The thing that Paizo has always stressed is that they don't want to make any materials they've printed obsolete by rendering them mechanically invalid.
(Before people complain about how this or that archetype or option already makes somethings else "obsolete" by being better - that's not what I'm talking about; there is nothing that makes all those "worse" options physically playable - no square-peg-round-hole issues)
This, then, limits which books can be altered - the prime candidate being the Core Rulebook (which is already the most-printed and most-consumed book to date, which is par for the course for a game), and Pathfinder Unchained (since most of the changes would probably simply adding/altering rules from PFU into the core game).
The Unchained Rogue and Skill Unlocks could be added without much problem at all, as could Stamina be added to the Fighter as a core ability. The Monk could receive Unchained-Rogue-style changes and add qualities to the base Class without causing issues in subsequent books, as well.
That also means that some things, like iterative attacks, cannot be removed from the game, since it would cause massive rules inconsistencies between the CRB and subsequent books. It could be ALTERED, such as allowing players to make 5-foot steps between each Attack up to their base Speed, however, since no other books make reference to the exact mechanics of a Full Attack - they just reference that it exists.
Things like individual Feats could be radically altered. Combat Expertise, for instance, could be entirely rewritten, since nowhere else is the Feat described in detail, just referenced.
Spellcasting as-is could actually be replaced with Limited Spellcasting, Overclocking, and potentially Critical Spell Failures. Spells could be left written as-is, since, under both the original and this system, "Caster Level" is variable. Overclocking would allow for full Caster Level to still be a quality, and Critical Spell Failures could help further balance out the spellcasting system.
I do really hope that if they do make a revised edition of pathfinder, that they don't use that unchained action economy... it screws with so much 1st and 3rd party backwards compatibility would be near pointless.
I doubt that would happen but so far Swift/Move=1Act, Standard=2Act and Full-round-action=3Acts has been working fine for me as a conversion table so far in regards to third party things. I've had to make a few adjustments and some things don't get as much out of the action economy as they used to but Nothing really suffered drastically for it.
Personally I don't think a 2nd edition is needed just yet, though I would totally buy it if it came out. However, my guess is Paizo will announce 2nd edition when this edition stops making money.
They will issue the 2nd edition once a single week goes by without a new "When will
Pathfinder have a 2nd edition?" thread.So there will NEVER be a 2nd edition?
-- david
rotflmao
:)
Hopefully many years from now. All I need is some more APs.
Don't worry. As long as PF 1.0 keeps printing money they won't feel particularly inclined towards rocking the boat and making a new edition.
So long as they are successful with their current strategy of selling new options, settings and APs then they will keep on doing the same thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps one should ask Wizards of the Coast about how the switch from 3rd to 4th edition worked for them:-)
At least that's why I found pathfinder :-)
Dumb argument is dumb, and here's why:
1st to 2nd was amazingly successful.2nd to 3rd was revolutionary. It changed the D&D scene for decades to come.
4th to 5th has been very successful so far as well.
So one bad transition (can't even call it a flop, because 4th Edition has plenty of fans) is a really good track record. By that metric, Paizo can only hope they're as competent as WotC if they ever decide to go for a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.
:P
Out of curiosity, OP, when do *you* think it'll happen, and what do tou want to see in it?Sure, I'll take a wack at it.
I think the prime opportunity was when 4e launch to 5e, but the money was still good so they kept going, which makes the next prime opportunity the jump from 5e to 6e. Paizo's primary business plan is to capitalize on people dissatisfied with DnD who are looking for an accessible fantasy game that's close enough.
The changes might be insignificant, if so I think that Paizo will slowly die as 3e fans get older and stop being interested in their product. A better bet would be to create a much more significant changes for a high risk, high reward situation.
However it's hard to see how Paizo will work it. I can't really get a feel on their business tactics since (if they are to be believed) they were in a "failure just means we're back where we started" situation upon the initial release of Pathfinder.
Anyways. Assuming that they go for significant changes here's a list of what I would like to see. Though I doubt any of them would happen.
1. A removal of mechanical alignment.
2. A removal of vancian spellcasting.
3. A rebalancing of basic equipment and special materials that emphasizes them as bread and butter resources.
4. Magic items to be special items that a character might possess 3 of by end game, max.
5. Power equity to be provided between ranged, melee and blaster damage dealers.
6. Additional utility provided for classes like the Fighter who already have options.
7. A multiclass system that eschews the feat based progression of unchained/4e and the mix and match progression of d20 in favor of something that maintains competitive balance.
8. Aesthetic that emphasizes progress and doesn't try to harken back to AD&D like 5e's aesthetic does.
9. More cultural diversity in the mythology used for classes, races and bestiary sources at the start rather than being introduced down the line.
Just my takes on these desires.
1. This is something I could actually see happening, and feasible, but probably unlikely. A massive amount of D&D/PF cosmology is tied to that system2. Something that will unfortunately never happen.
3. Feasible.
4. Would require a complete rebalancing of the game's underlying math. Probably unlikely.
5. Depends on how you define damage, but I'd say we're actually kind of there already. Archers are most easily negated but most effective, blasters do the best AOE damage, and melee is best at area control/inflicting negative effects.
6. That'd be good. The Unchained classes foreshadow some of this.
7. Not sure what you mean here.
8. All depends on how you define progress I guess.
9. Unlikely, but certainly possible. The monk is in the Core Rulebook after all.
Hopefully many years from now. All I need is some more APs.
I'd like to see some conversions/reissues of previous APs like Legacy of Fire and Curse of the Crimson throne to Pathfinder as they did with Rise of the Runelords, too.
Perhaps one should ask Wizards of the Coast about how the switch from 3rd to 4th edition worked for them:-)
At least that's why I found pathfinder :-)
Dumb argument is dumb, and here's why:
1st to 2nd was amazingly successful.
2nd to 3rd was revolutionary. It changed the D&D scene for decades to come.
4th to 5th has been very successful so far as well.So one bad transition (can't even call it a flop, because 4th Edition has plenty of fans) is a really good track record. By that metric, Paizo can only hope they're as competent as WotC if they ever decide to go for a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.
:P
And every edition fractured the fanbase.
Original/Basic to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition started the "edition wars", but was never quite that huge because the playerbase was still relatively small in 1977
1st to 2nd Edition had its fair share of annoyed players. 2nd to 3rd was very controversial, since it was such a drastic rewrite of the system.
3rd to 3.5 caused some tension, too, but was
3.5 to 4th was basically a complete disaster, and made the 2nd-to-3rd disparity seem tame.
Even 4E to 5th has had its share of holdouts. What 5th managed to do, however, was win over some of the remaining 2nd Edition players, and work as a new "Basic" version to Pathfinder's "Advanced" version of D&D.
So, yeah, you can see where Paizo would be reticent to putting out a new "Edition".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the big thing that made 3rd to 4th so much of a disaster was their marketing. Otherwise it just would have been "This is neat, but not what I look for in a roleplaying game." for most people. Seriously... that marketing campaign...
One key difference washow many other companies were involved in 3.X. If 3.5 didn't didn't have the OGL and D20 licence a new edition wouldn't have hurt so bad. That and the merits of 4th ed was touted on the basis of how much 3.5 and grognards sucked drawing more ire than they needed to.
Honestly, the big thing that made 3rd to 4th so much of a disaster was their marketing. Otherwise it just would have been "This is neat, but not what I look for in a roleplaying game." for most people. Seriously... that marketing campaign...
Well, it even being CALLED "D&D" was also something that ticked people off.
If the game had been left as its own thing without the "D&D" moniker, it wouldn't have done as well but it also wouldn't have flopped as badly.
For all the changes from 2nd to 3rd Ed, 3rd Ed still looked, felt, and played like a game of D&D (and many of the mechanics were left largely intact in one form or another - NWPs being separated into either Skills or Feats). 4E neither looked, felt, or played like any other version of D&D.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the big thing that made 3rd to 4th so much of a disaster was their marketing. Otherwise it just would have been "This is neat, but not what I look for in a roleplaying game." for most people. Seriously... that marketing campaign...Well, it even being CALLED "D&D" was also something that ticked people off.
If the game had been left as its own thing without the "D&D" moniker, it wouldn't have done as well but it also wouldn't have flopped as badly.
For all the changes from 2nd to 3rd Ed, 3rd Ed still looked, felt, and played like a game of D&D (and many of the mechanics were left largely intact in one form or another - NWPs being separated into either Skills or Feats). 4E neither looked, felt, or played like any other version of D&D.
It'd have ticked them off a lot less if the animated shorts didn't pretty much say "Hey that 3rd Edition, pretty stupid right?".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be more interested in new campaign settings than a 2nd edition
Or even just generic sanarios that you put anywhere you want in a game world
Why would you need a second edition? They have updated rules several times in the several printings plus they just add unchained. The system is complete and flexible so it would make no sense.Profit. Money. And also flaws in the system that need to be fixed (I don't think anyone around believes Pathfinder is a flawless game).
I don't care what game you find out there to play, none of them, not a single one, is flawless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you need a second edition? They have updated rules several times in the several printings plus they just add unchained. The system is complete and flexible so it would make no sense.Profit. Money. And also flaws in the system that need to be fixed (I don't think anyone around believes Pathfinder is a flawless game).
I believe that Paizo's business plan is to make money by putting out a good and consistent product. Second Edition rules would break the consistency.
I could see them releasing new books that substitute for the Core Rulebook, such as a Pathfinder Beginner's Guide for a cheaper rulebook for people who started with the Beginner Box. Alternative core rulebooks like that might swap in some of the new features from Unchained or similar books, thereby making those new features more central.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What use would you even have for a new campaign setting? Golarion is like a dozen different campaign settings all in one, just use the region that works for your game.
Within the Golarion System, there are at least two other worlds home to complex sentient life - basically the Pathfinder versions of Barsoom (Mars in the works of E.R. Burroughs) and Venus (in the works of R.M. Farley).
Both of these worlds can be expanded upon and given Campaign Settings unto themselves.
They can also be the reason for a "Timespace Adventures" book or any other "Adventures" book which basically reintroduces the idea of Spelljammer-style planet/universe hopping multiverse nonsense to the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and we can always get more material for Vudra, Arcadia, and Tian Xia. I've wanted to run a campaign in Vudra but haven't, just for lack of in-depth stuff like we get on places like Absalom or Kaer Maga.
Edit: There's always a certain hut that's more than happy to planet-hop...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a thought. Why have a second edition? When Pathfinder starts losing steam, wrap up the core, module and Player Companion lines then dial back the APs to one AP a year and make new game with a different focus, either further into victorian pulp fantasy or backwards towards medieval stasis, that's somewhat pathfinder compatible but with a smoother rule set.
That or more Unchained like things come out that rewrite the system but not officially.
I've also have always been in favor of expanding the beginner box rules to a full fledge Pathfinder-lite so that you don't have to change much and you have a sister product for players that need a simpler rule set that funtionally works with adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see some conversions/reissues of previous APs like Legacy of Fire and Curse of the Crimson throne to Pathfinder as they did with Rise of the Runelords, too.
HEAR HEAR! I would LOVE that.
Not too wild about another edition, though.
Here's a thought. Why have a second edition?
Possibly for the same reason that DC & Marvel have "reboots" every few years of their comic lines: to try and drive up interest in the game.
Pathfinder can more-than-likely last for another 10 years or so without any major changes to the core game by simply expanding upon basic aspects that haven't yet been delved into in great depth (like how Ultimate Combat and Magic expanded upon... Combat and Magic, and how Ultimate Intrigue will focus on Skills).
There may eventually come a Pathfinder Revised Core Rulebook which alters basic aspects of the game without causing snarls with subsequent products.
Paizo will probably follow WOTC's example, but not the D&D department - they'll probably look to the Magic the Gathering dept. in how to handle an "edition" change. MTG has gone through 1 massive rules overhaul (from 5th Ed to 6th Ed entirely re-writing the system), and at LEAST a half-dozen minor rules overhauls over the years; yet every card ever printed is STILL usable mechanically in that game.
A Revised Core Rulebook could basically be Pathfinder's "1.5 Ed" or what have you - making changes such as allowing small steps of movement during Full Attack Actions, rewriting/replacing some "problem" Classes without affecting Archetypes later (i.e. replacing the base Rogue with the Unchained Rogue officially and adding Skill Unlocks to the game, altering the Monk somehow like making Flurry start out less accurate but later becomes MORE accurate as you level, etc.), completely rewriting some Feats like Combat Expertise, adjusting how much Caster Level plays into the power of spells (by institutionalizing the Limited Spellcasting & Overclocking rules, etc.), and other things...
All of these changes would radically alter basic fine-points of the game and yet not invalidate any of the books printed after the Core Rulebook. Paizo would just have to avoid touching massive pieces of the game's basic architecture (like removing Iterative Attacks altogether - that would actually cause gigantic issues across the entire publication line; the best that could be done is to allow 5-foot steps between each Attack up to your Base Speed, so the mechanic isn't really REMOVED, just MODIFIED).
Basically, how 1st Edition AD&D transitioned to 2nd Ed, but with fewer hiccups (and nothing like the replacement of Attack Matrices with THAC0).
However, I wouldn't expect to see an RCRB within the next few years - the EARLIEST would probably be 2019 (the 10th Anniversary of the PFRPG release), but more than likely expect it for the 15th Anniversary in 2024.
Not too wild about another edition, though.
I'm pretty much the same way.
If we're talking a new "Edition" in the same way that WOTC has handled D&D going from 2nd to 3rd/3.5 to 4E to 5th, I wholeheartedly agree - printing a radically-new game system and calling it the "same" as the old one would basically be it for me; at that point, I'd stick with the books I have (at that point, 20-25 books is probably enough) and call it a day.
BUT
If we're talking a rules revision which either requires only a fairly substantial Errata pack for the CRB, or would require me to buy a wholly-new version of my Core Rulebook due to the changes made BUT leaves every other book I own intact, usable, and without issue in how the printed rules interact with the Core game, I'd actually be okay with that.
I've played Magic long enough that adjusting to changes to the basic rules doesn't bother me, SO LONG as I can still pick up every single one of my cards and have them at least function on a mechanical level (whether they're still "good" or not is another matter, but that's just how it goes); if a Revised Core Rulebook comes out and presents me with a dilemma like that, I'm fine with it - as long as my other dozen-and-a-half-plus books are left mechanically intact, I don't have a problem at all with buying a Revised Core Rulebook to replace my decade-plus-old original CRB... at the very LEAST the RCRB would be on the PRD, so my group and I could always look it up like anything else.
Here's a thought. Why have a second edition? When Pathfinder starts losing steam, wrap up the core, module and Player Companion lines then dial back the APs to one AP a year and make new game with a different focus, either further into victorian pulp fantasy or backwards towards medieval stasis, that's somewhat pathfinder compatible but with a smoother rule set.
That or more Unchained like things come out that rewrite the system but not officially.
I've also have always been in favor of expanding the beginner box rules to a full fledge Pathfinder-lite so that you don't have to change much and you have a sister product for players that need a simpler rule set that funtionally works with adventures.
The various folks have argued that splitting the lines (either with new campaign settings or with new rulesets) is not economically sound. What happens is that you have spend the same amount of money producing the product, but potentially, say, only half of the customers like/buy game system x, while the other half only buy/like system z. So you overall end up moving less product with no reduction in the cost to make said product.
As for "wrapping up" various lines, that is not feasible as long as the company is healthy. To do so means they would need to fire a large chunk of staff, and might furthermore reduce the customer base, since not everyone buys books from all lines. I am sure there would be other issues with maintaining high product visibility, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When we've got exactly forty-two of these threads. So hop to it!
I'd like to see a divorce from the OGL, to be honest. Get rid of the backwards compatibility that holds the system back, and do what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a divorce from the OGL, to be honest. Get rid of the backwards compatibility that holds the system back, and do what they want.
Considering the only reason PF exists is because they wanted to keep making adventures for 3.5e and have their old adventures backwards compatible... I don't see that happening.
|
I'd like to see a divorce from the OGL, to be honest. Get rid of the backwards compatibility that holds the system back, and do what they want.
The OGL isn't what you think it is. You're talking about losing the d20 / 3.x system. This is NOT the same thing as the OGL. You can have the OGL for non-d20 / 3.x system games.
You said "do what they want"...and apparently what they want to do is use the d20 / 3.x system.
I'd like to see a divorce from the OGL, to be honest. Get rid of the backwards compatibility that holds the system back, and do what they want.
I think you're missing the fact that many or most of the people involved with Paizo are the very people who CREATED the d20 system (which you're confusing with the OGL) while employed at WOTC.
And SINCE they created the system, I think they'll want to stick with it for as long as possible.
It's like asking Steve Jackson Games to "give up on GURPS and just do what you want" - they designed the darn thing, so of COURSE they're gonna use it forever in one form or another.
I was under the impression that Unchained is what they would have done if free of the OGL.
My mistake.
I'd like to see more of this stuff.
I also think they can do better than D20.
I was under the impression that Unchained is what they would have done if free of the OGL.
My mistake.
Again, NOTHING in the OGL says "you must use this, all of this, and nothing BUT this"
SpyCraft and FantasyCraft uses the d20 OGL system, as well, and is a RADICALLY different game than Pathfinder.
The d20 system at its very core is just:
1) 6 Stats - Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha - with a "Modifier" calculation of (([value]-10)/2)=Modifier
1) Skills, Skill Points & Ranks
2) Feats
3) Universal Character Levels (All classes level at the same rate)
4) Base Attack Bonus & Iterative Attacks for High BAB
5) Universal 1d20-Based Direct-Comparison "Difficulty" Check System (Attack vs AC, Skill vs Checks, Save vs Effect, etc.)
6) "Critical Hit" on Attack Rolls with a natural roll of 20, 19-20, 18-20, x2, x3, x4, etc., on a 1d20 Roll.
At the core of it, that's it - that's the d20 System. The basic architecture of the game comes down to a very, very basic skeleton using pretty much those parameters.
BESM d20, SpyCraft, and Pathfinder are all d20 games, just to give you an idea of how widely variable the d20 system can be under the OGL.
no to a new edition, yes to an expansion to the Campaign Setting like say a hard back that deals excursively with the parts of the world that are not the inner sea, not that I have a problem with the inner sea but the world needs more than just the teases that paizo has given us
The d20 system at its very core is just:
1) 6 Stats - Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha - with a "Modifier" calculation of (([value]-10)/2)=Modifier
2) Skills, Skill Points & Ranks
3) Feats
4) Universal Character Levels (All classes level at the same rate)
5) Base Attack Bonus & Iterative Attacks for High BAB
6) Universal 1d20-Based Direct-Comparison "Difficulty" Check System (Attack vs AC, Skill vs Checks, Save vs Effect, etc.)
7) "Critical Hit" on Attack Rolls with a natural roll of 20, 19-20, 18-20, x2, x3, x4, etc., on a 1d20 Roll.At the core of it, that's it - that's the d20 System. The basic architecture of the game comes down to a very, very basic skeleton using pretty much those parameters.
Some don't even have some of those, Mutants and Masterminds only has 2, 3, 6, and 7. OGL and d20 are very open.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you want to see in it?Not a unique answer but: NOTHING.
Here's the deal. The moment Paizo makes game that isn't PFRPG, they've invented "yet another game system I don't play". Think about it. There are dozens of tabletop games out there. If I wanted to play something that isn't PFRPG, it's not like I've got no options.
It's not that the game is flawless. That simply doesn't matter.
When the restaurant you visit every Tuesday to buy their [whatever] removes it from the menu and offers "new and improved", it doesn't matter that the new thing has fewer calories or less arsenic or is "organic". What matters is that the reason you went there is gone. Now you're "forced" to eat something that isn't what you want to eat.
So why bother restricting yourself to that restaurant if you're forced to find a new favorite food?
Right. No reason.
The moment you change editions, you lose customers. Guaranteed. You gain some. Guaranteed. What isn't guaranteed is if you gain more than you lose.
So you don't screw around until you have to, to pay the mortgage.
This. This is made of win. Great post, and I totally agree.
I was under the impression that Unchained is what they would have done if free of the OGL.
My mistake.
Again, NOTHING in the OGL says "you must use this, all of this, and nothing BUT this"
SpyCraft and FantasyCraft uses the d20 OGL system, as well, and is a RADICALLY different game than Pathfinder.
The d20 system at its very core is just:
1) 6 Stats - Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha - with a "Modifier" calculation of (([value]-10)/2)=Modifier
1) Skills, Skill Points & Ranks
2) Feats
3) Universal Character Levels (All classes level at the same rate)
4) Base Attack Bonus & Iterative Attacks for High BAB
5) Universal 1d20-Based Direct-Comparison "Difficulty" Check System (Attack vs AC, Skill vs Checks, Save vs Effect, etc.)
6) "Critical Hit" on Attack Rolls with a natural roll of 20, 19-20, 18-20, x2, x3, x4, etc., on a 1d20 Roll.At the core of it, that's it - that's the d20 System. The basic architecture of the game comes down to a very, very basic skeleton using pretty much those parameters.
BESM d20, SpyCraft, and Pathfinder are all d20 games, just to give you an idea of how widely variable the d20 system can be under the OGL.
I'm aware of that. What does that have to do with my last comment?
I made 2 statements:I'd like to see more Unchained type stuff (which I'm perfectly aware still uses D20 mechanics, but seem much less held up by backwards compatibility); and
I think they can make a better system than D20.
This. This is made of win. Great post, and I totally agree.What do you want to see in it?Not a unique answer but: NOTHING.
Here's the deal. The moment Paizo makes game that isn't PFRPG, they've invented "yet another game system I don't play". Think about it. There are dozens of tabletop games out there. If I wanted to play something that isn't PFRPG, it's not like I've got no options.
It's not that the game is flawless. That simply doesn't matter.
When the restaurant you visit every Tuesday to buy their [whatever] removes it from the menu and offers "new and improved", it doesn't matter that the new thing has fewer calories or less arsenic or is "organic". What matters is that the reason you went there is gone. Now you're "forced" to eat something that isn't what you want to eat.
So why bother restricting yourself to that restaurant if you're forced to find a new favorite food?
Right. No reason.
The moment you change editions, you lose customers. Guaranteed. You gain some. Guaranteed. What isn't guaranteed is if you gain more than you lose.
So you don't screw around until you have to, to pay the mortgage.
I do think that Limited Spellcasting might rub some people the wrong way, even if Overclocking was included to make "Caster Level" still a widely-variable option, so whether it'd be included in a "Revised" game is up to speculation.
But I don't think people would be upset with a slight change to the Full Attack Action that lets you take small steps between each attack.
At the same time I don't think ANYONE would be upset with Combat Expertise receiving a total rewrite that makes it a desirable Feat and severely lessens the blow of having so many Feats require it as a prerequisite (it'd have to keep the Int 13 thing, but make it good enough and some people wouldn't mind the requirement).
And since everyone, including the Devs, has already replaced the original Rogue with the Unchained Rogue in their minds, making it part of the Core Rules would make sense.
The name of the game is "Adding & Modifying" not "Removing & Replacing" - if you modify and add things to the base mechanics, then a "Revised" edition is possible.
But an out-and-out total system rewrite like what's been seen for 3rd/3.5, 4E, and 5th Ed is going to be met with a fair amount of grar and create its OWN set of problems to replace the ones that exist here and now, so that's probably never going to happen.
|
|
I think they can make a better system than D20.
Possibly, although I have a lot more faith in their "flavor / fluff" team than in their "mechanics / crunch" team.
But it doesn't really matter, because Paizo as a company seems devoted to the d20/3.x system. They aren't going to offer another alternative because that's what they WANT to use.
The OGL actually doesn't require the d20 system at all. There have been other games released under the OGL...Dungeon World, FATE, Traveller, and all the retro-clones.
I'm aware, merely saying that something can be both and still be amazingly different from another that is also OGL and d20. That both categories are very open in regards to what concepts could develop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's interesting how very progressive this company and much of its fanbase can be, while at the same time being so conservative when it comes to game rules.
I suppose it just goes to show how compartmentalized we humans can be.
I was under the impression that Unchained is what they would have done if free of the OGL.
My mistake.
I'd like to see more of this stuff.
I also think they can do better than D20.
I got the feeling that the designers stayed conservative on the Pathfinder update not for OGL reasons but because post 3.5 transition was a tricky time, and major deviations from the rules may have kept people from updating to Pathfinder. Unchained has some rules that might have been tried out if they weren't trying to court those players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick question to all the people using the, "If I can't keep using my PF books, then I'm not interested in a Revamp/2nd Edition/Whatever."
If that's true, why are you playing PF right now instead of 3.5?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's interesting how very progressive this company and much of its fanbase can be, while at the same time being so conservative when it comes to game rules.
I suppose it just goes to show how compartmentalized we humans can be.
Well, part of it comes from years of getting burned by massive rules overhauls.
When 1st Ed switched to 2nd Ed, there were some rules snarls that meant some things from 1st Ed no longer worked in 2nd Ed, but by-and-large the changes were fairly minimal enough that the bulk of 1st Ed materials worked with 2nd Ed as well without too much time needing to be spent converting 1st to 2nd Ed stuff.
3rd Edition was a fairly radical change from 2nd Edition, and while you could convert things from 2nd Ed to 3rd, it took a LOT of effort and serious number-crunching (1st and 2nd Ed weren't too horribly dissimilar from one another, and I've converted 1st Ed material to 3rd Ed... let's just say that figuring out the proper DCs for how Saves work now compared to how they worked back THEN is like jumping through flaming hoops).
The Result is that the majority of things from 1st & 2nd Ed didn't work with 3rd Edition, with the exception of Magic Items (the as-written rules for Magic Items still worked fine - a +3 Sword was in 1st & 2nd Ed was still a +3 Sword in 3rd). This meant that all those books that people had spent money on over the years no longer had ANY real support with the new system.
The Edition Wars from 2nd to 3rd Ed were pretty bad, but a large majority of people jumped onto the 3rd Ed bandwagon, even longstanding 2nd Ed veterans, because they had gotten burned out with the dismal quality of TSR's books and the problems that had plagued the game since the advent of AD&D in '77.
However, 3.5 was an even greater Money-Sink investment than 2nd Ed, since every single book published during the 3.5 era was a hardbound book, meaning people could easily have 50+ hardbound D&D books over the course of just 5 years
People got REALLY salty when 3.5 flipped over into 4E and there weren't even any conversions possible. In 3rd Ed, as I said, you could at least trace a line back to 1st Ed and make updates because the game systems were just similar enough to see where X became Y in the edition transition; 4E, however, was so radically different that NOTHING from 3.5 worked in the slightest degree.
On top of this, the marketing and development department of WOTC's D&D division at the time proceeded to do the classic "new guy in charge" thing and mudsling the old stuff to make the new edition and new guys seem godlike in comparison; they did so by having a smear campaign of ads that basically said "3rd Ed sucked and you were a tool for liking it - stop being a tool and LOVE 4E."
And now 4E-lovers are feeling the same sting with 5th Edition, since 5th Ed has much more in common with 3rd Edition than it does with 4E, leaving those mountains and mountains of hardbound 4E books basically orphaned.
Just to illustrate the point... In 2nd Ed, you had to buy the Complete Psionics Handbook to play a Psion class; in 3rd/3.5 you had to buy a book of the same name, then the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psion even later just to play vaguely the same things from 2nd Ed; THEN, in 4E, you had to buy the Players Handbook II or III (I can't remember), JUST to play a Psion for 4th Edition. So, 3 Editions and 4-5 books, just to play the same character in each version of the rules.
---
Basically, over the course of no less than 3 Edition changes, people became jaded to the notion that "New Edition = New System" and have become, with reason, disgusted at the idea that once again the money they spent on books will have been wasted because the game is no longer produced.
And while there is something to be said about "well, you don't HAVE to buy the new material," the reason people don't want their old things "obsoleted" stands as this: Say I bought the CRB and APG, and that's it; years later, I decide I want the Occult Adventures, too... however, OA now works on Pathfinder 9th Edition, and the game is so radically different and dissimilar to the 1st Edition that they're basically different games entirely, meaning that, in order to even use OA, I also have to get the new CRB 9th Edition, and the APG may not be valid at all anymore.
People want to be sure that they can step away from the game now and be able to return to it without much issue at all years later.
Pathfinder allowed for that - people who had stopped playing after the first 4 "Complete" books of 3.5 could pick up the APG and begin playing without much of a problem at all; yes, there were some minor rules hiccups, but for the most part their old books were STILL almost entirely usable today.
So when the idea of a "2nd Edition" pops up, a large amount of the fanbase starts getting PTSD flashbacks to the 2nd-3rd, 3.5/4E changeover nightmares and worry that they're going to relive it all over again, having to shell out lots of money just to buy the same basic material they had before all over again JUST to keep up-to-date with the basic game rules.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick question to all the people using the, "If I can't keep using my PF books, then I'm not interested in a Revamp/2nd Edition/Whatever."
If that's true, why are you playing PF right now instead of 3.5?
For the same reason they transitioned from 3.0 to 3.5.
And from 2E + Player's Options to 3.0.
And from 2E to 2E + Player's Options.
And from 1E to 2E.
And from 0e with all supplements to 1E.
And from 0e "core" to 0e with all supplements.
Because they like to say "no new editions". But most of them will fork over cash for Pathfinder 2E.
Just a quick question to all the people using the, "If I can't keep using my PF books, then I'm not interested in a Revamp/2nd Edition/Whatever."
If that's true, why are you playing PF right now instead of 3.5?
Because PF is backwards compatible allowing me to use my 3.5e content + PF content. If I can't keep using my existent books, I'll keep playing and homebrewing for 3.P since I cannot afford to render that collection of books worthless. There is a reason why some PF advertising says "3.5 Thrives in Pathfinder".