So I have been thinking about what Paizo might want to do around summer of next year -- you know, the time that D&D Next will be released. I would guess that one option that they are considering is a new edition.
I have been wondering what that would look like. Folding the APG into the core rules? And then following up with a new APG? Are there rules that come to mind that could be fixed? Rebalancing issues?
What would you do if you owned PF?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're not considering that option. In fact, Pathfinder 2.0 is not being at all in works, and if you use the neat little "search" box on the right you will find dozens of "what should be in Pathfinder 2.0?" threads. They usually descend into flames over the usual disagreements people have when it comes to discussing rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be called "Advance Core Rulebook" or "Ultimate Core Rules"
Every Class would be given one additional archetype that essentially rewrites the concept and the adjusted tables would be printed next to them.
Alternate rules/skills would be introduced.
A new kind of magical crafting would be introduced that is both more balanced and faster.
More spells + more feats
And some new classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And some new classes.
The new classes would of course get as much support as the ninja, anti-paladin, and samurai already do.
They're not considering that option.
I am unaware of their public stance on 2.0, but I would expect them to deny it all the way until they formally announce it. They would risk suppressing their current sales if publicly acknowledge a revision before its time. Of course, that isn't evidence that they are doing a revision, either. But simply that i would take denials with healthy skepticism.
|
|
They're not considering that option.I am unaware of their public stance on 2.0, but I would expect them to deny it all the way until they formally announce it. They would risk suppressing their current sales if publicly acknowledge a revision before its time. Of course, that isn't evidence that they are doing a revision, either. But simply that i would take denials with healthy skepticism.
Considering that a major revision of the rules would hurt their primary streams of sales (read: APs and campaign setting books), I'm inclined to cast the scepticism aside.
Considering that a major revision of the rules would hurt their primary streams of sales (read: APs and campaign setting books), I'm inclined to cast the scepticism aside.
I agree that a major revision would hurt their sales. Which, I presume, is why they had such a light touch when they produced PF. And so I can easily imagine a similar "light touch" PF 2.0. For example, I have seen some complaint about the rogue not being enough of a "skill monkey" as a result of the PF revisions. I wonder if that might be something they'd consider tweaking?
Instead, a mysterious Portal will open to an alternative universe with a twisted Golarion, where all the rules and laws are different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're not considering that option.I am unaware of their public stance on 2.0, but I would expect them to deny it all the way until they formally announce it. They would risk suppressing their current sales if publicly acknowledge a revision before its time. Of course, that isn't evidence that they are doing a revision, either. But simply that i would take denials with healthy skepticism.
The developers have stated they have no interest in in creating a new pathfinder rule set soon. I don't remember if any formal dates were proposed, but IIRC they considered Pathfinder to be at least midway through its production cycle, so that would be what, 3-4? years before a new edition was brought out (not to mention they have never stated what any new edition, if it occurs at all, would pertain).
If they were going to release a new edition at that time, I don't think we would see continued development of new subsystems (like Mythic), and unless it was only very very minor tweaks or reorganization of existing rules, I would expect playtests to be going on. Look at when DnD next made there announcement and how they have been doing playtests, for well over a year.
Also, I can't think of any worse marketing idea than to go head to head with Next by releasing a new rulest. If DnD Next flops, or drive away the existing 4E fanbase, having a thriving rule system that is well supported would be a good draw for new customers.
Pathfinder also just can't match WoTC in advertising. The DnD next release is going to sweep aside any attempts by Paizo to publicize a new edition.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to do it, I'd re-design it from the ground up. Ditch the retarded back-compatibility; it only drags the errors of the past along for the ride. Anything that was done right can be maintained, but it needs to be redesigned and re-evaluated rather than just retrofitted. One of the most important things would be parity and system consistency with mechanically significant terms being denoted in an obvious manner to avoid confusion and universal writing guidelines to avoid discrepancies and inconsistencies.
Why are you copy-pasting WotC's design notes for developing 4E? :)
Pathfinder also just can't match WoTC in advertising. The DnD next release is going to sweep aside any attempts by Paizo to publicize a new edition.
I was assuming that they'd simply hitch their wagon to all that free publicity.
You make an interesting point about play tests.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's only pertinent if I'm looking to "carry over" an existing audience. Like any reboot, there are going to be die-hards who hold onto the past with a vice-grip and won't accept anything new. They already have something to enjoy; Pathfinder 1. The audience that a version 2 (or, more appropriately, a complete reboot) would aim for is the people that specifically don't want a "holdover" system; both those who reject the old and those who enjoy both new and old. You can't appease all the people all the time, and by making another back-compatible retrofit, they'd also be losing the audience who are waiting for a more coherent and improved system. It's a cut on one side or the other no matter what you do so I'd choose the more progressive cut rather than the stagnant one.If I were to do it, I'd re-design it from the ground up.You'd also probably lose most of your audience.
Again, that's minutes from 4E design meetings. "There will be some holdouts, but sooner or later everyone will convert to the New Thing, because new > old." How did that work out?
It won't look like anything because they don't need to make it. 4th edition is 4th edition, we don't need 4th edition wannabe games.
It's a cut on one side or the other no matter what you do so I'd choose the more progressive cut rather than the stagnant one.
If they timed it with D&D Next, they would run the risk of switching places with Hasbro. Right now Hasbro and Paizo are dueling to be recognized as the "natural successor to D&D." Surprisingly, Paizo seems to be winning that battle. Hasbro has responded with a "back to basics" revisions. I doubt that Paizo would look to respond with a version that might appear to be "less D&D-like" just as Hasbro releases a version that "looks more like D&D."
So I would expect any PF 2.0 revisions to have more of an "old school" look and then anything that you are suggesting. I suppose that could also be read as an argument for no changes at all. But then, think you run the risk of losing the zeitgeist. So from my perspective the challenge is to maintain excitement while not driving anyone back to Hasbro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to point out that it is ridiculous adding the .0 behind the 2. There is no other 2nd edition to differentiate from. If a new idition ever hits the shelves it will be named Pathfinder 2nd edition, or something else entirely with no numbers, and certainly no decimals.
The safest option would be to tweak the rules but try to maintain the 3.0/3.5/current pathfinder people. DnD next seems to be trying to pull in the 1st/2nd edition crowd. That would be leave the 4E crowd as a potential niche to grab, but given that 4E wasn't that great a success IMHO that probably wouldn't be sound.
But like I said, we might be half a decade from seeing a new edition of pathfinder, and even then who knows what a new edition will entail.
Have you seen things like Lore Warden? This class gains an additional two skill points a level.
With archetypes they can rewrite any class. I just do not see anything they could change to justify a new addition. I could see PFS turning to a Magic the Gather system were only certain books are legal for organized play and older stuff would slowly fall out of that.
You would have to drastically change the system before a new edition. Like removing iterative attacks and giving everyone power-cards and making multitasking really hard. Remove BAB differences, and have AC scale with level along with skills. They could also tier the game out to 30 and give everyone access to ritual spells with the right feats, but I think someone else already tried this...
|
Having seen what 4e and D&D Next looks like, Paizo has a lot of design options and directions they could go. Plus as they won't need to start work on the system for a couple years at least they can watch the reaction to 5e and work off its problem areas while feeding off the innovations that work.
I think you could do interesting things with the game if you kept the classes looking like they currently are but pulled out all the math and numbers and recalculated that from scratch. So the game played smoother.
The core of the gameplay doesn't need to change, but smoothing out some of the funkiness of the math would help.
As D&D next is going the simple retro route, PF2 could afford to keep its baseline complexity. The heavier customization and greater options.
Given how a new edition will not only affect their fans but the multiple 3PP, I can see Paizo giving everyone lots of warning.
WotC has the 'churn out a new addition every three years' paradigm, thing going for them. I would think that Pathfinder might want to avoid that. People are going to get sick of having to replace all their books.
Of course as technology advances, we might buy a D&D or Pathfinder tablet, that we could update with the latest errata, and such. Errata for free. The 'and such' for a price.
I could actually go for such a system. Especially if it would wi-fi with the DM's tablet so that they could send maps and pictures of monsters to the player's tablets. Also with the automatic record keeping, and the ability to do a character sketch on the tablet would be awesome.
Kind of video game-like but with full player/GM interaction that only table-top gaming can provide.
Yeah! That's what I want!
WotC has the 'churn out a new addition every three years' paradigm, thing going for them. I would think that Pathfinder might want to avoid that. People are going to get sick of having to replace all their books.
Of course as technology advances, we might buy a D&D or Pathfinder tablet, that we could update with the latest errata, and such. Errata for free. The 'and such' for a price.
I could actually go for such a system. Especially if it would wi-fi with the DM's tablet so that they could send maps and pictures of monsters to the player's tablets. Also with the automatic record keeping, and the ability to do a character sketch on the tablet would be awesome.
Kind of video game-like but with full player/GM interaction that only table-top gaming can provide.
Yeah! That's what I want!
Throw in voice and video chat and you could play anywhere!
Or the Wii-U could do something like that...
Paizo will do no such thing. The last thing they ever would want to do would be move away from the 3x rule fans and let someone else slip into the OGL space and scoop up customers.
If we were going to see any different edition type things it'd maybe be a slimmed down version of the game, some kind of Beginners Box delux or a new game world in ten years.
But as long as people like 3x PF won't change and they should not.
If they timed it with D&D Next, they would run the risk of switching places with Hasbro. Right now Hasbro and Paizo are dueling to be recognized as the "natural successor to D&D."
This right here is meaningless marketing gibberish.
If anything, I would expect nothing more different than the shift from AD&D 1st Ed. to 2nd Ed., or from 3rd Edition to 3.5e. Maybe some tweaks to the existing system, but nothing drastic.
If I were to do it, I'd re-design it from the ground up. Ditch the retarded back-compatibility; it only drags the errors of the past along for the ride. Anything that was done right can be maintained, but it needs to be redesigned and re-evaluated rather than just retrofitted. One of the most important things would be parity and system consistency with mechanically significant terms being denoted in an obvious manner to avoid confusion and universal writing guidelines to avoid discrepancies and inconsistencies.Why are you copy-pasting WotC's design notes for developing 4E? :)
I think it can be very useful to rebuild it from the ground up. The issue with 4E wasn't so much that it wasn't rules-wise back compatible, it was that it wasn't flavor-wise back compatible. 4E changed a lot of the GOALS of the design, aimed for a completely different market, changed loads in the flavor of the classes and the world, and made it play a whole lot different.
3.0 was a complete rebuild from previous editions, but kept the flavor and played a lot like it. Then 3.5 and PF smoothed some rough edges, so most of the issues now are issues that are quite deep in the system (M/C Disp. being one of them).
I do think it's a good idea to pick apart the system, make a list of what works and what doesn't, and scrap the things that doesn't. However, the design goal should be to make a better way to tell the same stories that are told in 3e (and older), not to make a way to tell different kinds of stories.
Some important things I think needs to stay as design goals that I feel 4e dropped (I'm not saying these are objectively good things and that 4e sucks, just that I think these where important to why 4e didn't succeed as well as it could and why PF became so large, and of course just my opinion):
- Rules-supported roleplay. I feel 4e kind of divided roleplay into "completely rules limited" and "without rules support at all". Either something was a codified statblock or you had to wing it completely.
- Easy to modify. Looking at the large amount of house rules threads this is a main draw of 3.X/PF; if you don't like something, it's quite easy to change. And a LOT of things can be changed while using the rest, if one is careful.
- Classes that play _differently_. Casters and martial character needs to feel fundamentally different in their mechanics. Removing the C/M Disp while keeping this is going to be a large challenge.
- Loads of options that aren't class abilities. Combat maneuvers, skills etc.
- OGL. But that's obvious.
But a lot of things need to be reevaluated and maybe changed. I'd like to see a skill system that is actually useful even at higher levels. That does require a major rewrite, both in how ranks etc stack up (if ranks are kept more or less as-is) and in what skills can do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're not considering that option.I am unaware of their public stance on 2.0, but I would expect them to deny it all the way until they formally announce it. They would risk suppressing their current sales if publicly acknowledge a revision before its time. Of course, that isn't evidence that they are doing a revision, either. But simply that i would take denials with healthy skepticism.
[Emphasis mine] A healthy dose of skepticism is a great way to approach any human agency or endeavour. I'm a naturally skeptical person.
However, given the, I don't know, BAZILLION threads, posts, blogs and sundry announcements by Paizo staff/CEO on an amazing array of minutiae from design decisions to overall business strategy over the past 10 years and into the future, I, as a huge skeptic, actually feel very secure in the knowledge that Paizo aren't looking to change up Pathfinder radically or very soon. My fondest desire is for the ruleset to maintain its base mechanic approach eternally. That's right, I said it. Here's two related reasons why:1: As a grognard who survived the atrocities of Two Design World Wars (ADnD/1e to 2nd Edition, and 3.5 to 4e) I have seen the "world's oldest RPG" change a lot - and believe me, sometimes they weren't still the same game - either in approach or flavour. Given that I invested time, money and effort in various "editions" I was more than a little miffed when all of a sudden there was much more work to do just to maintain the status quo... I get that there are business reasons why "new editions" are considered, but similarly, there would seem to be just as valid business reasons to not consider a new edition...
2: Pathfinder's biggest attraction for me was "backwards compatibility" - now I wasn't a huge player/GM of 3.5, but I had built a smallish library of WotC and 3PP material, that was now easily tweakable to work with PF. If PF2 isn't backwards compatible with PF1 ie if PF isn't still compatible with PF, they have lost me and those who agree with me.
As long as the base is the same, wholesale minor tweaks would be welcomed by me - heck even just a reorganisation of the CRB would be welcome - on that note there have been threads on just what "edition" means - often in publishing a "new edition" means clarifications errata and re-organisation - not broad sweeps of the "let's change the baaic paradigm" brush.
Is there a hypothetically possible perfect iteration of PF? Perhaps. Would it still appeal to everybody? Maybe. Is there any reason not to strive for that perfection? Not really.
My base criteria for sticking with PF is then threefold - it's a system I understand, appreciate and respect and has a feel that approaches grognardia AND new wave RPG in equal amounts and on equal terms; I have an investment in terms of time, money (I now as of yesterday have ALL the hardback books sans Ultimate Equipment and NPC Codex) and effort that is repaid by multiple resources, both provided by Paizo and a host of 3PPs and other services (PFSRD!); and lastly, the value of Paizo's transparency cannot be measured by me, nor the respect garnered by the openness of the various developers, designers, technical officers, customer service representatives etc...
Would I be happy if Paizo announced a major revision of Pathfinder? My word I would not. I don't think the return on fun would be sufficient. I can play the game as is, warts and all forever. If they want to do it, let them. I have a feeling they won't.
A new printing of the CRB with better organisation and all FAQs answered and dealt with? Sure. Call that Pathfinder, second Edition. I still may not buy it - the PFSRD has all I need....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I would prefer a redesign of the core rule book to be more accesible to new player as the Beguiner Box is. Maybe threw in a few fix that have been discussed but not implied because they won't fit in the actual CRB formating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a book of FAQ's would be welcome and would probably solve a shed load of problems and arguments
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to do it, I'd re-design it from the ground up.
If I were to do it it would be more like AD&D v3.8
1. Revamp a lot of text that was imported from 3.5 verbatim to account for new classes and abilities.
2. Address minor balance concerns with the rogue and baseline monk.
3. Adjust classes and archetypes released in the APG and beyond using lessons learned during the past several years.
4. Standardize terminology and provide precise definitions for many terms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that a major revision would hurt their sales. Which, I presume, is why they had such a light touch when they produced PF. And so I can easily imagine a similar "light touch" PF 2.0. For example, I have seen some complaint about the rogue not being enough of a "skill monkey" as a result of the PF revisions. I wonder if that might be something they'd consider tweaking?
Considering that a major revision of the rules would hurt their primary streams of sales (read: APs and campaign setting books), I'm inclined to cast the scepticism aside.
You misunderstand. It wouldnt hurt their sales because people would slow down or stop purchases in anticipation of a new edition. It will hurt their sales because their primary product depends on a stable ruleset to be useful and popular.
The reason pathfinder exists is not because paizo wanted to sell lots of rulebooks. That is mostly a happy side effect of their task. It exists because they wanted an active in print ruleset for their adventures. If they could have stuck with 3.5 the probably would have but they couldnt gauranteed the rules would stay in print, and they certainly couldnt gaurantee the community would stay active and the game alive. It was possible, but a poor bet. PFRPG exists to support their golarian and adventure products, not the other way around. It has become more popular then they would have imagined, but it's purpose remains the same.
Lisa, James, Vic and just about everyone else, has said to us, this isnt even on their radar. Paizo is really good about being transparent with things. I for one believe them and am glad for it.
Actually I would prefer a redesign of the core rule book to be more accesible to new player as the Beguiner Box is. Maybe threw in a few fix that have been discussed but not implied because they won't fit in the actual CRB formating.
So would that be a "stealth version 2"? It seems like a great deal of this discussion is an argument about what a "new edition" really means. They have already issued revised versions of the hard back books, I believe. (with fixes). How much "fixing" results in a "new edition" is really just a marketing decision.
I guess my original question was: what would you fix if you could? How far would you think it wise to go in your revisions?
- The advantage/disadvantage system from Next is nice ... and a similar system could be used to introduce a variant rule for player described stunts ala Exalted, the lack of use of on the fly cinematic description is an oft heard complained especially about 3e and PF.
- It...
I would love to see this system replace instances in the existing rules where the outcome currently depends on percentages or other non d20 calculations. For example, perhaps disadvantage could replace the percentage miss chance for concealment.
Actually I would prefer a redesign of the core rule book to be more accesible to new player as the Beguiner Box is. Maybe threw in a few fix that have been discussed but not implied because they won't fit in the actual CRB formating.So would that be a "stealth version 2"? It seems like a great deal of this discussion is an argument about what a "new edition" really means. They have already issued revised versions of the hard back books, I believe. (with fixes). How much "fixing" results in a "new edition" is really just a marketing decision.
I guess my original question was: what would you fix if you could? How far would you think it wise to go in your revisions?
You call it a stealth version. The way I see it, a major reformating that will get the book easier to use and to understand will also allow for revision of the stealth rules, craft rules, monk, etc... that won't be part of an official errata or revision of the crb because it would take much more space than what's allowed in the current formating. I don't think Pathfinder need a rules overhaul, like every major edition of D&D (Ad&D 2nd, 3e, 4e, Next, etc.) But it can definitaly use an improvement.
What i'd expect...
That PF goes over old scheme, like armor class (would be nice a balanced DR based system), new and balanced rules for firearms, and customizable classes. Every level you can spend to buy class features, skill points, HP, etc.
Rework magic system, to avoid some unbalanced issue (too high DC), and maybe make not a ST system but an enchanter level based system (casters roll instead of target).
Make some classe more viable, like rogue, not basing it on a strong but not always usable features, but on trick, agility and so on.
|
|
A minor update of the rules set would likely get a lot of the same backlash as the 3.5 release (what's the point, money grab, etc)
Depends on the presentation and how they sell it.
I can imagine them re-releasing the Core book as two smaller books and incorporating the layout changes of the later books and more errata and updates. Rule updates, revisions, cleaned-up text, etc.
But as they have all the content online, they could sell it as "these are books for people who don't have the books, or want replacement copies. If you already have the book you don't need to buy it again."
They could even give a PDF of the revised versions away free to anyone who bought the Core books from the Paizo site.
That helps alleviate the "cash grab" feeling.
As I have old copies of the books, I wouldn't mind some revised versions.
Pathfinder 2.0- like 1.0 but you can use any published Paizo or 3rd party content for your game, or not, it's really up to you... wait a min-
Canonize the Inner Sea World Guide and gather all the (forgive my barbaric tongue) gods stuff into a hardback rulebook so that if we need daemons or divas, devils, angels or divs, we have them in one document.
Thanks in advance!
Personally? I hope they just streamline things, re-work multiclassing, and basically just say 'Hey, we got it pretty much right the first time. This is just kicking the bugs out, giving you more of the same, only better.'
Above all, you should be able to play in a Pathfinder 2 game using pretty much the same books as Pathfinder currently, just with a new core rulebook. Because I'm glad to toss down another $1XX to support the company, but let's not get 4e about it- wink, wink.