POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder? (From Erik Mona's Interview)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."

.

POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?

.


78 people marked this as a favorite.

.

YES

.


280 people marked this as a favorite.

.

NO

.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

.

========== END OF CHOICES ==========

.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nope. Not yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Truthfully, I've never seen the point of entering a new version short of; If it's broke, fix it.

Pathfinder is not broken. I've heard arguments about content bloat, but you can just section of bits and say; "We don't use that." You could even revise your choices after a bit, and make the version feel like new several times.


Yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Issac Daneil wrote:

Truthfully, I've never seen the point of entering a new version short of; If it's broke, fix it.

Pathfinder is not broken. I've heard arguments about content bloat, but you can just section of bits and say; "We don't use that." You could even revise your choices after a bit, and make the version feel like new several times.

rules gain clarity, you trim the fat, hopefully more up-to-date systems for gaging what the players want or enjoy making the new edition more focused.

like if you wanted to remove save or suck spells or rebalance the spell list for arcane casters or something, this is how you would do it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes. And I'd hope we get such a heads-up that we can make a decent discussion of where this edition should go. Of course I don't expect that to happen, but it'd be nice... I've been wanting to make some extensive posts on the things which I think should be improved in a new edition and I've been holding off on them for a few years now, since I think they would have only a chance to make some impact when the devs are working on a new edition.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No thank you.

This edition continues to present new options and ideas that interest me. I'd much rather see that continue than for the effort to be diverted to re-remaking the wheel.


I don't think there's a need for a new edition. Paizo is successful selling APs and releasing sourcebooks. The sourcebooks provide material partly to make it easier to make APs fun and interesting, as near as I can tell. Usually a new edition is prompted by loss of fan support or an unsuccessful business model. Warhammer Fantasy 1st ed. was great, but you had everything you need to play the game in one book. New editions went more with the D&D model of releasing sourcebooks regularly. Rifts is a game I like that could use a rules update/new edition, but it apparently sells well enough that Palladium doesn't upgrade the rules (there was a new version of the core book with upgrades to classes to keep in line with sourcebooks, but the mechanics are the same).

I enjoy PF and buy PF products, and I'm hoping Pathfinder Unchained will provide options for new mechanics that I like.

That said, gamers hate change in an RPG unless the changes are part of a new edition. Hopefully PF Unchained is a big success, it could pave the way for other RPGs to update rules without a new edition (and buying all new books).


kaboom! wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."

.

POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?

.

Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

HELL NO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i do not want a new edition.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."

.

POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?

.

Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.

You ignore the possibility that the game is exactly what I want it to be right now.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."

.

POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?

.

Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.

Well....one thing is that I just don't want to see a radical new edition that necessitates Paizo having to republish a lot of the current books. I don't want to have to rebuy the equivalent of the APG, UC, UM, etc. I don't want to have to sit through republishing 4 new bestiaries before we get a mostly new one. Etc ad nauseum. And that is as much a "this sounds really boring" as it is money reason

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope. It risks splitting the player base *IF* PF2.0 diverges too much from its current incarnation - a part of the problem with the move to 3.5 to 4 was that many players had invested buttloads in materials they couldn't use anymore with 4th Ed.


NO.

The game is fine the way it is. If it needs to be tweaked Pathfinder Unchained can get the most annoying parts fixed (hopefully) and we could use that.

Rules bloat happens in every incarnation of the game system.

Just use what you want and restrict the rest.

The game system can continue to evolve with their current model, unless they get too greedy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.

Unless you have a crystal ball, I'm not sure that you can definitively say that. It might be something completely and totally the opposite of what you want.

My vote is No, by the by.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No.

That which is broken can be "fix" or at least muzzled. If it becomes to overbearing just limit book selection.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For what its worth, I voted no. My vote will vary based on what is meant by "edition"

I don't want to see a huge overhaul of the system that renders all of my existing books useless. If a new edition was mostly:

cleaning up formatting and presentation of the rules (which is something that is really needed),
tweaking a few of the weaker classes/feats
nerfing a few of the more ridiculous classes/spells,
just incorporating errata

I would be okay with it. Basically....I want a revision of the rules where most of the classes/monsters/adventures still work without any real changes


No. Absolutely not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why not.

But then we'd have PF 1 v. PF 2 edition wars...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

For what its worth, I voted no. My vote will vary based on what is meant by "edition"

I don't want to see a huge overhaul of the system that renders all of my existing books useless. If a new edition was mostly:

cleaning up formatting and presentation of the rules (which is something that is really needed),
tweaking a few of the weaker classes/feats
nerfing a few of the more ridiculous classes/spells,
just incorporating errata

I would be okay with it. Basically....I want a revision of the rules where most of the classes/monsters/adventures still work without any real changes

man! if only they would come out with a book like that, why they could call it Pathfinder to the Max, or maybe Pathfinder Unchained?, nah!

;)


magnuskn wrote:
Yes. And I'd hope we get such a heads-up that we can make a decent discussion of where this edition should go. Of course I don't expect that to happen, but it'd be nice... I've been wanting to make some extensive posts on the things which I think should be improved in a new edition and I've been holding off on them for a few years now, since I think they would have only a chance to make some impact when the devs are working on a new edition.

Ya know, it's probably better to say them sooner rather than after any hypothetical announcement of a second edition. If you want significant changes, odds are some decisions on the direction of the game will be made before the playtest is released.


Not sure, but I kind of want to see what they come up with for a second edition, so...

Yes, for now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but a new (rewritten with clarifications and fixes, and maybe even re-done classes) edition of the rulebook, not a new version of the game.

So, because of what the majority tend to think because of the way it's been done with D&D over the years, that's a "no" in this particular vote.

Scarab Sages

Bandw2 wrote:
like if you wanted to remove save or suck spells or rebalance the spell list for arcane casters or something, this is how you would do it.

For every martial player made happy, you pissed off a caster.

The last thing you want is to divide the player base, like 4e did.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Yes, but a new (rewritten with clarifications and fixes, and maybe even re-done classes) edition of the rulebook, not a new version of the game.

This I could live with.

Clarify, fix, and make a few revisions. Don't change core mechanics or assumptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

man! if only they would come out with a book like that, why they could call it Pathfinder to the Max, or maybe Pathfinder Unchained?, nah!

;)

These sorts of things have never proven a long-term solution. It's been tried before, and at best you get temporary bickering about as bad as any edition war short of the 3E/4E one, followed by lots of "Well, I like it but it's 'just a sourcebook' and one of the other players hates it so we don't use it." Plus it can't actually fix underlying issues like the save divide, the Feat structure, the spell level assumptions, and so on.

And yes, I believe it's possible to fix these things without invalidating the Adventure Paths, although it's enough work that I can see Paizo being very hesitant about trying.

Pathfinder Unchained is a good breeding ground to try out new ideas for a revision. It's not a substitute for actually going in and doing that revision.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just make an unchained line of books...

Seriously, don't leave me playing another dead edition...


Matt Thomason wrote:

Yes, but a new (rewritten with clarifications and fixes, and maybe even re-done classes) edition of the rulebook, not a new version of the game.

So, because of what the majority tend to think because of the way it's been done with D&D over the years, that's a "no" in this particular vote.

Sure if they put all the revisions in one single volume of an updated core book and don't redo any other books, that would be fine. . . that's not an "edition" though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Sure if they put all the revisions in one single volume of an updated core book and don't redo any other books, that would be fine. . . that's not an "edition" though.

Uhm, yes it is. WOTC's been trying to change the idea of what constitutes a new edition by creating a new game every five years and labeling it a "new edition" but that doesn't make them right.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

Pathfinder is fun, I like it and all, but it was rushed from the start and is starting to show its age. They've tried to slap too much plaster on the cracks and now the whole thing is falling apart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

Yes, but a new (rewritten with clarifications and fixes, and maybe even re-done classes) edition of the rulebook, not a new version of the game.

So, because of what the majority tend to think because of the way it's been done with D&D over the years, that's a "no" in this particular vote.

I would love a fixed and revised edition of the Core Rule books that didn't make major changes, but made the bloat easier to manage. All the feats and traits in one place! All the possible classes together, maybe tweaked a bit. Again with spells, etc. Sort of an advanced version of the beginner's box.

I know that I'm probably not the perfect Paizo customer... I tend to like simplicity, but I played 3.5 for so long (and 2.0 before it) that Pathfinder was a natural progression for me. I stay for the APs and I LOVE all the support materials--pawns and maps and minis and cards. It's all so pretty! Must have all the shiny things!

But I really am just bogged down in too many new rules. I voted yes, but for a new encyclopedic and well organized core book with updates, not a rules overhaul.


Honestly I can only see Paizo doing a re-boot if they end up doing something like Buying the D&D name and all IP from Hasbro... which I've heard rumors is actually not outside the realm of possibility if 5.0 doesn't go as they hope...

Silver Crusade

Absolutely No


Unequivocally No


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No.

The only things in this edition which I don't like are easily said no to. Crafting and Leadership. Only a few other legal things make me raise my eyebrows like dazing spell/Sacred geometry (Did someone who hated math class write this feat).

99% of this system is the best RP system I've ever played.

0/10 Would not support new edition.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely. Along with what Rynjin said, with every new book that comes out, a lot of the core classes/feats/etc. . . just start to really show their age. The Cleric needs a Class Feature face lift so that we can start having some good archtypes for it, and the spell list has been pretty wonky since 3.0 changed it to a 9th level spell list.

The Paladin class could really use another looking at with their "less restrictive code of ethics".

I don't actually agree, but a lot of people still complain about the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.

It's really something that has been needed for some time, in my opinion, and the longer that it's postponed, the worse and worse the issues are going to be.

There are also a lot of issues in the base system that could probably use a some fixing, (like 4+Int skill points min, Good/Medium/Poor saves, CMB/CMD not being that great a system after all, Light and Darkness, Reach, etc. . .

Basically, it's long past time for the Core material to get the APG treatment, and there is a lot of fat to trim, and too many cracks to band aid over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be open to a new core book that really aggressively looked at organization, language choices, and ease of access. I would also be open to that book really challenged some of the core assumptions regarding class power curves, scaling class abilities, spell power levels, and skill mechanics.

I think unchained may do some of these things, so that will be a good first look at the future of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a re-boot is needed but a makeover would be nice. Apply all the errata/faq's to rules. Put everything together (classes, archetypes, feats, ect). Then break it up into as many parts as needed. I'd buy a big book of spells or a class/archetype book updated like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only reason I'd want a new edition is so that I can buy one giant tome that has everything from 1st edition in it. Some leatherbound collecter's item that has all the information from every book coherently organized. All the archetypes in one chapter of one book, rather than having to scan from book to book (Okay, admittedly I use d20pfsrd for this reason, but it would be nice to have it in a hardcover book). All the feats from every book in another chapter of this same book. Kind of like the "Compendium" books from 3.5, only one giant flipping compendium of everything.

Yeah, it'd be a huge book. It'd probably cost a couple to a few hundred bucks. I'd buy it.

Does that mean I want PF2.0? No. Not really. I just want 1.0 to eventually end so I can get my uber collecter's edition mega-tome.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

In the linked article, Erik is quoted as saying that they've sold more core rulebooks each year since Pathfinder was released. It's not smart business to discontinue a product that's still growing.

I say No.


No appears to be heads over shoulders on yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Does that mean I want PF2.0? No. Not really. I just want 1.0 to eventually end so I can get my uber collecter's edition mega-tome.

I think I found it.

1 to 50 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder? (From Erik Mona's Interview) All Messageboards