Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT Inevitable


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 571 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

While has gone through seven editions, Call of Cthulhu stayed largely the same through the first six (and even the seventh is still compatible enough that any prior adventures or supplements can be run as-is). Paizo has had more differences in the Core Rulebook between subsequent printings than Chaosium has had in between CoC 1st edition and CoC 6th edition. So you could easily say that that game's lifespan was from 1981-2014 (33 years).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Regarding "Magic Mart" mentality. There is a basic structure in 3.5 where some magic items (no matter their price) can be considered more rare than usual, through GM fiat. The other extreme is the backward and flawed system in 4th, where creating was done at full price, items were supposed to be bought with a mark up, and were always sold at half price (no matter if found or made).

That, my friend, was a part of the 4venter downfall. Making the PC poor on purpose for no other reason than to "balance" the items with character is a very bad design philosophy. And the fallback of the GM having "wish lists" from the players irks me something terrible.


Kthulhu wrote:
While has gone through seven editions, Call of Cthulhu stayed largely the same through the first six (and even the seventh is still compatible enough that any prior adventures or supplements can be run as-is). Paizo has had more differences in the Core Rulebook between subsequent printings than Chaosium has had in between CoC 1st edition and CoC 6th edition. So you could easily say that that game's lifespan was from 1981-2014 (33 years).

You could, but since a significant minority here have said they'd still oppose a mostly compatible PF 2E, I wanted to focus on actual editions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldnt oppose a mostly compatible PF 2.0 per se. I just wouldn't support it with my money. I'd just keep playing with the MASSIVE amount of PF resources that I already have. AP's 1 - 91, all of the RPG Hardcovers, 3rd party Support (Deep Magic, Ultimate Psionics, Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, Advanced Bestiary and that's not even including the 3.5 stuff that I have)

If the more people want a PF 2.0? Let 'em have it. I dont want it and I dont think that if youre playing a home game that there's anything that wrong with the PFRPG that cant be fixed at the table between civilized and rational human beings. People that just want to argue about rules just to argue or to be right or whatever aren't people I'm interested in playing with.

Discussing rules and why they dont make sense and putting heads together to fix the rules for that group is encouraged and is normal, productive behavior. I'd prefer to spend energy doing that and playing.

Shadow Lodge

It all comes down to money.

Say it's 2017. Paizo can release "Advanced Class Guide III" or they can release "Pathfinder Core Rules - Revised Edition".

Which hardcover do you think will sell more copies in 2017?

I already know over half the Pathfinder gamers I play with (about 20 or so regularly) aren't buying Unchained or Occult Adventures. They just don't have an interest in the material (they "don't play barbarians, rogues, monks or summoners" or "aren't a GM" or "aren't interested in the new occult classes").

I'm pretty sure that 95% of people who have played and like Pathfinder who are still actively gaming when a Revised Edition comes out would pony up $50 for that hardcover.

So, eventually Paizo will need to bend to the market. Sell 200,000 copies (or whatever is strong for them in terms of penetrating their base) of "Pathfinder Core Revised" or sell 11,000 copies (or whatever the market penetration decay rate leaves them at in another 2 years) of "Advanced Class Guide III".

I suspect it will be mostly compatible, in the same way 3.0 adventures can be run with 3.5, but will fix a lot of the obvious holes that are pains to ajudicate or are major balance inhibitors - i.e. the ones that specifically drive away potentially new gamers when they sit next to the guy with the super optimized level 2 alchemist/bloodrager who's playing a PFS scenario constantly enlarged with 20ft reach and a 30 strength wielding a large greatsword and marginalizing his contribution on essentially a Valeros pre-gen knockoff. I've seen more than my share of potential new gamers walk away from Pathfinder because of this very reason suggesting the game "didn't really seem like it was for them and it was more for powergamers than those who are into story or campaign worlds" (which is kind of the antithesis of Paizo's roots).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
I suspect it will be mostly compatible, in the same way 3.0 adventures can be run with 3.5,

Heck, I've found 3.0 adventures to be mostly* compatible with PF...

(Ashiel wouldn't, but that's because I'm less intelligent/skilled and end up running things slightly looser than I've realized.)

>.>

* I mean, you have to fake a CMD or a few other things that didn't exist back then, but few people seem to notice the enemies' skill points or specific feat selection, or the fact that they wield a "half spear" or whatever.


I think the bellwether will be the % of Core Only PFS games. It is hard to play without a GM, and if Paizo thinks that the majority of GM's are overwhelmed by the amount of information, then it may be time to consider a new (simpler) edition. I think backwards compatability will hinder that goal, unless the old system is obviously a bad choice (like if you played 5e and you could use big feats or the old 3.5 feats, but you only get 5 feats over the life of the character), which would mean a fairly big rewrite of classes, races, etc.

Of course, if 5 years from now, only 5% of PFS games are Core Only, then it is a moot point.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
wakedown wrote:
I suspect it will be mostly compatible, in the same way 3.0 adventures can be run with 3.5,
Heck, I've found 3.0 adventures to be mostly* compatible with PF...

Yeah, next time I run Shackled City, I doubt I will even update anything.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
While has gone through seven editions, Call of Cthulhu stayed largely the same through the first six (and even the seventh is still compatible enough that any prior adventures or supplements can be run as-is). Paizo has had more differences in the Core Rulebook between subsequent printings than Chaosium has had in between CoC 1st edition and CoC 6th edition. So you could easily say that that game's lifespan was from 1981-2014 (33 years).
You could, but since a significant minority here have said they'd still oppose a mostly compatible PF 2E, I wanted to focus on actual editions.

Well, I think 1E CoC is more compatible with 6E CoC than the PF Core Rulebook 1st printing is with the 6th printing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I wouldnt oppose a mostly compatible PF 2.0 per se. I just wouldn't support it with my money. I'd just keep playing with the MASSIVE amount of PF resources that I already have. AP's 1 - 91, all of the RPG Hardcovers, 3rd party Support (Deep Magic, Ultimate Psionics, Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, Advanced Bestiary and that's not even including the 3.5 stuff that I have)

If the more people want a PF 2.0? Let 'em have it. I dont want it and I dont think that if youre playing a home game that there's anything that wrong with the PFRPG that cant be fixed at the table between civilized and rational human beings. People that just want to argue about rules just to argue or to be right or whatever aren't people I'm interested in playing with.

Discussing rules and why they dont make sense and putting heads together to fix the rules for that group is encouraged and is normal, productive behavior. I'd prefer to spend energy doing that and playing.

From the point of view of a company, "I'll stop buying it" is pretty much the only "Oppose" that really matters.


Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
While has gone through seven editions, Call of Cthulhu stayed largely the same through the first six (and even the seventh is still compatible enough that any prior adventures or supplements can be run as-is). Paizo has had more differences in the Core Rulebook between subsequent printings than Chaosium has had in between CoC 1st edition and CoC 6th edition. So you could easily say that that game's lifespan was from 1981-2014 (33 years).
You could, but since a significant minority here have said they'd still oppose a mostly compatible PF 2E, I wanted to focus on actual editions.
Well, I think 1E CoC is more compatible with 6E CoC than the PF Core Rulebook 1st printing is with the 6th printing.

See above post.

Actual difference doesn't seem to matter to some. New editions trigger "I'll stop buying". Errata in new printings doesn't.

Some may even be more offended by compatible new editions, since it can be seen as a money grabbing thing.


If it's completely compatible, I probably wouldn't be against a 2e, but I might not see the reason to go out and buy it rapidly either.

On the otherhand, if it was completely different, I might drop my entire subscriptions and do a wait and see approach to see what others think of it before I buy into it.

Even with PF, though I got all the APs at the local store, I didn't instantly go and buy it until they came out with the BB. It was the BB that won me over to PF, but I think I may be a hard sell of sorts.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Morgen wrote:


Seriously I can't personally think of any reason to not eventually make a newer game. Newer ideas, plenty of lessons learned and eventually there will be a content end point. How many Bestiaries can you make before sales choke? I literally have no idea.

How about not splitting the fan base?

Paizo could have produced the Core Rules exactly as they were in 3.5. Instead they chose to split the fan base and create a new iteration of the 3.5 rule set. There's no reason to think they won't do it again, and if they're similar enough to Pathfinder then there's no reason to think the majority won't follow.

This is why the new edition should be an iterative approach. Revolutionary ideas belong at the end of the existing edition. Not at the beginning of a new one. This let's the market tell you what they like and don't like. Psychic magic is a revolutionary idea in the context of psionics. It seems to have received a lot of acceptance and so I wouldn't be surprised to see the Occultist become a core class in the next edition. On the other hand the Arcanist has received a lot of love from some fans, and it seems mixed reactions from most others. I would be surprised to see that replace core Vancian. It'll take a year or two to judge how much acceptance any given rule has received from Pathfinder Unchained.

You might think that's exactly what WotC did with Tome of Battle and those other late 3rd ed books. I would argue WotC was already making 4th ed and ported some rules back to 3.5 rather than the other way around. This means fan base acceptance or rejection of these rules were ignored. Also the most revolutionary idea of 4th ed (unified power system) was never released in 3.5

Exactly, a revised edition of Pathfinder will strengthen the brand not split the fan base.

It will be like the transition from D&D 2e- D&D 3.0e. Everyone migrated to the new edition and D&D 3.0/3.5 was incredibly successful.

Pathfinder will be no different.

Opposition to change (a revised edition) is just talk, when it happens the naysayers will be the first in line to get their revised edition of the Pathfinder rpg.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

The developers also don't see a caster-martial disparity. (To the point where they regularly nerf martial options, while introducing even more overpowered caster options.)

That doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.

After Judging several Network Campaigns for RPGA, Paradigm Press, Legends of the Shining Jewel, and now for PFS. I can say that we have to look at disparity with perspective.

Did anyone ever claim that all classes would be absolutely equal in raw power? No. There isn't a class based game that would make that claim. They came close to it in D+D 4th Edition... but at the price of making classes functionally identical save for minor touches of flavor... and the market has voted on that approach.

Having played and judged PFS all the way from 1st level to the Eyes of the Ten Retirement arc, I can safely say that all classes remained important, and meaningful, and that their contribution to each adventure was largely dependent on the player who ran them. The fact that they are largely balanced is entirely due to the way the PFS campaign is run. Variations of approach, goals, encounter design kept the game from being reduced to a single repetitive formula, thus ensuring a requirement of diversity in party makeup. When it comes to the most memorable characters in those high level scenario tiers, more often than not that character was a martial one.

So who's unbalanced now?


LazarX wrote:
Did anyone ever claim that all classes would be absolutely equal in raw power? No. There isn't a class based game that would make that claim. They came close to it in D+D 4th Edition... but at the price of making classes functionally identical save for minor touches of flavor... and the market has voted on that approach.

You can always tell someone who hasn't had much experience with 4th edition, because they'll trot out this line.

4th edition was still quite unbalanced. The only real difference was that the unbalance wasn't drawn along the martial/caster line (because there was little appreciable difference between the two). There were still lackluster classes and overpowered ones, the difference was that some of the bad classes were casters, and some of the good ones were martials.


A reboot i am happy about if Rifts..always loved the world of rifts but the system just was not for me...now Rifts is getting ported to savage worlds..oh happy day...oh happy day

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Revised is pretty much inevitable. Either Paizo ends the RPG line and only produces adventures and world books or they revise.
Eventually people with reach rules saturation and content will stop selling. (I've pretty much already hit that mark). At that point Paizo will either need to cut costs (i.e. the RPG department) or find a way to increase sales.

Backwards compatible makes the most sense in a vacuum. But Pathfinder is already backwards compatible with 3.5, and that has brought a lot of baggage with it. It would prevent any real or lasting change, such as fixing the underlying math and assumptions of the core system.

Still, it really does risk splitting the audience. Every time there is an update you lose some people. And the desires of the Pathfinder fanbase are rather split. A lot of players might be happy with something closer to 4th Edition D&D with martial powers and minions and a strong focus on game over simulation. Others might want to incorporate the advances in plot manipulation and narrative gameplay found in most new games.
When I read threads on what Pathfinder 2 should look like, I get strong feelings of déjà vu to the build up to 4e as many people have the same complaints and are thinking in the same direction. Heck, even Paizo is drifting that way a little. The playtest of the kineticist class was a formatting tweak away from being a 4e D&D class.


watchmanx wrote:
A reboot i am happy about if Rifts..always loved the world of rifts but the system just was not for me...now Rifts is getting ported to savage worlds..oh happy day...oh happy day

A friend of mine who loves both RIFTS and Shadowrun has actually basically dropped both systems and instead either uses FantasyCraft & SpyCraft combined, or uses the Technology Guide with Pathfinder.

Mind you, this is a guy who's played both systems religiously for YEARS - he just like the balance of Pathfinder better compared to RIFTS, and the relative simplicity compared to Shadowrun (DC skill checks are just a lot more user-friendly than "number of successes" due to the shear number of d6s flying about at any given time).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
New editions trigger "I'll stop buying". Errata in new printings doesn't.

Wrong. Essentials was seen as 4.5 by many despite the fact WotC issued errata to change 4th ed to resemble Essentials.

The number of people who voice their opinion on a forum are a small minority of those who actually play the game. Trying to thosewho visit a forum as a representative sample of the gaming population is a fools errand. Forum visitors are a self-selected group and often have strong opinions on a particular subject. As such you can see a lot more controversy on a subject on the forums that doesn't always translate to how the larger population actually views the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Did anyone ever claim that all classes would be absolutely equal in raw power? No. There isn't a class based game that would make that claim. They came close to it in D+D 4th Edition... but at the price of making classes functionally identical save for minor touches of flavor... and the market has voted on that approach.

You can always tell someone who hasn't had much experience with 4th edition, because they'll trot out this line.

4th edition was still quite unbalanced. The only real difference was that the unbalance wasn't drawn along the martial/caster line (because there was little appreciable difference between the two). There were still lackluster classes and overpowered ones, the difference was that some of the bad classes were casters, and some of the good ones were martials.

I would say that even with that imbalance, the weaker classes and stronger classes were closer together in usefulness to a party than is the case with other versions of D&D.


Class balance is never really a problem as long as classes do not step on each other's toes.

Wizards should not be hated because their magic is powerful. Magic is fun when it does glorious things. The real problems always come from wizards being able to use the magic in a way that invalidates the power fantasies of his fellow players.

Invisibility? Not a problem, just make sure be strict on the wizard being quiet if it tries to sneak around and be strict on the timer of the spell. But then you have Knock. Knock really has no reason to exist, Open Lock was a trained only skill for a reason!

4E was boring because it went full "no fun allowed" by caging everyone in their own pens like an apathetic babysitter. On the other hand, you need some order or the kids just pummel each other with shovels and you have to explain then to the parents why you and them are covered in bruises and crap. You know?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Envall wrote:
Invisibility? Not a problem, just make sure be strict on the wizard being quiet if it tries to sneak around and be strict on the timer of the spell. But then you have Knock. Knock really has no reason to exist, Open Lock was a trained only skill for a reason!

I've never understood this position since Pathfinder came out - knock is terrible in Pathfinder. I'd much rather have a character trained in Disable Device than spend a spell slot or wand charge on a spell which effectively amounts to a tiny bonus.

Assuming a 16 Dex character with Trapfinding, and DD a class skill, at level 3 she has +12 DD, while knock gives a +13. Sure being able to try as a standard action from a distance is nice, but the skill user can take 20 which is a big boon.

Then wand or scroll knock stays at +13, while the skill user keeps getting better. At level 10 she's probably got a +24 or so(10 ranks +3 class skill +4 Dex +2 MW tools +5 trapfinding) while the spellcaster has a +20 if using a spell slot, +13 from an item. Yeah I'll go with the skill user, thanks.


Actually, can you even take 20 on DD? I thought you couldn't take 20 or 10 on skills where failing could have an adverse effect, and failing a DD means you could jam the lock.


LoneKnave wrote:
Actually, can you even take 20 on DD? I thought you couldn't take 20 or 10 on skills where failing could have an adverse effect, and failing a DD means you could jam the lock.

Disable Device does have critical failure rules, but only for disabling traps or devices. You can't jam or break a lock anymore, so T20 is perfectly fine for lockpicking. :)

Liberty's Edge

Envall wrote:

Class balance is never really a problem as long as classes do not step on each other's toes.

Wizards should not be hated because their magic is powerful. Magic is fun when it does glorious things. The real problems always come from wizards being able to use the magic in a way that invalidates the power fantasies of his fellow players.

Not stepping on each other's niche or invalidating each other is a form of balance.

Symmetry is bad, but balance is good.

Envall wrote:
Invisibility? Not a problem, just make sure be strict on the wizard being quiet if it tries to sneak around and be strict on the timer of the spell. But then you have Knock. Knock really has no reason to exist, Open Lock was a trained only skill for a reason!

Invisibility doesn't work because it provides a needless and ungodly high bonus to Strealth. Remove that and you're fine.

Knock is handy for parties without disable device. It's a good alternative to "you're stuck at the locked door and cannot adventure any further". I liked the elegant 5e solution to this: knock makes a buttload of noise. You blast the door open and the door doesn't close well after. So DD is better for moving undetected and hiding signs of your passage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Actually, can you even take 20 on DD? I thought you couldn't take 20 or 10 on skills where failing could have an adverse effect, and failing a DD means you could jam the lock.
Disable Device does have critical failure rules, but only for disabling traps or devices. You can't jam or break a lock anymore, so T20 is perfectly fine for lockpicking. :)

There is a generic "If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong."

It just doesn't specify what that is for lockpicking. I'd always seen it as okay for T20, but I could go the other way.

OTOH, open locks is specifically used as an example for Take 20, so never mind: "Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps)."


thejeff wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Actually, can you even take 20 on DD? I thought you couldn't take 20 or 10 on skills where failing could have an adverse effect, and failing a DD means you could jam the lock.
Disable Device does have critical failure rules, but only for disabling traps or devices. You can't jam or break a lock anymore, so T20 is perfectly fine for lockpicking. :)

There is a generic "If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong."

It just doesn't specify what that is for lockpicking. I'd always seen it as okay for T20, but I could go the other way.

The "if you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong" isn't generic, it's specific to using Disable Device to disable traps and devices - if you fail a trap by more than 5 it activates, if you fail a device by more than 5 you think it's sabotaged but it's actually fine. This is why under Try Again it lists "disable traps" and "open locks" separately.

Disable Device, p. 95 wrote:
Try Again: Varies. You can retry checks made to disable traps if you miss the check by 4 or less. You can retry checks made to open locks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
I would say that even with that imbalance, the weaker classes and stronger classes were closer together in usefulness to a party than is the case with other versions of D&D.

That's much I'll concede. I can't think of anything in 4e that was as bad as the gap between 3.5's CoDzilla and the weak martial classes like the Complete Warrior Samurai.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
I would say that even with that imbalance, the weaker classes and stronger classes were closer together in usefulness to a party than is the case with other versions of D&D.
That's much I'll concede. I can't think of anything in 4e that was as bad as the gap between 3.5's CoDzilla and the weak martial classes like the Complete Warrior Samurai.

What? No love for the 3.5 Monk? He could infinitely heal people with his punches when he took the prestige class Shadow Sun Ninja. It was so strong that it made the cleric who dedicated himself to healing look unoptimized in comparison.

Also Cleric and Druid were the most unbalanced classes in D&D 3.5 as they were referred to as "easy mode class".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Witch Doctor wrote:
...they were referred to as "easy mode class".

Still are.


Witch Doctor wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
I would say that even with that imbalance, the weaker classes and stronger classes were closer together in usefulness to a party than is the case with other versions of D&D.
That's much I'll concede. I can't think of anything in 4e that was as bad as the gap between 3.5's CoDzilla and the weak martial classes like the Complete Warrior Samurai.

What? No love for the 3.5 Monk? He could infinitely heal people with his punches when he took the prestige class Shadow Sun Ninja. It was so strong that it made the cleric who dedicated himself to healing look unoptimized in comparison.

Also Cleric and Druid were the most unbalanced classes in D&D 3.5 as they were referred to as "easy mode class".

Could the Shadow Sun Nnja Monk punch people back to life, punch the disease/level drain/blindness/etc out of them (that sounds like a Sidereal, actually)? Restoring hit points is so hugely powerful an ability that it costs 750gp to get a stick that does a lot of it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ive played D&D since the later days of first edition. I recall a little dungeon ruled by an evil wizard named Zanzar that started my love of the game. I also recall many changes to the system and its rules and how in the end new systems weren't bad they often made play easier. That said I partly regret how many second edition books I have on my shelf that now function as fluff and fodder for ideas when I world build. Still I would likely buy a new pathfinder edition so long as a new edition didn't mean I'd have to turn all my old books into bookshelf filler.

That aside I think pathfinder sales are enduring to myself and many gamers I know is that it has that feel that its part of the continuing legacy of the D&D universe. When I play pathfinder I see shades of first and second edition lurking in its settings, I see races and classes that look and feel iconic to D&D. That's why I abandoned D&D proper when they went to fourth and while I will play 5th I refuse to spend money on it.

For me the continuity drained when they crazy glued and hammered things like the Dragonborn into all their worlds and settings, or split elves into Elves and Eladrain and tried to justify it in worlds where it felt wrong to do so just so that a setting would have the new race as an option. Not to mention my rage against tieflings going from a race of unique misfits and bastards to becoming ALL infernal blooded and boringly consistent in appearance (and a list as long as my arm that i wont get into why 4ed killed D&D for me)

Regardless of Edition (and I certainly don't think we need a new one) So long as pathfinder keeps up its continuity and feel of being the real legacy of years of creative design it will keep many of it's loyal fans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
4E was boring because it went full "no fun allowed" by caging everyone in their own pens like an apathetic babysitter.

Glad to hear I wasn't having fun in my 4e game last night. No, wait, not "glad". That other thing.

Just for the record (and it really should not need repeating yet again), 4e classes are not remotely close to all the same.

_
glass.

Liberty's Edge

for me and my gaming group. Either offer something new or were not interested. If others want to by yet another rehash more power to them. We have the current version of Pathfinder plus the SRD meaning we don't even have to buy a totally new or rehashed PF. Mind you I do this to all new editions of existing rpgs. It's the reason I'm not buying Earthdawn 4E. Either offer me at least 50%+new material. Or don;t expect me or others to reinvest in a core with no to little change.

Looking at it from more than just a perspective of one own bookshelf. They can't offer more of the same and expect the same amount of people to buy it again. Yes I know they did for PF. Yet at the same time no one else at the time looked like they were going to support 3.5. With less competition as well. With 5e, 4E, OSR, 13th Age they need to offer something new. 13th Age from what I heard seems to be a mix of both 4E and 3.5. The only issue I have with 5E is a lack of support. It's not 2008 anymore and fans need to stop acting like the same circumstances that allowed Paizo and PF to thrive will still be there.

@ Glass

Save your breath. Those who dislike 4E always bring up the same BS about 4E. While acting like PF has no flaws.


memorax wrote:

@ Glass

Save your breath. Those who dislike 4E always bring up the same BS about 4E. While acting like PF has no flaws.

Do you seriously believe that everybody who dislikes 4E thinks Pathfinder is perfect.

That is actually mind-blowing.

The person glass quoted was literally complaining in the same post about something that exists in pathfinder (the spell Knock), and you think that that person thinks pathfinder has no flaws.

???

What?

Liberty's Edge

I suppose it's because I'm tired of hearing the same 4E bashing. When I played both I was able to roleplay in both. I stopped playing 4E because I found the sourcebooks too expensive for the content. It was never a rules issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I suppose it's because I'm tired of hearing the same 4E bashing. When I played both I was able to roleplay in both. I stopped playing 4E because I found the sourcebooks too expensive for the content. It was never a rules issues.

A lot of people didn't like 4th ed for a lot of reasons. Pathfinder started because of all these people who didn't want 3.5 to end.

It's pretty obvious that the PF boards are going to have a lot of people who didn't like 4E for whatever reason.


As to the original contention posed by the OP, I do think that a new edition of PF is inevitable in the general arc of space and time.

The REAL question to ask, for me at least, is: When would it be acceptable to the PF gaming community to begin a new edition?

For me, the key factor is whether the new edition meets a need within the community. 3E came at a time when interest in D&D generally had faded, and its eccentricities (dwarves couldn't be paladins, wonky multiclassing, etc.) were ripe for revision.

4E came at a time when many people were still scooping up 3.5E books and 3rd Edition was still the dominant force within the TTRPG community. It proposed many answers to problems people had with 3E, but the answers had not gained traction within the community.

Pathfinder Unchained seems to represent the developers testing new ideas with the community. In the long run, it might be looked back upon as a playtest for certain parts of PF 2.0. It at least is a public playtest, which 4E did not have, and so it was met with much more ambivalence and controversy than it otherwise could have been.

When 3E came out, a lot of people observed that it had incorporated a lot of houserules that people had adopted at their own tables.

I think it's fine for PF 2.0 to come out if it (1) incorporates changes that people are ready for and (2) it comes at a time when people feel it's time for a fresh start.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:


A lot of people didn't like 4th ed for a lot of reasons. Pathfinder started because of all these people who didn't want 3.5 to end.

It's pretty obvious that the PF boards are going to have a lot of people who didn't like 4E for whatever reason.

It still does not excuse the 4E bashing. No one is forced to bash 4E or any other type of rpg. Saying it's the PF boards is simply apologizing for bad behavior imo. I may bash PF and the devs. I'm not proud of it. I don't do it every single time I go on a forum or in public.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


A lot of people didn't like 4th ed for a lot of reasons. Pathfinder started because of all these people who didn't want 3.5 to end.

It's pretty obvious that the PF boards are going to have a lot of people who didn't like 4E for whatever reason.

It still does not excuse the 4E bashing. No one is forced to bash 4E or any other type of rpg. Saying it's the PF boards is simply apologizing for bad behavior imo. I may bash PF and the devs. I'm not proud of it. I don't do it every single time I go on a forum or in public.

Pointing out the reasons someone didn't like 4e "i.e. felt there was too much homogenization" ect isn't bashing 4e.

Stating the reasons you didn't go to that edition, and that if those similar reasons exist in PF 2.0 it would cause you to not go to that edition is a pretty legitimate thing to mention in a thread about a new edition. . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

As to the original contention posed by the OP, I do think that a new edition of PF is inevitable in the general arc of space and time.

The REAL question to ask, for me at least, is: When would it be acceptable to the PF gaming community to begin a new edition?

For me, the key factor is whether the new edition meets a need within the community. 3E came at a time when interest in D&D generally had faded, and its eccentricities (dwarves couldn't be paladins, wonky multiclassing, etc.) were ripe for revision.

4E came at a time when many people were still scooping up 3.5E books and 3rd Edition was still the dominant force within the TTRPG community. It proposed many answers to problems people had with 3E, but the answers had not gained traction within the community.

Pathfinder Unchained seems to represent the developers testing new ideas with the community. In the long run, it might be looked back upon as a playtest for certain parts of PF 2.0. It at least is a public playtest, which 4E did not have, and so it was met with much more ambivalence and controversy than it otherwise could have been.

When 3E came out, a lot of people observed that it had incorporated a lot of houserules that people had adopted at their own tables.

I think it's fine for PF 2.0 to come out if it (1) incorporates changes that people are ready for and (2) it comes at a time when people feel it's time for a fresh start.

I think the Paizo showrunners have basically said that not only is the Core Rulebook still selling really well, and in fact every year they sell more than the year before. So from a business sense it probably doesn't make much sense until overall sales in the RPG line and of the Core Rulebook start showing evidence of a decline.

I do think that Unchained in many ways is a stealth update to the core rules, since it does seem to tackle and seek to address several major complaints in the game. It makes me wonder if we might not see some sort of spiritual successor dealing with other commonly cited problems.


You could have an 'unchained' series of alternate rules ideas, really. As long as it was covering alternate takes on different things ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

A second edition is pretty much inevitable economically. At some point, people will get enough of the constant release of new classes, feats and items into the existing system, not even to mention inconsistencies in the current rules and unwanted synergy effects. Sales will taper off as people turn to other, less convoluted systems. And the Paizo staff will want to keep feeding their families.

A new edition will have some die-hards who will stop buying Paizo products altogether, but if the developers manage to make the system substantially better with their new iteration, enough others will keep playing, return or start playing that it will work out.

Pathfinder Unchained pretty obviously is a way for them to probe what kind of changes the fanbase reacts positively to. The developers can gauge the feedback and use it as a core around which to build a new edition of the game.

For main rule system sure but from setting they have room to grow there for another decade. I'm not sure what other books I could possibly need for Pathfinder on rule base point after Unchain and the Occult book. I'd love to see more Golorian hard cover books on different continents.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
memorax wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


A lot of people didn't like 4th ed for a lot of reasons. Pathfinder started because of all these people who didn't want 3.5 to end.

It's pretty obvious that the PF boards are going to have a lot of people who didn't like 4E for whatever reason.

It still does not excuse the 4E bashing. No one is forced to bash 4E or any other type of rpg. Saying it's the PF boards is simply apologizing for bad behavior imo. I may bash PF and the devs. I'm not proud of it. I don't do it every single time I go on a forum or in public.

Pointing out the reasons someone didn't like 4e "i.e. felt there was too much homogenization" ect isn't bashing 4e.

Stating the reasons you didn't go to that edition, and that if those similar reasons exist in PF 2.0 it would cause you to not go to that edition is a pretty legitimate thing to mention in a thread about a new edition. . .

Part of the problem is that a fair amount of the 4e bashing seems to come from people who have never actually played a game of 4th edition, if you go by their comments.

There's a big difference between "the at-will/encounter/daily power system felt like it stripped out a lot the unique character of individual classes" and "4e was perfectly balanced, and that's why it sucked!"


Yes, as we all know they absolutely ruined the exemplar of high literature and bastion of true fantasy that was the Forgotten Realms.

Obviously, published settings are the most important, most integral part of any RPG. To ignore them or use older versions when a new one comes out is tantamount to treason! Heresy! To the pyres with the heathens!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got my start with 4th, so I am considerably less salty about it than most. I saw it with unclouded vision. It was alright. Moving on to Pathfinder, I find the flexibility and options a lot more to my taste. So, really, I think a lot of people overreact concerning 4th.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Part of the problem is that a fair amount of the 4e bashing seems to come from people who have never actually played a game of 4th edition, if you go by their comments.

There's a big difference between "the at-will/encounter/daily power system felt like it stripped out a lot the unique character of individual classes" and "4e was perfectly balanced, and that's why it sucked!"

This is partially true, but I have to say, I've felt the same way, and said as much, despite playing 4E.

In part, it's simply that D&D - from AD&D, to all the d20-iterations (and Pathfinder) are not balanced (and never has been, even from the beginning) and that lack of balance is relatively extreme. Hence, the steps that 4E took towards establishing more balance (and it does have more balance) make the entire thing look, feel, and play more balanced... because it is, even if it is not, ultimately, truly "balanced".

The other part of this is a conflation of balance and symmetry. 4E started out extremely symmetrical compared to the other editions (AW/E/D; anyone-can-be-ritual-casters; magic item functionality; etc.), and that is often easily conflated with "balance". (Also, there are many who tested it, found it "balanced" and base their decisions off of that - very similar to two people playing chess for the first time, imbalances are much more important to those who know the system thoroughly than those who do not.)

Albatoonoe wrote:
I got my start with 4th, so I am considerably less salty about it than most. I saw it with unclouded vision. It was alright. Moving on to Pathfinder, I find the flexibility and options a lot more to my taste. So, really, I think a lot of people overreact concerning 4th.

I tend to agree, and that's actually cool that you started there.

Having been a sort-of AD&D player (I was introduced with heavy house rules), but thoroughly 3rd Edition -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder.

The thing as others have pointed out, is that the marketing was actively turned into a push against current players, mocking many things they found useful.

My own experiences with the people behind the company during that era proved to be unhelpful and rude, despite my best attempts to follow protocol (I was slammed for making a mistake and, instead of actually answering my question, was told "don't do that again"* and "we don't answer these questions") - this is something that deeply colored my opinion against the system from the beginning.

Added to it the radical departure of, well, everything, mechanically and thematically (AD&D -> 3rd felt, to me and mine, like a new game, but a direct attempt at furthering and cleaning up the same ideas; 4E did not).

All of this soured me on it from the beginning, and now I firmly regret the wasted potential that 4E had - not because nothing good came out of the game, but because I think it could have been a great game from the beginning - one that firmly and thoroughly garnered interest and support.

It also had serious problems getting off the ground originally, which harmed its potential.

It's worth noting that I, personally, am deeply disappointed that we never got an FFT/Neverwinter Nights hybrid-type game to take advantage of the mechanics system. I think 4E could have been one of the best systems to translate mechanically into a computer/video game to date. Instead it got shafted by dealing with Atari et. al. and the contract disputes related to that. Just in time to get a 5E game that, frankly, isn't in a system that's as ready to support computer gameplay out of the box. (This is not comparing it to an MMO - it's not an MMO, though I understand where the comparisons come from. This is instead an honest lament at a lack of a Computer game.)

*:
"That" in my case submitting the same question to two different departments.

EDIT: removed (some) needless rambling details

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

4e is dead and gone. Can we get back to talking about Pathfinder?

-Skeld

Liberty's Edge

Chengar Qordath wrote:


Part of the problem is that a fair amount of the 4e bashing seems to come from people who have never actually played a game of 4th edition, if you go by their comments.

There's a big difference between "the at-will/encounter/daily power system felt like it stripped out a lot the unique character of individual classes" and "4e was perfectly balanced, and that's why it sucked!"

Agreed and seconded. I have nothing against disliking 4E. It's when posters make wrong statements about the game. While usually showing that they never played 4E. Like saying that it was targeting to the WOW generation. You know how many things I saw in third edition that I saw in pre-mmo computer games. I'm not accusing Wotc nor Paizo of trying to market to those who like computer games.

The funny thing about 4E FR is that they listened to a very vocal group of gamers and their dislike about FR then implemented changes. Some I liked such as the too large number of redundant gods. Removal of high level npcs. I was not bothered so much by them. Just that after seeing their published stats why the hell does high level npc XYZ really having such trouble defeating the main villain of FR series ABC.

I still maintain that they either stick to publishing the current edition. Or something new. A rehash is simply not going to be as attractive as it once was. Why would a significant majority by the same product twice. Even if they did then some would rip Paizo a new one for releasing a rehash then accuse them of a cash grab imo.

201 to 250 of 571 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT Inevitable All Messageboards