setting nuetral Modern Pathfinder.
Agree.
Honestly, I'm still getting too used to 'current' Golarion, the past just doesn't hold much appeal to me. Honestly it's the problem I have with the runelords, serpent skull... It just seems like every AP we've run so far is uncovering a lost ancient civilization... when I'm NOT that familar with the CURRENT nations that still exist...
Granted... The dwarves' Search for Sky??? THAT sounds like a fun setting to play with ;)
Personally, the only real alt settings/times I personally would be interested in would be golarion about 200 hundred years earlier, or a mostly setting nuetral Modern Pathfinder.
Agree.
Honestly, I'm still getting too used to 'current' Golarion, the past just doesn't hold much appeal to me. Honestly it's the problem I have with the runelords, serpent skull... It just seems like every AP we've run so far is uncovering a lost ancient civilization... when I'm NOT that familar with the CURRENT nations that still exist...
Granted... The dwarves' Search for Sky??? THAT sounds like a fun setting to play with ;)
i refeer to Golarion because its the PFRPG place to live and play for
me neither likes in many ways the Golarion setting, its much plastic taste to me (i prefeer my own, Ravenloft and Eberron)... but, the maps are already done, so, thats enogh for me to fit in and move some stories and make my own over it (for example in golarion is the year 1327 as in ravenloft timline stops...besides 4713 which i always dislikes)the issue is, that i play in spanish, i also has to make some translations to my language... so, as i stay there, i has to do the job as well...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a whole lot of "WE," when you really mean "I." Please stop speaking on behalf of the community.
Thank you.
I'm seeing a whole lot of "WE," when you really mean "I." Please stop speaking on behalf of the community.
Thank you.
sorry for that!!
for "we" i mean my players and i of course!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay what will the players do when Paizo brings up a 2nd Ed?
1.They go with the change
2.They say f$%& you and stay with the old one
Customer loyalty is a precious resource. And with a 2nd Ed Paizo would lose some. With the rival (D&D next) just at the horizont Paizo can not lose any of it because "Hey we need something new to get money".
I love Pathfinder for what it is and not for what it could/should/I want to be.
No system is perfect, but no system is. And you will always have people that will complain. I you want something different then play something different. There is no devil behind you screaming "PLAY PATHFINDER OR I'LL EAT YOUR SOUL".
What Paizo could do is:
Redesign the Corerulebook (It works for me wonders, but if some of you have issues with it, it is okay)
Make a whole new game. Not a game that is within the sword and sorcery genre. But a new game with a new setting, where the rules fit the setting.
I could really imagine myself GMing a game within a Final Fantasy kind of universe. Or something totally different. I think they have the people that are creative enough to create a total new thing.
That said I would have no problems when at some day Paizo comes up with "Hei guys this will be the last last rulesupplement book we will do for PF. It is finished." They could still produce their exellent APs, they could still expand their awesome world Golarion. And they would have some resources free to do the "New Thing".
I could have also started this post with I have a dream...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They failed to kill Elminster. I will never forgive such heresy.@Memorax, concerning 4e Forgotten Realms
They killed Helm. I will never forgive such heresy.
I personally saw the whole spell cataclysm garbage as their excuse to re-design the world just enough so you'd have to buy all new books, and couldn't use the old books even as lore source.
Forget that, I really liked old Forgotten Realms, and I stick with it.
The worst possible time frame for PF-2 is "never."
Yup. People sure do throw around the word "never," though.
i certainly would want pathfinder 2.0 at some point
Fix rogues and monks
fine tune fighters and barbarians
fix stealth
rebalance crafting
fix feat chains
fix high level play
build in epic levels from the start
@ikarinokami: Sounds like a reasonable list (though I disagree with the notion that some some of those things need "fixing" as if they are broken. I like "fine-tune" better) except I don't particularly want epic level stuff built into the core rules. What's wrong with crafting though? Just curious :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, rather than a 2nd Edition, why not just a "revised edition" of the current books that makes alterations for balance purposes beyond errata?
@ikarinokami: Sounds like a reasonable list (though I disagree with the notion that some some of those things need "fixing" as if they are broken. I like "fine-tune" better) except I don't particularly want epic level stuff built into the core rules. What's wrong with crafting though? Just curious :)
crafting is mostly ok, but thinks like staves cost too much, and most the items don't have a good formula for them, and the pricing for a lot of custom items, i kinda the eyeball test. so just better guidelines for pricing and creating unique items.
Some people like epic and some don't. putting it in the core rules doesnt hurt those who don't like it in the least, but it greatly aids those who want to do it.
I can go with fine tune, although i would say fighters/barbs minor retouching, rogue and monks need thier chassis rebuilt:).
@ikarinokami: Sounds like a reasonable list (though I disagree with the notion that some some of those things need "fixing" as if they are broken. I like "fine-tune" better) except I don't particularly want epic level stuff built into the core rules. What's wrong with crafting though? Just curious :)crafting is mostly ok, but thinks like staves cost too much, and most the items don't have a good formula for them, and the pricing for a lot of custom items, i kinda the eyeball test. so just better guidelines for pricing and creating unique items.
Some people like epic and some don't. putting it in the core rules doesnt hurt those who don't like it in the least, but it greatly aids those who want to do it.
I can go with fine tune, although i would say fighters/barbs minor retouching, rogue and monks need thier chassis rebuilt:).
Fair enough on the crafting.
I have two concerns with including epic level play in the core rules: one theoretical, the other practical. Theoretically, I'm concerned that if you build epic rules into the core system, it *will* affect the rest of the rules. I'm not an expert in high/epic level play by any means, but I've read that the d20 system doesn't support epic level play too well. If paizo wanted to include it, I'm worried that they might need to change other, possibly foundational aspects of the system and that it will have unintended consequences. Again, I'm no expert though. If paizo can do it in a way that doesn't negatively affect the core rules, by all means.
Practically, I'm concerned that if a 2nd edition core rulebook is the same size as the current one, then adding epic level rules to it will make it even more massive! I'm already worried about my binding! :P
As for monks and rogues, fair enough. They might need a more extensive overhaul than other classes, but I'm having fun with my monk character so far!
@ikarinokami: Sounds like a reasonable list (though I disagree with the notion that some some of those things need "fixing" as if they are broken. I like "fine-tune" better) except I don't particularly want epic level stuff built into the core rules. What's wrong with crafting though? Just curious :)crafting is mostly ok, but thinks like staves cost too much, and most the items don't have a good formula for them, and the pricing for a lot of custom items, i kinda the eyeball test. so just better guidelines for pricing and creating unique items.
Some people like epic and some don't. putting it in the core rules doesnt hurt those who don't like it in the least, but it greatly aids those who want to do it.
I can go with fine tune, although i would say fighters/barbs minor retouching, rogue and monks need thier chassis rebuilt:).
Fair enough on the crafting.
I have two concerns with including epic level play in the core rules: one theoretical, the other practical. Theoretically, I'm concerned that if you build epic rules into the core system, it *will* affect the rest of the rules. I'm not an expert in high/epic level play by any means, but I've read that the d20 system doesn't support epic level play too well. If paizo wanted to include it, I'm worried that they might need to change other, possibly foundational aspects of the system and that it will have unintended consequences. Again, I'm no expert though. If paizo can do it in a way that doesn't negatively affect the core rules, by all means.
Practically, I'm concerned that if a 2nd edition core rulebook is the same size as the current one, then adding epic level rules to it will make it even more massive! I'm already worried about my binding! :P
As for monks and rogues, fair enough. They might need a more extensive overhaul than other classes, but I'm having fun with my monk character so far!
Epic rules are problamatic for the same reason high level rules are, so that's why i dont think it will be that cumbersome. I think once they fix high level play, which they admitted they did not, epic play will follow logically.
|
|
Well, okay. I'd lose respect for their marketing department if they chose to call the next edition P2thfind2r, but if it fixed the problems I -- and many other people -- perceive with the current game without introducing equal or greater new problems I'd still bite.
Interestingly, to me that sounds pretty awesome. Even sounding it out sounds kind of lovecraftian. :)