I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want a new edition...

[adembroski]

I used to be the cranky guy that'd get mad whenever a new edition came out. I'd say the only one I welcomed was 3.0 because 2nd edition was so utterly broken.

But frankly, I'm ready.

You see, 5th Edition has done two things for me, and these two things are why I want a new Pathfinder.

First, it has made me appreciate just how flexible, complete, and internally consistent Pathfinder is. D&D 5E simply cannot match PF for options and the ability to create infinite character and world concepts. Pathfinder can be overly crunchy, sure, but it's as complete a fantasy RPG system as one is ever going to find.

Second, it has made me more greatly appreciate how much Pathfinder begins to breakdown at high levels.

Now, I'm not a balance fetishist and I don't believe wizards are the "win button" by any means. Bounded accuracy, however, is one of the best features in the history of the D&D game (I include its off-shoots when I say that). It does wonders to keep the game interesting well into the teens, and unlike PF, given monsters never really become obsolete.

I have enjoyed running 5th Edition. I like how quickly I can prepare and I really like how easy it is to teach to new players, and I positively love how it fixed many of the issues with the d20 system... but I hate how it tried to fix a lot that wasn't broken about the d20 system. I would love to see PF pick up the baton and fix only what needs fixing, not the entire system.

What would that 2nd edition look like to me?

* A form of bounded accuracy. Not as extreme as 5E. Better melee fighters should have better to-hit numbers, but limiting them to +10 at 20th level vs. +6 for non-warrior types would be better. Fewer attacks per round as well.

* Bounded accuracy should apply to the skills system, but PF is built on customization, and skill points should still apply. The number should just be kept lower.

* Feats should remain an integral part of PF, it's one of the things that makes it the system it is. However, shallower feat trees with more room for customization and fewer restrictions would be helpful. I'm not saying eliminate prerequisites, just don't charge feat taxes.

* Retain the great innovations of 3rd Edition... all creatures working under the same generation system, prestige classes, etc.

* This is just a throw in of my own... it may be time to reign in the power creep. Each edition of D&D has made ability score generation slightly easier and easier, pushing things further into the realm of PCs as Superheroes at 1st level. 5E humans get a +1 to ALL ability scores at 1st level. Rebalance the game around 3d6, arrange to taste, and give every race (except humans, who get no adjustment) a bonus and a penalty. We've been constricting the ability score continuum upward against 18 for too long, and there's little difference between two PCs of the same class anymore. I think it's time to open that up a bit. There's nothing wrong with a fighter having a 7 in Wisdom, and it makes for more interesting role playing.

That's just a few suggestions, I'm sure I'll come up with 25 more between hitting Submit Post and being redirected, but hey, I'm kinda just throwing this out there as a stream of consciousness to see what people say.

[thaX]

Feats need paired down, and some that are feats now should exclusively be Class Abilities.

Prestige Classes need to be turned into Archtypes, or some other form of class alternative. It should not be something to Multi-class into.

The magic system needs to have a single mechanic that the classes build off of. (No Vancian Casting)

Unchained is likely a good look at some of the changes that could happen. I would add that some of the "alternatives" would likely morph a bit under a new edition.

My .02 bucks

[Jason S]

Everyone has an opinion on how the game could be more tailored to their personal tastes. The good part is you're free to make up whatever house rules you like.

You realize feats without trees are what actually make it possible to have OP combinations right?

I'm pretty happy with my library of APs, scenarios, and not feeling like I need to relearn a new system.

We're still 5-10 years off from a new edition at least (I hope). The entire reason I like and respect Paizo is that they're not trying to edition me to death like other companies.

Unchained is likely a beta for what it could look like. But I'm a lot happier that it's just an option right now.

[DungeonmasterCal]

A new edition will see none of my or my group's money. After 30 years of gaming and many hundreds, if not thousands of dollars spent collectively on materials, editions, and other games this is our "retirement" plan.

[Pathfinder 2.0]

You will buy me. I will be the system that everyone is playing and therefore if you want to game you will have to upgrade.

[adembroski]

Jason S: Yes, I could sit down and rewrite the entire system to suit my needs. I could. But then I'd be a game designer.

[bugleyman]

I would love a new edition. I'd like that new edition to look a lot more like the Beginner Box than the Core currently does. I'd also like a new edition to do away with many of the fiddly bits like "you can draw a weapon as part of a move action, but only if your BAB is +1 or higher"...which is like 95%+ of all characters. And for heaven's sake, please fix level 12+.

[Snorb]

Some stuff needs to be baked into every character (looking at you, Precise Shot, Shot on the Run, and Spring Attack!!!)

[Jason S]

adembroski wrote:

Jason S: Yes, I could sit down and rewrite the entire system to suit my needs. I could. But then I'd be a game designer.

I'm pretty sure you don't need to be a game designer to implement a few of your suggestions, like using 3d6 for ability scores or removing feat prerequisites.

I agree that high level play should be revised, the question is revised to what? That's a thread on it's own.

I'm actually more on board with what Bugleyman is saying. Simplify, simplify, simplify wherever possible.

[Wiggz]

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

The reason I don't want a new edition is that I'm in it for the AP's and the modules, and I, like others, want to keep in place the game those stories were designed to be told with... but if you're getting steadily 'stealth' 2nd Editioned the entire time, the system as it was becomes more and more unrecognizable. Better to recreate the game from the ground up, streamlining and freeing itself from the last vestiges of D&D 'hold-over' than the never-ending rules bloat/evolution we see taking place.

[Skeld]

Pathfinder is the game Paizo built and marketed to all those 4e holdouts who didn't want to stop playing 3.5e. The chance that a new edition of PF is going to be drastically different (for example, ditching Vancian magic) from the current edition almost 0, IMHO. Paizo has a lot of previously published books in their warehouse and PDFs on their servers they'd like sell. They aren't going to completely invalidate their entire back-catalog with a radically different edition. Any PF2e will be backward compatible to the current edition.

New editions bring up problems with the AP line, which has been the flagship of PF. New editions (especially the less backward compatible you get) lack options. Imagine starting over with a new edition in 2016: how long before you can do another Iron Gods? You have to have tech rules in place first, or at least concurrently. If you do tech rules earlier, what options are you pushing back to get them? A new edition's lack of options limits the stories that can be told. If you instead make the game backward compatible enough that the current tech rules work whole cloth, then have you made changes significant enough to even warrant an edition change?

I don't see it happening soon. I think Wiggz is spot on about Unchained-type stuff being a stealth edition change.

-Skeld

[adembroski]

I do use a home brewed ability score generation method... But working in bounded accuracy and flattening the feat trees are total reworks that effect other systems. The feats themselves would have to be rewritten, and who knows how magic is effected by all this. If I had a team of playtesters and a couple more designers just hanging around, sure.

I do think Paizo is dipping their toe in the new edition waters... That's one of the reasons I posted this. Throw my voice behind the idea.

[BPorter]

adembroski wrote:

I do use a home brewed ability score generation method... But working in bounded accuracy and flattening the feat trees are total reworks that effect other systems. The feats themselves would have to be rewritten, and who knows how magic is effected by all this. If I had a team of playtesters and a couple more designers just hanging around, sure.

I do think Paizo is dipping their toe in the new edition waters... That's one of the reasons I posted this. Throw my voice behind the idea.

...and throwing my voice and subscriptions against the idea.

I love Unchained and it and Occult are showing that there's plenty of design space left in the current system.

When a new edition comes, I want it to be the clean-up & tweaks that almost every other RPG adopts. I do not want, nor will I buy, a WotC "nuke & start over" approach that D&D seems to go through every time.

[Bruno Kristensen]

I don't think anyone is in favor of a "nuke & start over" new edition, but I for sure would like a Pathfinder 1.5, where all the errata had been taken in, where some of the feats are dropped or amended, where there is perhaps not 40+ base classes with 10+ archetypes per class, etc.

[Gorbacz]

Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

The only thing that is being 'enforced' in PFS is the new Summoner which, truth to be told, was long overdue. The remaining classes are optional, and no optional rules are available apart from skill unlocks if you're using the Unchained Rogue.

[BPorter]

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

I don't think anyone is in favor of a "nuke & start over" new edition, but I for sure would like a Pathfinder 1.5, where all the errata had been taken in, where some of the feats are dropped or amended, where there is perhaps not 40+ base classes with 10+ archetypes per class, etc.

There are plenty of people that want a radically revised new edition. They are also quite vocal, although I suspect fewer in number. From wuxia/mythic martials as default to "I like X from 4e", "I like Y from 5e", to heroic point-buy is too stingy, drop fighter and rogue crowd, too many classes, to the "Paizo can't design well but if they just listened to me they'd be the best" crowd -- it's tough to go a week without seeing a call for radical change.

And, btw, no one is requiring all classes be used. PFS Core & the Strategy Guide are testament to that. Archetypes are one of the defining traits of Pathfinder. And while I'd like a slower progression of feats, spells, and magic items, they clearly sell.

If someone doesn't want to use something, no one is forcing them to use it. The rest of us like having the options.

As a tangent/aside, the ones that really drive me up a wall are the "I love 5e but there's so little material/support for it now that I wish Paizo would tailor PF to suit. Oh, and it's business suicide for them if they don't" posts (paraphrased, of course).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I also want a new edition, but to be honest it's because I don't know what to do with most of Pathfinder, i.e. a lot of the higher level and utility magic and any class that doesn't cast spells.

More what I need is a "GMind Pathfinder for Dummies" book where it tells me what kinds of adventures each level of spells is designed for and what purpose non-spellcasters serve. Though it's probably just end up making me decide not to use most of the levels.

[Hayato Ken]

Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

That is complete nonsense and actually purposefully creating wrong statements. Did you even bother to look into the subject?

Doesn´t seem so.

Language clean ups, getting rid or clearing up of rules artefacts etc and simplification are most important in my eyes.
And there is a reason for that:
Old gamers are already here, but the game needs to be open and easier to understand for people who did not play previous editions.
It needs to be easier to learn and understand.
And this can be done by changing the write up of the CRB, so its easier to access.
All the environmental rules etc. A side effect is that it would get easier for new GM´s.
Strategy guide is a very good beginning there.

And something that would stress out the cooperative teamplay aspect a bit more.

[ladydragona]

Paizo has proved one thing in the years they have been around they don't always do what TSR/WOTC did during similar times.

And I think this will be similar I think eventually not this year or any time real soon they will consolidate some of their older hardcover books not make them obsolete mind you just put the best of the material into say a Corebook 2 and they might even redo the Corebook itself to bring it up to date with the way the game is played today with Archetypes being so important. This way a new person could break into the game without having to spend so much on so many books and so that Paizo could start to discontinue some of the books that don't sell so well anymore.

However I do not think that they will change the core mechanic of the game and make everyone start over again. In today's world with so many options out their this would be suicide on their part. It would do to Paizo what 3.5 did to WoTC. WoTC is still reeling over this stupid decision that led to yet more stupid decisions (4th edition). And fifth edition is hardly a ground breaking game. So in todays world people choose either Pathfinder with it's array of character choices or one of the many OSR games that resemble earlier editions of the game or the middle ground fifth edition.

If you all don't like Pathfinder in it's current form then houserule it to where you do like it. Or choose one of the other games out their. Don't ask me to have to rebuy all my books yet again cause I'm just not going their again.

And finally the biggest reason of all that Paizo will not abandon their core Pathfinder mechanic is that once they did and they moved on to a new Pathfinder 2 some clever company will do the same thing to them that they did to wizards of the coast. They will republish the game under the open game license give it a good clean up and say come to us we have the game you love not that bad new game that just came out. And the game will move on without them.

But no worries of that happening because the owners and managers of Paizo are smarter that the previous companies were and they are not going to go their. They will continue to put out the best game in the world and new ideas will go into books like pathfinder unchained 2 etc.

[Skeld]

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

[Pathfinder 2.0]

Gorbacz wrote:

Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

The only thing that is being 'enforced' in PFS is the new Summoner which, truth to be told, was long overdue. The remaining classes are optional, and no optional rules are available apart from skill unlocks if you're using the Unchained Rogue.

Now that you have accepted one class replacement, eventually the rest will follow.

[captain yesterday]

I'm with Skeld :-)

[ShinHakkaider]

Hayato Ken wrote:

Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

That is complete nonsense and actually purposefully creating wrong statements. Did you even bother to look into the subject?

Doesn´t seem so.

Language clean ups, getting rid or clearing up of rules artefacts etc and simplification are most important in my eyes.
And there is a reason for that:
Old gamers are already here, but the game needs to be open and easier to understand for people who did not play previous editions.
It needs to be easier to learn and understand.
And this can be done by changing the write up of the CRB, so its easier to access.
All the environmental rules etc. A side effect is that it would get easier for new GM´s.
Strategy guide is a very good beginning there.

And something that would stress out the cooperative teamplay aspect a bit more.

Pretty much agree with everything written here. A clean up and compilation like what was done between HERO 4th and HERO 5th would be great. If you had HERO 4th books (which I did/do and ALOT OF THEM) you could STILL use them, mechanically. with a little tweaking with HERO 5th rules.

I like what Paizo has done with both the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide and if they could put something like that together for a cleaned up 2nd edition? I'd buy that.

But pretty much a new base game with new mechanics as part of the base game and not as options? NOPE.

[bugleyman]

Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

"Compelling" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd find a better-organized Core Rule Book compelling (though I'd certainly prefer more substantive change).

[Hayato Ken]

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Hayato Ken wrote:

Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

That is complete nonsense and actually purposefully creating wrong statements. Did you even bother to look into the subject?

Doesn´t seem so.

Language clean ups, getting rid or clearing up of rules artefacts etc and simplification are most important in my eyes.
And there is a reason for that:
Old gamers are already here, but the game needs to be open and easier to understand for people who did not play previous editions.
It needs to be easier to learn and understand.
And this can be done by changing the write up of the CRB, so its easier to access.
All the environmental rules etc. A side effect is that it would get easier for new GM´s.
Strategy guide is a very good beginning there.

And something that would stress out the cooperative teamplay aspect a bit more.

Pretty much agree with everything written here. A clean up and compilation like what was done between HERO 4th and HERO 5th would be great. If you had HERO 4th books (which I did/do and ALOT OF THEM) you could STILL use them, mechanically. with a little tweaking with HERO 5th rules.

I like what Paizo has done with both the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide and if they could put something like that together for a cleaned up 2nd edition? I'd buy that.

But pretty much a new base game with new mechanics as part of the base game and not as options? NOPE.

That would more be like a revised CRB, far away from a second edition.

[Mogloth]

A 2nd edition to some people is an updated rules system to others.

What I would like to see is the next version of the CRB. Allow a bit of time so Paizo can see what aspects of Unchained and the upcoming Occult book people are using the most. Then you take the info and come up with a totally updated CRB.

With a new CRB you can throw out the old summoner and rogue and replace them with the new. You have the possibility of redoing the fighter class with the Stamina system. And any other class tweaks.

And you finally have the chance to clean up the wording on several things. Dispel Magic would be a huge clean up in my eyes. As would Protection From X. Among many others.

A new CRB could be invaluable. You get to tell everyone, "Hey, we've cleaned up a bunch of antiquated mechanics and simplified language on others. And we've condensed ideas from numerous books into one."

And you stop printing the old CRB and the new one becomes the evergreen CRB.

[Doomgrinder]

Rather than a version 2.0, I'd be happy if Paizo simply combined the Unchained and Core book into one book removing the things that are totally broken/useless.

I love D&D 5E, hated 4E, and have played PF since it was in Beta. These are for three different play groups...

5E is for a "simpler" crowd that doesn't want the crunchiness of PF. 4E is for those that love the battlemat. Pathfinder is for the ones that love to optimize. You can RP in all of them, so there's no difference there.

I play 5E with one group, and PF with another. Both have their places. No, I don't want a new edition, I'd like maybe just an updated PHB w/ material from the supplements.

As an aside, I have heard people say PF is too complicated and needs to be simplified... I disagree in principal... correct the ambiguous parts, yes, simplify like D&D? No...

I find it great that my 10 year old pulled out my PF Core Rulebook and created his own Wizard by himself this past weekend. He made a few mistakes, but was 95%+ correct.

[Skeld]

bugleyman wrote:

Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

"Compelling" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd find a better-organized Core Rule Book compelling (though I'd certainly prefer more substantive change).

It's funny you say that because I originally had something to that effect in my post, but I edited it out.

A revised CRB would be nice, the problem is that a revision would require a change to the pagination and that is something Paizo has been hesitant to do because it would break the CRB references in every other thing they've published. That's a value judgement on Paizo's part: is a revised CRB worth breaking references everywhere else?

The problem with PF2e (at least right now) is that everyone has a different idea of what it should be, what constitutes too many changes, and what isn't enough. It's a lot of uncertainty, which means a lot of risk.

-Skeld

[ryric]

Heck, if we wanted to, we could fight over what even constitutes a new "edition." There are RPG lines that print a new edition with changes that equal (or are even less than) the current CRB errata. I can sit down at a 6e Call of Cthulhu game with my 4e book and play just fine. AD&D's 2e to 3e and 3.5e to 4e changes were actually quite large for an edition change, compared to many RPGs that have existed.

I don't think we're there yet, but eventually Pathfinder will show its age. Even since 2009 there have been advancements in mechanics and concepts in the RPG world. Generally in the long term RPGs either see a new edition or they die. Hopefully we're still 4 or 5 years out, but I see a new edition as inevitable "someday."

[wraithstrike]

The issue here is that was needs to be fixed, and what is broken, useless, OP, and so on are subjective.

I am sure there is someone who thinks the new rogue is gamebreaking.

Someone tried to argue the slayer was broken, even though it is not the best martial class, and still is not on the same level as even the 4th level casters, such as paladins and rangers.

[Doomgrinder]

wraithstrike wrote:

The issue here is that was needs to be fixed, and what is broken, useless, OP, and so on are subjective.

I am sure there is someone who thinks the new rogue is gamebreaking.

Someone tried to argue the slayer was broken, even though it is not the best martial class, and still is not on the same level as even the 4th level casters, such as paladins and rangers.

You are very correct. Personally, I see no way of totally balancing all the classes. Too many moving parts... and some people are just better at figuring out the tweaks to make it appear broken.

[Doomgrinder]

Skeld wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

"Compelling" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd find a better-organized Core Rule Book compelling (though I'd certainly prefer more substantive change).

It's funny you say that because I originally had something to that effect in my post, but I edited it out.

A revised CRB would be nice, the problem is that a revision would require a change to the pagination and that is something Paizo has been hesitant to do because it would break the CRB references in every other thing they've published. That's a value judgement on Paizo's part: is a revised CRB worth breaking references everywhere else?

The problem with PF2e (at least right now) is that everyone has a different idea of what it should be, what constitutes too many changes, and what isn't enough. It's a lot of uncertainty, which means a lot of risk.

-Skeld

You know, I really didn't think about the page references, but that could be a bit confusing to someone. Good notice, thanks for that.

[adembroski]

Doomgrinder said, "5E is for a "simpler" crowd that doesn't want the crunchiness of PF."

Yeah, pretty much, but bounded accuracy does the game wonders.

The simplicity of 5E is frustrating. I can't seem to do with the game what I want without a crowbar. Pathfinder bends to my will in terms of setting, but the crunch needs work. Clearly a game with as many moving parts at PF is going to have those issues, but the ones that really throw me are cleaned up by (as I've mentioned before) eliminating feat tax and implementing bounded accuracy.

I could do this at home, as others have suggested, but I feel like I'd end up with a totally new game, and I don't really have that kinda time:D So, yeah, I want a new edition that cleans up these issues and addresses a few more.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Every time a new edition comes out we lose a few people who want to stay behind with the older edition. Please don't do this Paizo. You're taking my money just fine as is. My wife is constantly complaining that I spend way too much money on "Paizo". (that's what shows up on the monthly statement, you see... so unless you start a different, non-Paizo company to roll out a new edition, don't do it... just.... don't...)

There's way too much fun to be had with Unchained (and any other future setting-specific Unchained add-ons ;) ) for you guys to even consider this. Unchained is actually genius: tweak a few classes at a time without tagging that change with a ".5" or a new edition number... this way you don't piss off those who wan't nothing to do with anything else than Core but *still* want to buy modules, APs, etc.

Yeah... with all the Pathfinder subscriptions available... no need to do this... and it would be actually detrimental...

[bugleyman]

I'd actually like to see the return of the PHB/DMG split.

That would allow things like archetypes and traits to be added to the Core Rules (aka the PHB) without making the book even larger. Between re-organization, re-writing, and trimming the GM stuff, they should be able to get the Core Rules down to 384 pages (or even 320) pages (and maybe even down to $39.99).

Sure a separate GM's guide would mean a higher barrier to entry for GMs, but it would probably be a win for most players. It would certainly make for a stronger binding. ;-)

[bugleyman]

Skeld wrote:

It's funny you say that because I originally had something to that effect in my post, but I edited it out.

A revised CRB would be nice, the problem is that a revision would require a change to the pagination and that is something Paizo has been hesitant to do because it would break the CRB references in every other thing they've published. That's a value judgement on Paizo's part: is a revised CRB worth breaking references everywhere else?

The problem with PF2e (at least right now) is that everyone has a different idea of what it should be, what constitutes too many changes, and what isn't enough. It's a lot of uncertainty, which means a lot of risk.

-Skeld

Re-pagination is a definite concern. Personally, I would gladly suffer it for a cleaned up book; then again, I'm more about saving time/ease of play than I am saving money on books. I completely get that that equation is different for each of us.

[thaX]

A new edition is, in my mind, at least 5 years down the line.

However, a simple clean up of this current 3.5 adapted system is something that could be done now, without invalidating any of the old. The UNCHAINED! classes are a good start on this, with simpler additions like the stat changes on Rage, more options to sneak with the Rogue, the Monk having full BAB and simpler Flurries, and the Summoner having set Eidolons instead of the bag O' mistakes that was before.

I think an anniversary edition of the Core Rulebook can be a cleaned up replacement of the current book out now, with additional content from the (out of print) companion books added in and a combining of rules that are repeated in the book into clear, concise sections.

This is assuming, of course, that the "new edition" of PF would be on down the line from this, and that once PF 2.0 does come out, (5-7 years after) it would be a break away form the OGL and be it's own self contained system.

That is when Vancian Casting would be ripped from Role Playing games forever. Like it should have been in 3.0.

[Pan]

thaX wrote:

That is when Vancian Casting would be ripped from Role Playing games forever. Like it should have been in 3.0.

Yeah you keep barking up that tree, pal.

[Skeld]

Pan wrote:

thaX wrote:

That is when Vancian Casting would be ripped from Role Playing games forever. Like it should have been in 3.0.

Yeah you keep barking up that tree, pal.

The problem is that everyone's PF2e looks different right now. One person's "that's about right" is another's "table-flipping rage-quit." Like I said, uncertainty = risk. The risk analysis for Paizo (from the cheap seats) is that a big misstep on PF2e could literally kill the company; they don't have a M:TG or corporate sugardaddy to fall back on.

thaX wrote:

A new edition is, in my mind, at least 5 years down the line.

I remember JJ saying early on that he hoped any new edition of PFRPG would be at least 10 years off.

-Skeld

[Albatoonoe]

I, for one, can believe that you are saying it.

Snark aside, Skeld is so on point about things. Everyone wants different things. There isn't a monolithic "This is what we want" from people. This makes moving to a new edition a bad move when the current edition is working out quite well for them. They should try to maintain their current momentum instead of shifting it and potentially derailing all of their work.

[Skaorn]

I would be in favor of a streamlined version of Pathfinder, myself. not necessarily a new addition but not necessarily a new addition. There are several things I like from 5E that I have been enjoying. I like the Advantage/Disadvantage replacing a lot of status effects and modifiers because its fast and its super easy to work with. I like the iterative attacks better and think they're a better idea for fighting classes over 3rd's version. I like the fact that you can tank in AC and actually be a hard nut to crack. I like the scaling spells as it makes more sense having one cure spell than various cure spells at different levels. I also like their Feats better, though not the system of how you get them, because they are a big deal; and not just the equivalent of a major class feature or close to it in power level.

Having a book dedicated to pairing off the flash of Pathfinder so you could focus more on running a story and not looking up status effects and rules. Most games I play in are 2 to 3 hours long. By the time you get to mid level in the PF games I play in, we can only really fit one medium or large encounter in a session. A Dungeon crawl might take months to do while in the 5E game I play in now we might do as little as a third of a dungeon in one session. This provides a real sense of accomplishment rather than frustration of slogging through a handful of rooms in a month. This is not to say I don't find 5E kind of shallow, but it does let you do a lot more in a short span of time.

I do think there are room for things from 5E that could be added to regular PF, though, without major changes. Scaling Spells and big Feats for instance. Imagine for instance if the basic range combat Feat included Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and either a couple of Weapon Proficiencies or Far Shot. I like that better aesthetically and think it would condense the Feat tree.

I wouldn't mind seeing the linked accuracy for attacks as well, but I agree I'd rather see +10 rather than +6. Poor BAB would be stuck with 1 attack, average with 2 and good with 3. I don't really care for 5E's skill system but I'm not a fan of what my group refers to submarine warfare, specifically directed at Stealth vs Perception, where you try to have the highest possible value for select skills but nothing anywhere else. I would keep base skill values with the same bonus for attacks but also have a skill rank system that allowed you to take a special skill ability, like Fast Stealth or Trap Finding, to represent actual training and mastery. I realize these would probably be a deal breaker for many as changes to regular PF.

[BPorter]

Skaorn wrote:

I would be in favor of a streamlined version of Pathfinder, myself. not necessarily a new addition but not necessarily a new addition. There are several things I like from 5E that I have been enjoying. I like the Advantage/Disadvantage replacing a lot of status effects and modifiers because its fast and its super easy to work with. I like the iterative attacks better and think they're a better idea for fighting classes over 3rd's version. I like the fact that you can tank in AC and actually be a hard nut to crack. I like the scaling spells as it makes more sense having one cure spell than various cure spells at different levels. I also like their Feats better, though not the system of how you get them, because they are a big deal; and not just the equivalent of a major class feature or close to it in power level.

Having a book dedicated to pairing off the flash of Pathfinder so you could focus more on running a story and not looking up status effects and rules. Most games I play in are 2 to 3 hours long. By the time you get to mid level in the PF games I play in, we can only really fit one medium or large encounter in a session. A Dungeon crawl might take months to do while in the 5E game I play in now we might do as little as a third of a dungeon in one session. This provides a real sense of accomplishment rather than frustration of slogging through a handful of rooms in a month. This is not to say I don't find 5E kind of shallow, but it does let you do a lot more in a short span of time.

I do think there are room for things from 5E that could be added to regular PF, though, without major changes. Scaling Spells and big Feats for instance. Imagine for instance if the basic range combat Feat included Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and either a couple of Weapon Proficiencies or Far Shot. I like that better aesthetically and think it would condense the Feat tree.

I wouldn't mind seeing the linked accuracy for attacks as well, but I agree I'd rather see +10 rather than +6. Poor BAB would...

So, a few clarifications up front so that things don't get misunderstood due to the Internet Forum Filter:

You like several things from 5e. I understand and can appreciate that design innovations can serve as inspiration and in some cases appear as parallel design. So with no snark intended, I have to ask:

1. Are you playing 5e?

2. Regardless of the answer to #1, above, why should PF adopt those things? If they already exist in 5e, wouldn't it just be easier to play 5e rather than rewrite PFRPG?

We saw it with 4e and I'm seeing it again with 5e. Why does PF need to skew towards D&D? Why can't it be it's own thing?

As an example, in addition to Pathfinder, I love Savage Worlds. Very different games. Each appeals to me with different aspects of RPGs even though I could use either system to run a fantasy game set within the same world. But I don't expect, nor would I want, Pathfinder to adopt the raise/exploding dice mechanic of Savage Worlds, nor would I want Savage Worlds to adopt a PF-style Vancian magic system. Different RPGs can be their own thing.

[Vic Wertz]

Snorb wrote:

Some stuff needs to be baked into every character (looking at you, Precise Shot, Shot on the Run, and Spring Attack!!!)

If we're baking stuff in, I want chocolate chunks.

[Duiker]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Snorb wrote:

Some stuff needs to be baked into every character (looking at you, Precise Shot, Shot on the Run, and Spring Attack!!!)

If we're baking stuff in, I want chocolate chunks.

Luckily with the background skills system from Unchained, this is easier than ever!

[Atarlost]

Skeld wrote:

The problem is that everyone's PF2e looks different right now. One person's "that's about right" is another's "table-flipping rage-quit." Like I said, uncertainty = risk. The risk analysis for Paizo (from the cheap seats) is that a big misstep on PF2e could literally kill the company; they don't have a M:TG or corporate sugardaddy to fall back on.

No one's going to rage quit over the conservative option. That's pretty much clean up the stealth and mounted combat rules and reorganize the important stuff into a PHB and GMG.

There are some rules that need work. Or just taking work that was done and blogged about but couldn't be fit into the PF first edition CRB pagination and dusting it off and making sure it gets a proper public playtest in the case of stealth. The most troubled rules don't impact content, though. Stealth is currently a botch job around the skill condensation from 3.5 and mounted combat is a mess trying to close mutually exclusive loopholes in the mounted charge rules without changing any terminology. The terminology needs to go ahead and change. I'm inclined to think the enchantment(charm) and illusion rules could also use a going over. Possibly the polymorph spells should get access to monster qualities that were introduced in bestiary 2 and on as well and the stat adjustment by size table for polymorphing be rethought so it's not gimped for creatures not starting at medium.

I can't imagine anyone leaving over a real edition change even if what they want are the completely new game systems TSR and WotC have always passed off as edition changes.

[TOZ]

You know what is the monolithic "This is what we want" for Pathfinder players?

Pathfinder.

Until that changes, don't expect a new edition to happen.

[thejeff]

BPorter wrote:

Skaorn wrote:

I would be in favor of a streamlined version of Pathfinder, myself. not necessarily a new addition but not necessarily a new addition. There are several things I like from 5E that I have been enjoying. I like the Advantage/Disadvantage replacing a lot of status effects and modifiers because its fast and its super easy to work with. I like the iterative attacks better and think they're a better idea for fighting classes over 3rd's version. I like the fact that you can tank in AC and actually be a hard nut to crack. I like the scaling spells as it makes more sense having one cure spell than various cure spells at different levels. I also like their Feats better, though not the system of how you get them, because they are a big deal; and not just the equivalent of a major class feature or close to it in power level.

Having a book dedicated to pairing off the flash of Pathfinder so you could focus more on running a story and not looking up status effects and rules. Most games I play in are 2 to 3 hours long. By the time you get to mid level in the PF games I play in, we can only really fit one medium or large encounter in a session. A Dungeon crawl might take months to do while in the 5E game I play in now we might do as little as a third of a dungeon in one session. This provides a real sense of accomplishment rather than frustration of slogging through a handful of rooms in a month. This is not to say I don't find 5E kind of shallow, but it does let you do a lot more in a short span of time.

I do think there are room for things from 5E that could be added to regular PF, though, without major changes. Scaling Spells and big Feats for instance. Imagine for instance if the basic range combat Feat included Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and either a couple of Weapon Proficiencies or Far Shot. I like that better aesthetically and think it would condense the Feat tree.

I wouldn't mind seeing the linked accuracy for attacks as well, but I agree I'd rather see +10 rather

So, a few clarifications up front so that things don't get misunderstood due to the Internet Forum Filter:

You like several things from 5e. I understand and can appreciate that design innovations can serve as inspiration and in some cases appear as parallel design. So with no snark intended, I have to ask:

1. Are you playing 5e?

2. Regardless of the answer to #1, above, why should PF adopt those things? If they already exist in 5e, wouldn't it just be easier to play 5e rather than rewrite PFRPG?

We saw it with 4e and I'm seeing it again with 5e. Why does PF need to skew towards D&D? Why can't it be it's own thing?

As an example, in addition to Pathfinder, I love Savage Worlds. Very different games. Each appeals to me with different aspects of RPGs even though I could use either system to run a fantasy game set within the same world. But I don't expect, nor would I want, Pathfinder to adopt the raise/exploding dice mechanic of Savage Worlds, nor would I want Savage Worlds to adopt a PF-style Vancian magic system. Different RPGs can be their own thing.

Not to speak for him, but it sounds like he likes somethings from PF and some from 5E and thinks they'd work well together. Better than either game on its own.

[thejeff]

Atarlost wrote:

No one's going to rage quit over the conservative option. That's pretty much clean up the stealth and mounted combat rules and reorganize the important stuff into a PHB and GMG.

There are some rules that need work. Or just taking work that was done and blogged about but couldn't be fit into the PF first edition CRB pagination and dusting it off and making sure it gets a proper public playtest in the case of stealth. The most troubled rules don't impact content, though. Stealth is currently a botch job around the skill condensation from 3.5 and mounted combat is a mess trying to close mutually exclusive loopholes in the mounted charge rules without changing any terminology. The terminology needs to go ahead and change. I'm inclined to think the enchantment(charm) and illusion rules could also use a going over. Possibly the polymorph spells should get access to monster qualities that were introduced in bestiary 2 and on as well and the stat adjustment by size table for polymorphing be rethought so it's not gimped for creatures not starting at medium.

I can't imagine anyone leaving over a real edition change even if what they want are the completely new game systems TSR and WotC have always passed off as edition changes.

Some people have said they would rage quit over a new edition with only minor changes. On the grounds it would just be a money grab.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

I can't believe you're saying this either since this is the 1000th thread on this topic. I'd drop some sarcastic balloons, but I don't know what sarcastic balloons are; though I'll come up with something.

[Captain Phoenix]

bugleyman wrote:

... I'd like that new edition to look a lot more like the Beginner Box than the Core currently does.

I'd love to see more support for the Beginners Box, although I've hardly exhausted what's already available. It’s such a great product.

As for a new version? Well, there are some great systems out there that are "New" but died too soon (like Marvel Heroic Roleplaying). As many people have said, Pathfinder is well supported. Taking into account what it would take to support a new rule set and keep the old one, I think Paizo would come up against similar opinions to what WotC did with 4th Edition. It seems to me that role-players are generally averse to change too.

So, while there are surely loads of good reasons to update Pathfinder, I really hope the current system lives on for a very, very long time.