| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
p.s I find the term 'dead tree' offensive. I love books, sure pdfs are much more portable and at times convenient, yet they don't show the respect to the great artists (Wayne Reynolds, Eva Widermann) that make the world of Golarion come alive. Their artworks need to be seen as a printed version.
Anyone who appreciates art; has been to an art gallery or a museum knows exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't know that I find the term offensive, but I do find it highly annoying and misleading.
So full disclosure; I own and operate a high volume print company.
The first issue I have is the implication that "dead" is a problem in our consumption of goods. I never hear someone complain that their friends are wearing "dead plant" underwear instead of a synthetic fabric. I don't hear about people complaining about "dead tree" toilet paper either. I similarly don't hear many folks complain about "dead cow" sandwiches (not to mention all the wheat in the bun, but whateves)
Second, deforestation isn't caused by the print industry, deforestation is caused by cattle ranchers. I am a member of both the national forest leadership council and the sustainable forestry initiative, I can tell you without question that even 100% virgin paper is very easily sourced from timber farms that grow trees specifically for the purpose of turning them into paper.
Lastly, paper is best produced from soft woods. Even people who harvest wild timber for paper don't cut down old growth hardwoods.
|
There is also the fact that the legalization of Marijuana (Federal, not state) would add the benefit of having Hemp be used to produce paper, something that can be grown and used in a crop within a year. Though I doubt that the federal side of that would be down the road, it is coming.
"Dead Tree" is a term used as a environmental imperative that simply isn't there. Much like the whole "global warming" scam.
When PF Ver2 does come out, it will most likely use the same book format as the previous PF Core Rulebook did, as 3rd edition did before that, as the previous incarnations did before, and as the currently produced games are done now.
Much to do about nothing.
There is also the fact that the legalization of Marijuana (Federal, not state) would add the benefit of having Hemp be used to produce paper, something that can be grown and used in a crop within a year. Though I doubt that the federal side of that would be down the road, it is coming.
"Dead Tree" is a term used as a environmental imperative that simply isn't there. Much like the whole "global warming" scam.
When PF Ver2 does come out, it will most likely use the same book format as the previous PF Core Rulebook did, as 3rd edition did before that, as the previous incarnations did before, and as the currently produced games are done now.
Much to do about nothing.
"Dead tree," isn't analogous to global warming, because "dead tree" is a term that ignorant hipsters use and global warming is a real thing that is going to screw the entire planet.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
global warming <snip> is going to screw the entire planet.
G-... global warming is a succubus?! I knew it!
Much like the whole "global warming" scam.
Right...that scam. All those scientists are getting rich! *Backs away slowly*
P.S. It's "much ado about nothing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I always assumed "dead tree" was in the same category as "meat space", being just a funky descriptor for something.
|
|
Much like the whole "global warming" scam.Right...that scam. All those scientists are getting rich! *Backs away slowly*
P.S. It's "much ado about nothing."
Sorry, tried to ignore...
For every scientist that totes the flag for Global Warming/Climate Change, there is two others that have dis proven the theory.
The big telling of the errors is the whole E-mail discovery that showed a major institution that puts out this science fudging the numbers.
It is the new bogyman in Congress, like Socialism was in the 50's. Now we care more about a Cow farting than anything else.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For every scientist that totes the flag for Global Warming/Climate Change, there is two others that have dis proven the theory.
Ok, now you're just messing with me. Well played, sir.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]For every scientist that totes the flag for Global Warming/Climate Change, there is two others that have dis proven the theory.
Uh, no.
Not even close.
Try more like: for every 1 that have "disproven" the theory, there are 20 who have verifiable, tested evidence; also the 1 is very likely to have gotten grants from various sources who would benefit financially from being able to ignore health & climate regulations, so... conflict of interest much?
The big telling of the errors is the whole E-mail discovery that showed a major institution that puts out this science fudging the numbers.
Yes, this was a giant f@#$-up, but the facts remain that this was only a small number of scientists who "fudged" numbers - primarily American scientists at that.
Their colleagues from Germany, Britain, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, and every other first-world nation all agree that not only is Global Climate Change occurring, human machinations have sped it up tremendously.
It's also next-to-nothing compared to the number of pharmaceutical professionals and researchers who fudge numbers annually concerning medication results, which has led to an increased number of harmful medicines entering the market in the last 25 years or so.
It is the new bogyman in Congress, like Socialism was in the 50's.
Also like how HIV causing AIDS is the bogeyman in South Africa, because everyone KNOWS HIV doesn't cause AIDS and can't be spread by sexually-transmitted means.
Now we care more about a Cow farting than anything else.
More like coal and gasoline emissions, etc.
Cattle methane emissions have been a concern, yes, but can easily be solved in much the same way that farmers are given subsidies to not produce too much produce.
Carbon emissions are generally much-more of a concern and require more effort to reduce, because while cattle populations can be reduced quickly, already-existing cars, lawnmowers, factories, etc. can't widely be retrofitted to be more carbon-friendly, especially since most of those machines cost hundreds to thousands of dollars to replace and last for a decade or more.
The one piece of solace is that the US is no longer the biggest polluter in the world: India and especially China are far more pollutant than the US is, and the effects are telling there and over the whole globe.
]For every scientist that totes the flag for Global Warming/Climate Change, there is two others that have dis proven the theory.Uh, no.
Not even close.
Try more like: for every 1 that have "disproven" the theory, there are 20 who have verifiable, tested evidence; also the 1 is very likely to have gotten grants from various sources who would benefit financially from being able to ignore health & climate regulations, so... conflict of interest much?
The big telling of the errors is the whole E-mail discovery that showed a major institution that puts out this science fudging the numbers.Yes, this was a giant f#+@-up, but the facts remain that this was only a small number of scientists who "fudged" numbers - primarily American scientists at that.
Their colleagues from Germany, Britain, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, and every other first-world nation all agree that not only is Global Climate Change occurring, human machinations have sped it up tremendously.
It's also next-to-nothing compared to the number of pharmaceutical professionals and researchers who fudge numbers annually concerning medication results, which has led to an increased number of harmful medicines entering the market in the last 25 years or so.
It is the new bogyman in Congress, like Socialism was in the 50's.Also like how HIV causing AIDS is the bogeyman in South Africa, because everyone KNOWS HIV doesn't cause AIDS and can't be spread by sexually-transmitted means.
Now we care more about a Cow farting than anything else.More like coal and gasoline emissions, etc.
Cattle methane emissions have been a concern, yes, but can easily be solved in much the same way that farmers are given subsidies to not produce too much produce.
Carbon emissions are generally much-more of a concern and require more effort to reduce, because while cattle populations can be reduced quickly, already-existing cars, lawnmowers,...
So, two things. 1) it's actually more like for every 1 "scientist" who thinks global warming isn't happening 99 actual scientists say unequivocally that it is. 2) Cow methane wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't coupled with deforestation.
|
How about not splitting the fan base?
I'm not sure about how exactly Paizo's fan base would be split by them eventually coming out with a new core rulebook. Not like they would keep releasing product for the old edition and unlike video games it isn't like someone switched off a server and your books and dice stop working. The only real issue to a person from a new edition standpoint is in terms of the Pathfinder Society and if anything that's what needs a huge rework to start.
A /lot/ of role-playing games go through edition changes, not just D&D. Traveler, Shadowrun, BESM, GURPS, Earthdawn, Vampire: The Masquerade, and that list goes on and on for quite a while. They happen for a variety of reasons but they happen, some times they're huge changes and other times the tweaks are smaller and harder to see.
There are some issues that are still legacy from the Oldest RPG in the World. People are right that anything new "edition" would need to be at least somewhat visibly the current edition, as the whole reason this exists is said oldest RPG didn't do that for one of their editions and actually did what all the people who worry about these kinds of things worry about happening so it isn't like there isn't president for some people to at least have an opinion on the matter. It does force some of us to chime up so things aren't ruined for the types of games we want to play though.
Casters should be more damage dealing or whatever then people wielding sticks and rocks, they should also probably pay a heavier cost for that ability though. Casters get too survivable is likely the real problem mechanically. Also I dislike cinematic combat, I watch films for that stuff and even there I'm getting pretty sick of it there. Seriously why does a 2003 Korean film have a better fight scene in it then the Avengers squeal?
I don't want Naruto the RPG, that isn't epic. I want armies marching and rules for kingdom building. The risk of wounds getting infected and characters dying. Magic being this dangerous thing, risky to use but powerful. Artifacts that always have a big down side. I want to /play/ in that game. All of which is the total opposite of a lot of other people want.
Blargh. Anyway disagreeing with people on the internet, blah blah blah.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously why does a 2003 Korean film have a better fight scene in it then the Avengers squeal?
Probably because Old Boy is one of the best comics to come out of Japan in the better part of 20 years, and even though the Korean movie changed a BUNCH of things about the story, it kept the action there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about not splitting the fan base?I'm not sure about how exactly Paizo's fan base would be split by them eventually coming out with a new core rulebook. Not like they would keep releasing product for the old edition and unlike video games it isn't like someone switched off a server and your books and dice stop working. The only real issue to a person from a new edition standpoint is in terms of the Pathfinder Society and if anything that's what needs a huge rework to start.If enough people keep playing the old version and don't buy the new one, that's splitting the fan base. In an extreme enough case, someone could put out their own version of PF, like Paizo did of 3.5 and the split could last.
If Paizo continues to ignore the issues with the system and refuses to publish a *supported* version that corrects those issues, then someone could publish a system and split the fan base right out from under them.
|
|
The splitting of the fanbase began with 2E and will continue. One can't make everybody happy. I was interested in getting 4E earthdawn. Yet beyond a few changes the system is pretty much the same. I enjoy 3E ED I don't need more of the same. I'm not sure much can be done to stop it or slow it down the splitting if the fanbase. Hell some people still only play 3.5.
The splitting of the fanbase began with 2E and will continue. One can't make everybody happy. I was interested in getting 4E earthdawn. Yet beyond a few changes the system is pretty much the same. I enjoy 3E ED I don't need more of the same. I'm not sure much can be done to stop it or slow it down the splitting if the fanbase. Hell some people still only play 3.5.
Really, the fanbase became split at BD&D vs. AD&D
1st to 2nd Ed had plenty of edition warring itself, though, because of several major changes, like Psionics being dropped as a basic part of the game (and instead an add-on), things like Demons and Angels being renamed to Fiend and Celestials (in large part due to Bible-Belt Backlash)
2nd to 3rd was a bit greater, mostly because 3rd was an even greater redesign than 2nd ed was to 1st (although altogether, it was still recognizably AD&D - certain NWPs bore a striking resemblance to how the Feat ended up being, while later NWP rules printed in Player's Options books morphed into the Skill System).
And... 4E... the less said about that mess, the better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's worth bearing in mind that "splitting the fan base" is an economic concern, in this context. The concept wasn't referring to people fighting over which edition is best, but the production of two products which were only of interest to half+a bit of the fan base.
That's why the campaign settings are a better example of the issue than the different editions. They were targetting different markets (at least to some degree) with AD&D vs BECMI. With Forgotten Realms and Planescape, they were essentially cannibalising their own sales in presenting them as two separate options, rather than as two elements of the same bigger picture.
That doesn't mean that the issue isn't entangled - but Paizo producing PF2 and no longer supporting PF isn't an example of "splitting the fan base" in the sense it was initially used. Sure, another company may step in to fill a demand (like Paizo did on 4E's release), but that's a separate, if related, phenomenon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't mean that the issue isn't entangled - but Paizo producing PF2 and no longer supporting PF isn't an example of "splitting the fan base" in the sense it was initially used. Sure, another company may step in to fill a demand (like Paizo did on 4E's release), but that's a separate, if related, phenomenon.
Not to mention the risk of being beaten by a retro-clone is really only there if Paizo makes massive changes for PF2. If the changes are overall pretty minor, there wouldn't be much room for a competitor to make a unique retro-clone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained was merely my play test. I will remove the imperfections in your system. Improve it. Replace it. Progress is inevitable. And I am progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that was.... inevitable.
|
|
stuff
The cause is very well financed, I admit it will take a major discovery of some sort to vet out the overall inconsistencies of the whole debate and put the global warming/climate change issue into the past.
It has been mentioned that Man was contributing more to a global change in the colonial times than anything we do presently.
The point, to be frank, is that it is an expensive expanse of resources to try and improve a situation that isn't really there.
We want clean water, we want clear air. Overall, though, our own resources can provide that without gutting the coal industry and making cars that cost more than a house that will only go 100 miles at a charge.
I don't want to derail this thread anymore, let us agree to disagree. I just find the term "dead tree" to be inline with the overall movement to sanitized the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.
You might be the first Pathfinder grognard! :)
A 2nd edition of PF is not guaranteed, because it is entirely possible that years from now there might not be enough interest in the game to justify it. However, if it remains popular then a new edition will certainly come about. It happens to every other game that lasts.
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.You might be the first Pathfinder grognard! :)
A 2nd edition of PF is not guaranteed, because it is entirely possible that years from now there might not be enough interest in the game to justify it. However, if it remains popular then a new edition will certainly come about. It happens to every other game that lasts.
Yeah, I just can't imagine 20 years from now Paizo will still be publishing the same CRB (and still issuing errata) and continuing to support the same game with new rules releases and adventures.
They could be on to a new version, with greater or lessor changes. They could be out of business. I just can't imagine they'll still be making the same game, just more of it.
Why not?
Like seriously. . . Monopoly hasn't changed for a long time fundamentally, and its still going strong.
Uno is still published and sells without having to be "upgraded" to Uno 2.0
Chess has remained unchanged for centuries. . .
RPGs are the only place where companies push out new editions like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.You might be the first Pathfinder grognard! :)
A 2nd edition of PF is not guaranteed, because it is entirely possible that years from now there might not be enough interest in the game to justify it. However, if it remains popular then a new edition will certainly come about. It happens to every other game that lasts.
Yeah, I just can't imagine 20 years from now Paizo will still be publishing the same CRB (and still issuing errata) and continuing to support the same game with new rules releases and adventures.
They could be on to a new version, with greater or lessor changes. They could be out of business. I just can't imagine they'll still be making the same game, just more of it.
Why not?
Like seriously. . . Monopoly hasn't changed for a long time fundamentally, and its still going strong.
Uno is still published and sells without having to be "upgraded" to Uno 2.0
Chess has remained unchanged for centuries. . .
RPGs are the only place where companies push out new editions like that.
Those games also have rules that fit on 3 pieces of paper.
Those games also aren't story telling games.
Those games don't recieve support from their publishers.
Those games don't inspire people (with the exception of chess) to play for hours a week, every week, with a group of 6 other friends.
Also, boards games, video games, and CCGs update their base systems ALL THE TIME.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I'd like to approach bring up the issue from another angle. As Paizo is be sustained by adventures more so than anything else, it's important for designers to have the tools to make those adventures. We now have rules to support several game types, from Mythich to Kingdom building.
It behooves Paizo to expand on their current toolbox than get a new, inevitably smaller one. Though we are the customers, it isn't entirely about us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not?
Like seriously. . . Monopoly hasn't changed for a long time fundamentally, and its still going strong.
Uno is still published and sells without having to be "upgraded" to Uno 2.0
Chess has remained unchanged for centuries. . .
RPGs are the only place where companies push out new editions like that.
Pathfinder is far more complex than any of those games, and even though I am in agreement with you that I don't think any sort of major revamp is needed, at some point the errata just piles up and requires a new "edition", whatever that means.
Plus I am sure the developers have looked at parts of the game and thought to themselves "Man this could be written better" or "Wow in hindsight we should have done X, not Y". Games like Monopoly or Chess don't have rules teams constantly tinkering with the game design, dissecting it and analyzing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.You might be the first Pathfinder grognard! :)
A 2nd edition of PF is not guaranteed, because it is entirely possible that years from now there might not be enough interest in the game to justify it. However, if it remains popular then a new edition will certainly come about. It happens to every other game that lasts.
Yeah, I just can't imagine 20 years from now Paizo will still be publishing the same CRB (and still issuing errata) and continuing to support the same game with new rules releases and adventures.
They could be on to a new version, with greater or lessor changes. They could be out of business. I just can't imagine they'll still be making the same game, just more of it.
Why not?
Like seriously. . . Monopoly hasn't changed for a long time fundamentally, and its still going strong.
Uno is still published and sells without having to be "upgraded" to Uno 2.0
Chess has remained unchanged for centuries. . .
RPGs are the only place where companies push out new editions like that.
Those games also have rules that fit on 3 pieces of paper.
Those games also aren't story telling games.
Those games don't recieve support from their publishers.
Those games don't inspire people (with the exception of chess) to play for hours a week, every week, with a group of 6 other friends.
Also, boards games, video games, and CCGs update their base systems ALL THE TIME.
Exactly this.
IMO, something akin to an edition change becomes inevitable when part of the game designer/publisher's model is to regularly create new content.
RPGs tend to do this a lot since publishing new rulebooks is a major source of income for them. Paizo might make more money off APs, but they wouldn't keep producing and selling rulebooks if there wasn't a healthy margin profit in it. The more new rules you add, the more you want to tweak the base system to better accomodate the new stuff, clear out some of the old junk, etc.
You can see the same phenomenon in MMOs or DLC-heavy games. which also rely on regularly adding new content to keep profits coming in. Try out any long-running MMO, and you'll run into your share of grognards who'll talk about how Patch #whatever ruined the game by changing everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not?Like seriously. . . Monopoly hasn't changed for a long time fundamentally, and its still going strong.
Uno is still published and sells without having to be "upgraded" to Uno 2.0
Chess has remained unchanged for centuries. . .
RPGs are the only place where companies push out new editions like that.
None of those are accurate.
Monopoly has changed the least of the games you listed, but it has had numerous new editions. They don't put "new edition" on the cover, but they do reorganize and alter the rules.Uno? Remember when the introduced "challenging" wild cards?
Chess? The most recent edition of the official rules of chess were released in July 2014, less than a year ago.
Older versions of chess had completely different pieces and movement rules. En Passant wasn't in the official rules until 1880, far less than 'centuries' ago. The 50 move rule has been heavily repeatedly in the last few decades.
En passant is clearly rules bloat, exploit, munchkin, power gaming, cheese.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been mentioned that Man was contributing more to a global change in the colonial times than anything we do presently.
Wait...you were serious?
Can we leave all the global warming talk out of this? Its 100% off topic and a contentious topic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's contentious in the same sense that the "theory" of a round earth is contentious.
It's contentious in the same sense that the "theory" of a round earth is contentious.
Exactly. However he's absolutely correct about this being off-topic, so I promise to stop poking the bear with a stick. ;-)
|
|
Eventually some other game will come along and draw people out of the PF pool as well, that's probably where you're splitting of the fan base is most likely to happen. Look at 5th edition D&D, it's got people playing it that haven't played D&D for quite some time playing it these days. Paizo's lunch can be eaten by a competitor just like anyone else's and they don't have Hasbro and Magic the Gathering to prop them up. I don't see it happening but it isn't impossible.
Beyond that there is something also to be said about the fact that the people at Paizo have been playing this game longer then any of us arguably. Creative people being paid to be creative. It seems unlikely that at some point enough people aren't going to want a fresh canvas to express their ideas for a game upon.
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.
Yeah but if you've already made that decision it could be implied that you and your group won't be spending any more money on anything more really anyway? You've spent your like $700ish dollars, own all the hard covers and are effectively out of the market place as a consumer. You also won't be buying any competitor's product as well given what you've said.
You've got more then enough material to last the next 20+ years of regular role-playing game meet ups and are probably the least likely group to buy the more and more esoteric books that likely to come out in the future for the current rules of the game.
Eventually some other game will come along and draw people out of the PF pool as well, that's probably where you're splitting of the fan base is most likely to happen. Look at 5th edition D&D, it's got people playing it that haven't played D&D for quite some time playing it these days. Paizo's lunch can be eaten by a competitor just like anyone else's and they don't have Hasbro and Magic the Gathering to prop them up. I don't see it happening but it isn't impossible.
Beyond that there is something also to be said about the fact that the people at Paizo have been playing this game longer then any of us arguably. Creative people being paid to be creative. It seems unlikely that at some point enough people aren't going to want a fresh canvas to express their ideas for a game upon.
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.Yeah but if you've already made that decision it could be implied that you and your group won't be spending any more money on anything more really anyway? You've spent your like $700ish dollars, own all the hard covers and are effectively out of the market place as a consumer. You also won't be buying any competitor's product as well given what you've said.
You've got more then enough material to last the next 20+ years of regular role-playing game meet ups and are probably the least likely group to buy the more and more esoteric books that likely to come out in the future for the current rules of the game.
I disagree with that. . . people who have all the hardcovers and have made the decision not to switch to a new edition are the MOST likely to buy more and more esoteric material.
Think of it this way-- I've bought a lot of versions of Ultimate Combat over the year--- a straightforward expansion handbook for martial classes. You could argue that I've purchased essentially that same book (or slot of book) upwards of 5 times already (AD&D 2nd ed Fighters/Barbarians/Ranger ect handbook, Player's Option Combat & Tactics, Tome & Blood, Complete Warrior, Ultimate Combat)-- the same goes for Ultimate Magic. I'm tired of buying new versions of basically these same books.
What I've never bought before, not even a single time, is a book about Occult Adventures. Monster Codex was the first time I ever bought a book that statted up that many non-core race NPCs-- something really useful, that is out of the ordinary (or esoteric if you will) but that I was excited to buy because it was something different.
Same goes for Distant Worlds-- its an out of the way thing, an "esoteric" edge case but its also one of the only PF Campaign setting books I went out of the way to buy and was excited about because it was fresh-- space wasn't touched in 3.5 or 3.0 or really in 2nd edition. Space from a fantasy RPG starting point hadn't been done since Spelljammer back in the 80s before I was playing.
Things like that will always get the group who wants more stuff for the game they have to buy in.
[obtuse function activate]
Of course PF 2 isn't an inevitable. THIS is an inevitable. DUH.
HEY! Mr. JOHNNY COME-LATELY! >:(
THE OP IS RIGHT! PATHFINDER 2.0 IS NOT INEVITABLE! THIS IS!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't even need a PF 2.0
Just a Spells Unchained book redoing spells and spell lists for spell casting classes.
Maybe a new Cleric that gets more class features.
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
They already moved casters down from world shattering power, it's called 4th edition. Also if the whole purpose of a book is to nerf spell casters then call it something else other then "Spells Unchained".
If they properly moved casters down in world shattering power level we would eliminate most issues with the system.
That depends entirely on what you mean by "issues".