|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before this devolves into 345th flame war on the topic - use the 'Search' box on the left to search this topic. The 'what Paizo is supposed to do once 5e comes' topic was done to death. The '2ed of Pathfinder' topic was done, too. Current stance is "business as usual" for topic one and "not in plans" for topic two.
Also, the entire PF ruleset is open content and available online, so if people love free stuff, then they have an entire game with dozens of splatbooks for free.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah...the quarterly Pathfinder 2E thread!
all the rules are free on the PFSRD...More than ever will be available int the DnD Basic free PDF. So I don't think they really need to do anything right now.
I saw that there's a book of optional rules coming out spring, 2015. I wouldn't count it as Pathfinder 2E but I bet it addresses some of the issues people have had with the rules as is. I just wonder if PFS will use them or not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to guess I'd say we're 3-4 years out from PFRPG 2.0 (and a year less before it is announced). Mind you, I have no direct knowledge whatsoever so take it as some guys on the internet's random guess. However, I've been pretty good at guessing so far.
Reasons:
1) Pathfinder Unchained. This to me looks like a test bed for the next edition. The Book of 9 Swords for D&D 4e and Exalted Player's Guide for Exalted 2e. Paizo has said before that it takes them about 2 years from when a book is released to when feedback from a system/subsystem can be incorporated into a book. So 1 year until it is released + 2 years before it can be incorporated = 3 years minimum. But a new edition means alot more stuff needs tested and incorporated so 4 is more realistic.
2) D&D 5e. Paizo is going to put off announcing PFRPG 2.0 as long as possible for one very good reason: announcing the new edition kills off sales of the current edition. D&D 5e is proof of that. Sure, D&D 4e was outsold by PFRPG before they announced 5e, but they could have hung on with satisfactory sales (including board games) for a few more years if they really wanted to. But they announced 5e and a great playtest. Then they announced it would take 2 years to playtest it properly. D&D sales eversince have gone downhill from there. The most recent ICv2 ranking didn't even have D&D on it. An announcement of a new edition max 1 year before launch is optimal.
3) .... I had a 3....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*ack* *thphth*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to guess I'd say we're 3-4 years out from PFRPG 2.0 (and a year less before it is announced). Mind you, I have no direct knowledge whatsoever so take it as some guys on the internet's random guess. However, I've been pretty good at guessing so far.
Reasons:
1) Pathfinder Unchained. This to me looks like a test bed for the next edition. The Book of 9 Swords for D&D 4e and Exalted Player's Guide for Exalted 2e. Paizo has said before that it takes them about 2 years from when a book is released to when feedback from a system/subsystem can be incorporated into a book. So 1 year until it is released + 2 years before it can be incorporated = 3 years minimum. But a new edition means alot more stuff needs tested and incorporated so 4 is more realistic.2) D&D 5e. Paizo is going to put off announcing PFRPG 2.0 as long as possible for one very good reason: announcing the new edition kills off sales of the current edition. D&D 5e is proof of that. Sure, D&D 4e was outsold by PFRPG before they announced 5e, but they could have hung on with satisfactory sales (including board games) for a few more years if they really wanted to. But they announced 5e and a great playtest. Then they announced it would take 2 years to playtest it properly. D&D sales eversince have gone downhill from there. The most recent ICv2 ranking didn't even have D&D on it. An announcement of a new edition max 1 year before launch is optimal.
3) .... I had a 3....
Perry? is that you? ... oops ....
I really like(d) 9 swords, but I never enjoyed 4e, too generic-with-different-names for my taste. I did not know they were in any way related.
I don't think there is a PF 2.0, there is no need for it, PF material sales are still going up (last I heard). In large part I would suspect because of PFS events and not overdoing the splat in the shape of major powercreep that invalidates earlier material the way 3.5e did.
Sure, D&D 4e was outsold by PFRPG before they announced 5e,I agree with most of your reasoning, and I think that your timeframe is probably about right...but the bit here that I've quoted is utter nonsense. DDi subscriptions alone were making WotC Paizo's entire annual turnover every 2.5 months, before you factor in a single book sale.
Are you sure it wasn't 2.6 months?
If I had to guess I'd say we're 3-4 years out from PFRPG 2.0 (and a year less before it is announced). Mind you, I have no direct knowledge whatsoever so take it as some guys on the internet's random guess. However, I've been pretty good at guessing so far.
Reasons:
1) Pathfinder Unchained. This to me looks like a test bed for the next edition. The Book of 9 Swords for D&D 4e and Exalted Player's Guide for Exalted 2e. Paizo has said before that it takes them about 2 years from when a book is released to when feedback from a system/subsystem can be incorporated into a book. So 1 year until it is released + 2 years before it can be incorporated = 3 years minimum. But a new edition means alot more stuff needs tested and incorporated so 4 is more realistic.2) D&D 5e. Paizo is going to put off announcing PFRPG 2.0 as long as possible for one very good reason: announcing the new edition kills off sales of the current edition. D&D 5e is proof of that. Sure, D&D 4e was outsold by PFRPG before they announced 5e, but they could have hung on with satisfactory sales (including board games) for a few more years if they really wanted to. But they announced 5e and a great playtest. Then they announced it would take 2 years to playtest it properly. D&D sales eversince have gone downhill from there. The most recent ICv2 ranking didn't even have D&D on it. An announcement of a new edition max 1 year before launch is optimal.
I agree somewhat, although number 2 may be less a problem for "Pathfinder 2E" than it is for 5E. I am skeptical they will throw out backwards compatibility to the present Pathfinder, and I kind of suspect any new edition would be closer to 3.0-3.5 than 3.5-4 or 4-5.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played nearly enough pathfinder yet to warrant another edition.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also worth noting that it's really early to call whether or not 5e is a success. There's a bit of a road to haul there.
If Paizo's smart (which I'm inclined to think they are) they'll keep doing what they're doing. They already doing one strong release right on top of the 5e premeire (ACG) and announcing Unchained when they did was pretty much marketing genius.
The D&D brand generates lots of revenue from novels, video games, etc. so whether or not 5e is a success probably won't impact Paizo much overall unless 5e really manages to completely pull players away. Given that they're already hedging their bets with mechanics neutral adventures, I don't think it's a big deal, and announcing a new edition is probably the worst thing Paizo could do at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people are just biting the troll bait today :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people are just biting the troll bait today :)
I have ignored all the other similar threads... I'm tired of feeling left out. And edition-talk isn't exactly voldemort, we can say it, and we can talk about if we want to... :P
Also worth noting that it's really early to call whether or not 5e is a success. There's a bit of a road to haul there.
If Paizo's smart (which I'm inclined to think they are) they'll keep doing what they're doing. They already doing one strong release right on top of the 5e premeire (ACG) and announcing Unchained when they did was pretty much marketing genius.
The D&D brand generates lots of revenue from novels, video games, etc. so whether or not 5e is a success probably won't impact Paizo much overall unless 5e really manages to completely pull players away. Given that they're already hedging their bets with mechanics neutral adventures, I don't think it's a big deal, and announcing a new edition is probably the worst thing Paizo could do at this point.
Paizo has the risk of having the casual players leave PF for 5E though. How many of Pathfinders players were using it because it is better than 4E and/or keeping the seat warm to get that D&D feeling?
Gamers are fickle basically (look at game consoles).
I would not mind a simplified and less complex 3.z type system. 5E has some nice bits in it, generally the art is quite good and the covers look better than Paizo hard covers IMHO. I actually want to play it but I will not be investing to heavily into it at this point.
Then again the last PF product I bought was Ultimate Campaigns on PDF. I was an early adopter of 3.0 and after 14 years I do not want to run 3.x games any more, do not want to play a high level game full stop and are currently playing the Reign of Winter AP.
There are a few things I do not like in 5E either but it is a hell of a lot easier to run than Pathfinder and as a more or less perma DM that is appealing as I have been using Castles and Crusades for the same reason and it feels like D&D as well.
If they did a PF 2.0 I would want them to keep 3.x terms BAB, fort/ref/will, DCs etc but would expect a rewritten class/feat/spell and probably skill section with overhauled math. 5E may have gone a bit far in some ways for me to really embrace it but its not an awful version of D&D.
|
Sure, D&D 4e was outsold by PFRPG before they announced 5e,I agree with most of your reasoning, and I think that your timeframe is probably about right...but the bit here that I've quoted is utter nonsense. DDi subscriptions alone were making WotC Paizo's entire annual turnover every 2.5 months, before you factor in a single book sale.
glass.
*head shake*
The Paizo of 5 years ago is different than the Paizo of today.
|
I think that Paizo is not done with the current set of rules yet.
That being said, even with the improvements over the brand's version of the rules, the OGL ruleset (3.0/3.5 in particular) is getting very long in the tooth. While it is true that (the edition that shall not be named) was put out way to soon (The 3.5 brand had at least two more years of play if not more), I believe that an update will be necessary to modernize the rules. In particular, the Magic system needs to be standardized and Vancian Casting needs to be either eliminated or changed to work with Known spells (like Spontaneous Casting) instead of "fire and forgetful."
This will take it away from the OGL, something that Paizo needs to look at and institute a license contract of their own for third party support of the "PF 2nd Edition."
To be sure, the main brand coming out with "next" is a concern, but I doubt that Wizards will be the only company coming out with competing products to the fantasy role playing game.
I think Pathfinder needs a new edition because it cleaved too closely to 3.5, not just in rules, but in language, presentation, and organization. The current version of Pathfinder was essentially written for players of D&D 3.5. Pathfinder needs to become their own thing.
It has nothing to do with 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In particular, the Magic system needs to be standardized and Vancian Casting needs to be either eliminated or changed to work with Known spells (like Spontaneous Casting) instead of "fire and forgetful."
I know you include this comment in all the Pathfinder 2E related threads, but I have trouble seeing how getting rid of vancian casting is a "necessity" rather than a personal preference on your part. Seems unlikely given that many Paizo folks like Vancian, and dislike spell point related systems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, D&D getting rid of Vancian spellcasting resulted in the edition thaX obviously didn't like ("the edition that shall not be named").
Anyway, thaX, there are those of us that are perfectly happy with Vancian spellcasting and don't think it needs "modernizing", so please do not presume to speak for everybody.
Also, I would be very surprised if a new Pathfinder edition would not be released under the OGL. The OGL has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game. They could create a completely new game that has no similarity to D&D or Pathfinder, and still be licensed under the OGL. In fact, several such games exist.
Personally I am all for getting a new magic system, a new feat system, a new skill system, etc.
I'd be even happier if they didn't make a new edition and just created a whole different game, that way support can continue for both pathfinder and the new game.
You can say what you want about the supposed "edition that shall not be named" at least no one who picked rogue or fighter felt weak, and wizards weren't the reigning kings they are in pathfinder, with a spell for every problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can say what you want about the supposed "edition that shall not be named" at least no one who picked rogue or fighter felt weak, and wizards weren't the reigning kings they are in pathfinder, with a spell for every problem.
Actually all of that was still true. The only difference was that with the right feat selection the fighter or rogue could cast spells.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Pathfinder needs a new edition because it cleaved too closely to 3.5, not just in rules, but in language, presentation, and organization. The current version of Pathfinder was essentially written for players of D&D 3.5. Pathfinder needs to become their own thing.
It has nothing to do with 5E.
It's already its own thing, since APG. And there's nothing wrong with keeping a game for 3.5 players alive, forever.
|
|
I know you include this comment in all the Pathfinder 2E related threads, but I have trouble seeing how getting rid of vancian casting is a "necessity" rather than a personal preference on your part. Seems unlikely given that many Paizo folks like Vancian, and dislike spell point related systems.In particular, the Magic system needs to be standardized and Vancian Casting needs to be either eliminated or changed to work with Known spells (like Spontaneous Casting) instead of "fire and forgetful."
Perhaps "Updated" is a better term? The mechanics as they are now, along with the choices available, makes the poor Wizard obsolete. In PFS, Wizards are outnumbered by Sorcerers 10 to 1.
The wizard preparing and knowing what they need makes for a good narrative, but it doesn't translate well into a gaming environment.
In particular, the changes in the next iteration of the brand's ruleset does change particulars about the magic system. It will be interesting to see how it is received, though I have a feeling that this new set of rules will be better received than the last offering.
Vancian Casting isn't something that should be clung into as "the heart of fantasy role play." It isn't featured in any form in other rulesets, even those they emulate the Brand's own niche. It should have went to the new "spontaneous casting" mechanic system wide instead of having two classes that are the same with different mechanics in 3.0. It, instead, hampered the superior mechanic with later levels of higher spells and fewer known spells instead.
The rules in general, for 3.5, needs updated. Vancian casting is just the most glaring fossil in the bunch. That is why I mention it when this subject comes up.
5E is WotC's last attempt at D&D. If they can't dethrone Paizo and get the numbers they want, then they will stop development and just release reprints of older editions.
Its not vancian casting as such that is broken but the ppower level on some of those spells or spell combos and related things such as magic item crafting and spell DCs that break it. A few of those problems do not exist in older editions of D&D at least not until the highest levels.
Its not hard to start PF with 2-3 spells at level 1 along with 4 0 level spells and scribing scrolls is cheap. Some sort of non vancian caster could be an option added to the game and tweaking the classical wizard could be an option either buffing cantrips or adding feats that let you know more spells or add better at will attacks at level 1 or something like that.
I have trouble getting people to play wizards and its not because thjey suck or vancian casting but they just prefer not to play them as they kind of know they are broken once you get past level 3 or so.
To fix them you could omit them (4E) or tweak them and rewrite the spells (5E) or still let them have things like scaling book spells while overhauling saves and the broken spells along with maybe trimming the spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To fix them you could omit them (4E) or tweak them and rewrite the spells (5E) or still let them have things like scaling book spells while overhauling saves and the broken spells along with maybe trimming the spell list.
Or you call DSP Psionics rune magic.
You have fighters be an Aegis, Soulknife, or Marksman
You have rogues play cryptics or an archetype of the cryptic.
Bam! a more balanced game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are issues with magic, but it less about the spellcasting system than it is the overall power of spells. I would actually prefer if more specialization was present in the spell access of wizards, which I think would help deal with some of the power level. And if there were more meaningful limits on the powers of high level spells
|
Design Manager
|
I think there are issues with magic, but it less about the spellcasting system than it is the overall power of spells. I would actually prefer if more specialization was present in the spell access of wizards, which I think would help deal with some of the power level. And if there were more meaningful limits on the powers of high level spells
I think a big thing that was going in the right direction in 3.5 was the specialist casters, like Warmages, Beguilers, etc. If Wizards had to pick a specialty and were then bound by it (Illusionists being stuck with illusion spells, for example), everything would be reined by a huge degree. One of the problem with wizards is that every single wizard has the potential of being a master of pretty much everything. Even if you play a specialist, dipping into your opposed schools just sets you back at the same baseline you were at before deciding to be a specialist! There's no actual downside to specializing. Restricting spells and making every wizard choose a specialization would remove much of the "god wizard" potential. Then just carve out the problem spells (wish, simulacrum, create demiplane, etc.) and you're pretty much good to go.
On a side note, I've always found it a little jarring that a wizard could go his entire career without ever casting, for example, an evocation spell, and then turn around and cast meteor swarm as soon as he gets a 9th level spell slot. Fighters have to take a chain of like 4-5 feats and be over halfway through their career to deal 4 extra damage with one specific weapon, but a wizard who has never even dabbled in evocation can cast the most powerful evocation spell available without a hitch. It just seems off.
Alternatively, Marcus' suggestion of just using the rune magic alternative fluff in Ultimate Psionics and making that your basic power system would go a really long way as well, as they've already done a lot of that balancing.
*sigh* I'm too late. I wonder who that is.. :(
I think there are issues with magic, but it less about the spellcasting system than it is the overall power of spells. I would actually prefer if more specialization was present in the spell access of wizards, which I think would help deal with some of the power level. And if there were more meaningful limits on the powers of high level spells
I think a big thing that was going in the right direction in 3.5 was the specialist casters, like Warmages, Beguilers, etc. If Wizards had to pick a specialty and were then bound by it (Illusionists being stuck with illusion spells, for example), everything would be reined by a huge degree. One of the problem with wizards is that every single wizard has the potential of being a master of pretty much everything. Even if you play a specialist, dipping into your opposed schools just sets you back at the same baseline you were at before deciding to be a specialist! There's no actual downside to specializing. Restricting spells and making every wizard choose a specialization would remove much of the "god wizard" potential. Then just carve out the problem spells (wish, simulacrum, create demiplane, etc.) and you're pretty much good to go.
On a side note, I've always found it a little jarring that a wizard could go his entire career without ever casting, for example, an evocation spell, and then turn around and cast meteor swarm as soon as he gets a 9th level spell slot. Fighters have to take a chain of like 4-5 feats and be over halfway through their career to deal 4 extra damage with one specific weapon, but a wizard who has never even dabbled in evocation can cast the most powerful evocation spell available without a hitch. It just seems off.
Alternatively, Marcus' suggestion of just using the rune magic alternative fluff in Ultimate Psionics and making that your basic power system would go a really long way as well, as they've already done a lot of that balancing.
THis is something I liked as well. In 2nd ed we played a game where you all had to be specialist wizards and birthright I think had a wizard class where you got major access to divination spells and only level 1-3 spells for every other school.
Cleric spheres also reigned in the abuse.
PF has other problems as well like complexity and martials dealiing bucket of damage. 5E has more or less halved the CD of a lot of critters and/or doubled their power so Ogres a have 7HD and are CR2, Kobolds are CR 1/8th, a Hobgoblin is CR 1/2 etc.
3rd edition was great in 2000 when they ditched ass backwards mechanics and threw out silly restrictions like class and level limits. They also threw out some good restrictions as well and created new problems. Some of the clones with modern mechanics Are a lot of fun to play so unless you are wedded to the idea of character builds over everything else 3rd eds just not that good anymore.
THat being said I would like a fixed 3.x system not a totally new game like 4E and 5E has some things in it I do not like but parts of it are brilliant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What killed 4th ed wasn't their game. It was their business strategies. If that doesn't change with 5e, then the pressure for PF2 will not increase because of 5e.
Just one small example is Paizo's PRD and the fan made SRD. Both are instrumental in getting people to play the game. Which is the first step in getting them to buy material.
What killed 4th ed wasn't their game. It was their business strategies. If that doesn't change with 5e, then the pressure for PF2 will not increase because of 5e.Not for me. When I first saw 4E it was so far from anything I was interesting in playing that I didn't pay any attention to their business strategy.
Yeah but the length you had to go to see their game was probably a factor.
Being bored of browsing the web one day so you decide to Google up their rules could have put the whole experience into a better light.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that D&D 5e came out with their free PDF rulebook and is a success, what is Paizo going to do about it? Are they gonna make a free PDF to headbutt WotC? I think it would be a great idea and it would definitely be easy to get more people into Pathfinder. People love free stuff.
A reaction to another company's release(s) is not good business for said reactionary company. Paizo is doing fine the way they are. To be successful, Paizo should keep doing what they're doing and not be concerned with any other company.
Now that D&D 5e came out with their free PDF rulebook and is a success, what is Paizo going to do about it? Are they gonna make a free PDF to headbutt WotC? I think it would be a great idea and it would definitely be easy to get more people into Pathfinder. People love free stuff.A reaction to another company's release(s) is not good business for said reactionary company. Paizo is doing fine the way they are. To be successful, Paizo should keep doing what they're doing and not be concerned with any other company.
5e isn't even out yet. I don't understand how it can be considered a success.