Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

451 to 500 of 608 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking as someone who prefers 5th edition over Pathfinder, I really don't think Pathfinder needs an entirely new "edition". At least not something that would make everything they've published obsolete or difficult to convert over.

And I freely admit that Wizards is really losing my interest with its focus on Forgotten Realms, which for me is a very uninteresting world. And they only give token support for cool things like the Eberron and Dark Sun settings, firearms, and psionics. Pathfinder, meanwhile, has a setting that allows for a whole range of genres and kinds of games: gothic horror, science fiction, Egyptian adventures, expeditions to notAsia (though come on Paizo, where's your full AP set in Tian-Xia?), and so on.

So while I prefer 5e's system over Pathfinder's, I still buy Adventure Paths and supplements from time to time, if only to mine them for ideas.

My 2 copper rant!


Neongelion makes me think about how doing 5e APs (and 5e Golarion) would be a decent move too. It's more work for something that is now legal to sell under a completely different OGL, but 5e is a huge market too.

I know I would probably buy 5e APs from Paizo even if I don't particularly like Golarion because the APs are above average.


memorax wrote:
If they can make a new edition that offers at least 50%+ and still be compabitable with the current edition of PF I might be interested. If not I probably won't purchase it. Reprints are also not worth the expense not unless once again it offers a decent amount of new material. At the very least it needs to include major amounts of errata.

Thing is, that doesn't matter.

1. If you have a copy of the core rulebook then you already have bought a new edition that offers less than 50% new content in it's core rulebook.
2. According to paizo, a large portion of people buy the Core Rulebook every year. By revamping the Core Rulebook when it comes to layout and errata, it would mean they get even more sales because it would get sales from "The people who would already buy the core rulebook that year and onwords" + "The people who already play PF and want to see the erratas and tiny changes", not just "The people who already play PF and want to see the erratas and tiny changes".

It doesn't matter if you and people like you wont buy it, because people already buy the Core Rulebook year after year.

Liberty's Edge

Their a difference between buying reprints and another edition. I bought a reprint because my first printing spins broke and looked pretty beaten up. I just can't see that happening again with a edition that offers no to little changed. Again I'm not saying it won't sell. I just don't think it will sell as well. I don't even have to spend money on a rehashed edition. All I need to do is take what I need from the SRD.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

One downside I can see to a revised CRB is that it would break all the page references in Paizo's currently-published material. Breaking pagination is something they've been very hesitant to do.

-Skeld


Avaricious wrote:

Hell why not make Pathfinder 2.0 Paizo's revision of WotC's 4E?

...I'll show myself out.

I'll show myself in. :)

...Though cleaning up all that brain matter would be a chore.

Spoiler:
'Cause, ya know, half of the fanbase's heads would explode. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Skeld wrote:

One downside I can see to a revised CRB is that it would break all the page references in Paizo's currently-published material. Breaking pagination is something they've been very hesitant to do.

-Skeld

I agree. There'd be no getting around that problem.

Perhaps changing the name (so not "Revised CRB" but rather "Pathfinder Rulebook", or something) would at least avoid misleading references.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
memorax wrote:

@Steve

They could have done a lot more with the Fightef class and still maintain backwards compiabity imo. Compared to the upgrade the Paladin received. It could have been so much more IMO.

What change would have counted as "innovative", though? Just boosting the power doesn't count, right? And if they start getting whole new subsystems or powers, the backwards compatibility begins to strain (remember they wanted people to be able to use Pathfinder adventures with 3.5 characters, as well).

Liberty's Edge

I would have done more than allow them to do more than "swing and hit". Bravery is a joke and very poor one at that as far as I'm concerned. Weapon Training, Armor Training while useful. Compared to what other classes get to me at least it's a huge resounding "meh".

I look at Paladin ad I class features like Divine Bond, Mercy and Smite Evil. Rangers get Hunters Bond, Favored Terrain, Combat style Feat. Which to me at least are much more interesting features. All the melee classes can wear armor and hit with weapons. The Fighters somewhat better. Their nothing that makes him stand out.

Even the Lore Warden. While a decent archtype. Just does not go far enough imo. Know thy Enemy is great if you don't have a Bard in the group. But even then it's limited by the action economy. At 14th level it becomes a swift action. Would it have killed the Devs to make it a move action at 10th or even 11th level. By then compared to what other classes can do it's not even that interesting. A bard at 7th level can use a move action to give the same bonus and still be able to cast spells. While also having it last fir two extra rounds if the Pc/Npc has Lingering Performance.

With the Level 19th ability almost as bad a joke as Bravery. At least Bravery gives a bonus to will saves. Most players I know who take Fighters or archtypes are already building the character earlier to hit with criticals more often. Again nothing to draw me away from other melee classes with more interesting abilities.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I understand that fighters don't get a lot - my point is that backwards compatibility was a real straightjacket.

It was a self-imposed constraint that a Pathfinder fighter be basically "the-same-but-a-bit-better" as a 3.5 fighter - that constraint was hugely important to the fanbase.

I think it's easy to forget that Pathfinder was expressly designed to be as close to 3.5 as possible. Any changes were only meant to be tweaks, not rewrites of how a class functioned and (more importantly) how it felt when being played. If fighters had got a whole bunch of new 'narratively significant' powers, or somesuch then it may have addressed a weakness of 3.5, but it would also have risked straying too far from what they were trying to preserve.

My view is that anything regarded as truly "innovative" would have been poorly received by that key element of the market at the time - even if the game would ultimately have benefited. I think Pathfinder Unchained was a glimpse of "Some of what we would have done if we hadn't had to preserve so much" and no doubt there would have been much more if they'd been trying to design a game from the ground up.


memorax wrote:
I would have done more than allow them to do more than "swing and hit".

Part of the problem is that to add anything else would alter the identity of the class since that is All the class was thematically, damaging backwards compatibility if you changed it.

Edit: I actually think the biggest constrain on paizo innovation when it comes to fighters is the fanbase. Think about all the backlash from making classes that are better than the rogue at it's role, simply because they were making Better Balanced Skilled classes like investigator, inquisitor and slayer.

Now, if paizo released a martial class that was a great in damage dealing as a fighter but had other abilities that thematically fit that increased it's agency, tonnes of fans would be annoyed that "Fighters are being made redundant" (despite the fact this is an attempt at making martials relevant).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

TSR actually had something similar with the Gladiator class in Dark Sun, back in the 2E days.

Dark Sun Gladiators were, in a nutshell, "fighters but better."

Of course, that was also back in the days of needing minimum ability scores to qualify for classes, so having some classes just be objectively better didn't bother people on the design end as much.


Guys, you can fix Combat, Feat, Magic, etc a lot easier than classes and still have backwards compatibility. Hell, you can change the core dice mechanic and make it backwards compatable.

All the APs, classes, etc are mostly self contained and it would just change the effectiveness.


I would really respect Paizo making 5e content. It would show me that Paizo really believes in the OGL business model and isn't afraid of competition.

It would also put them in a great position to-Pathfinder 5e when WotC inevitably gives it up to make 6e MOBA inspired D&D (with VR integration).

Traditional business knowledge would say that helping your competition grow it's player base is dumb, but traditional business knowledge would also say that if you are in the business of selling rules, you shouldn't give them away for free.


Rhedyn wrote:
It would also put them in a great position to-Pathfinder 5e when WotC inevitably gives it up...

*Shudders at the thought*


Milo v3 wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
It would also put them in a great position to-Pathfinder 5e when WotC inevitably gives it up...
*Shudders at the thought*

ditto.

Liberty's Edge

I doubt very much that giving Fughters more than " I swing and hit ". Would have really ruined backwards compabilty for many fans. Now I can accept the devs wanting to be conservative and implementing no major changes. Only to the most conservative minded changing hating members of the fanbase would the sense of backwards compabilty be ruined IMO. Having better will saves and perhaps more interesting class features. I doubt would ruin gamers immersion. Only if they ruin it for themselves. The Weapon Masters Handbook is a tiny step in the right direction. Perhaps too little too late.

As for A 5E version of Pathfinder I don't see why not. Especially if Paizo is willing to support both the current version of Pathfinder and 5E. As I'm pretty certain those who have played 5E are not going to anywhere near another version of 3.5. For some one if the main reason to switch over to 5E was to get away from 3.5.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I understand that fighters don't get a lot - my point is that backwards compatibility was a real straightjacket.

It was a self-imposed constraint that a Pathfinder fighter be basically "the-same-but-a-bit-better" as a 3.5 fighter - that constraint was hugely important to the fanbase.

Milo v3 wrote:
I actually think the biggest constrain on paizo innovation when it comes to fighters is the fanbase. Think about all the backlash from making classes that are better than the rogue at it's role, simply because they were making Better Balanced Skilled classes like investigator, inquisitor and slayer.

Yep, it's the double-edged sword of having a largely conservative fanbase: You get lots of brand loyalty, but you're constrained to making a better X, Y, and Z, rather than being free to simply make a better game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Fanbases are conservative by their very nature.

They're fans because they like a thing as they find it.

Speaking as an L5R fan... whenever offered an interesting option for the story to go in, if left to the fanbase, it was almost always rejected in favor of the status quo.

(The L5R fanbase has/had numerous other problems, but this one bothered me the most)


memorax wrote:
I doubt very much that giving Fughters more than " I swing and hit ". Would have really ruined backwards compabilty for many fans. Now I can accept the devs wanting to be conservative and implementing no major changes. Only to the most conservative minded changing hating members of the fanbase would the sense of backwards compabilty be ruined IMO. Having better will saves and perhaps more interesting class features. I doubt would ruin gamers immersion. Only if they ruin it for themselves. The Weapon Masters Handbook is a tiny step in the right direction. Perhaps too little too late.

I think for some people, giving the non-magical classes anything that is as good as a spell that isn't "Swing and Hope" would horribly damage their preferences. Magic does special things; magic is special; mundane is ordinary; if an ordinary thing is as good as a special thing then that's wrong; therefore anything done with magic must be better than the same task performed without it. So yes, it would have ruined their sense of backwards compatibility and/or immersion to have fighters that aren't one trick ponies with a trick that isn't all that good.


Snarky but wrong.

Some people want a class option which isn't just a Mage using a sword as a focus.


RDM42 wrote:
Some people want a class option which isn't just a Mage using a sword as a focus.

And yet I have never actually seen one of these "It's not a martial, it's just a spellcaster flavoured as a warrior" classes.


Look at half of the suggestions in many "fix the fighter" threads. Supernatural abilities with different names. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking very hard. There are perfectly reasonable adds to a fighter. But some don't want "leaps tall buildings in a single bound' and 'cleaves skyscrapers in half with his sword' to be among them.


RDM42 wrote:
Look at half of the suggestions in many "fix the fighter" threads.

I've read many of those threads. I'm a homebrewer myself for godsake.

Quote:
Supernatural abilities with different names.

Supernatural doesn't equal mage. A giant demon who superhuman strength is not a mage, so why is a human with superhuman strength. Is captain america a mage? Is Hercules a mage?

Quote:
If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking very hard.

Give an actual example of one that is actually like a mage.

Quote:
But some don't want "leaps tall buildings in a single bound' and 'cleaves skyscrapers in half with his sword' to be among them.

None of those are mage like..... Those are Physical attributes enhanced to a supernatural degree. I can't actually recall a single time I've seen a mage leap tall buildings in a single bound, mages just fly. I can't recall a time I've seen mages cleave skyscrapers in half, mages just explode/implode the building. It's fine if doing stuff like that isn't what you want the fighter to be, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion*. What isn't reasonable is saying that warriors that do supernatural or simply heroically skilled stuff are effectively spellcasters.

*Allowing for the fact that fighters and barbarians are sort of already like that with things like being able to withstand dragons breaths at point-blank range that are hot enough to melt rock.


Reliably jumping 10ft in the air when you can trade blows with demigods that could slaughter all humanity in the real world in somehow the same thing as being a wizard with a sword focus.

On a scale of normal dude to Saitama (One punch man), I would like martials to be somewhere on it at an equivalent place to casters.


RDM42 wrote:
Look at half of the suggestions in many "fix the fighter" threads. Supernatural abilities with different names. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking very hard. There are perfectly reasonable adds to a fighter. But some don't want "leaps tall buildings in a single bound' and 'cleaves skyscrapers in half with his sword' to be among them.

I think people just want Paizo's versions of the Book of Nine Swords classes. Frankly, these classes made you question on why should you play a regular fighter...

The fighter needs an "unchained" version, desperately:
- It's too much gear-reliant.
- It gets too many gear-related abilities. I fail to understand why a fighter should get 4 weapon group trainings, when he's carrying 2 weapons on average (melee and ranged).
- Bravery just sucks... The bonus is barely noticeable in the end.
- It lacks a unique feature to make it stand out. It lacks a specialization. The bonus feats are the only way to make it different, but it's not by much.

Give it the special moves, even if the fighter can only select one discipline, and it will make it better.


Quote:

- It's too much gear-reliant.

- It gets too many gear-related abilities. I fail to understand why a fighter should get 4 weapon group trainings, when he's carrying 2 weapons on average (melee and ranged).

Question, what is your view on Material Unlocks in the vein of skill unlocks of the unchained rogue except with the idea of "Allow you to use a special material to do something supernatural without it making players feel like the fighter is the supernatural one" it had things like adamantine cutting spells, planar boundaries, and time, while someone wearing angelskin armour could actually take on angelic traits eventually?

I mean, it enhanced the gear-focus so I'm wondering if you would be opposed to it on those grounds.

edit: Hmm... if Paizo did make a ToB/PoW hardcover... it might be best for it to be something like War Unchained or War Unleashed, where they make it very very very obvious it's optional in the manner of Unchained so that people that do dislike such a thing don't have to feel as though it is stealing their thunder.... well... until PFS players hear about it.


I guess part of my divide would be powerful but subtle vs powerful but flashy. Natural abilities to overcome damage resistance, increased social or skill abilities of some sort. The ability to put status effect riders on attacks like dazed, staggered or bleeding easier and earlier.


RDM42 wrote:
I guess part of my divide would be powerful but subtle vs powerful but flashy. Natural abilities to overcome damage resistance, increased social or skill abilities of some sort. The ability to put status effect riders on attacks like dazed, staggered or bleeding easier and earlier.

Does throwing a spear through ten guys count as flashy (sincere question)?


Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
I guess part of my divide would be powerful but subtle vs powerful but flashy. Natural abilities to overcome damage resistance, increased social or skill abilities of some sort. The ability to put status effect riders on attacks like dazed, staggered or bleeding easier and earlier.
Does throwing a spear through ten guys count as flashy (sincere question)?

That seems a bit over the top in the 'cleaves buildings' mode, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
That seems a bit over the top in the 'cleaves buildings' mode, yes.

If fighters can't even be epic at fighting at high levels, why have it as a class? I mean, how can you hope to make fighters on the same level as wizards and clerics, where you can do epic things other than just fight if they can't even be epic at fighting.

This is why I say the player base is the biggest obstacle in the way of martial/caster disparity, because many individuals do not like the flavour that goes along with what would be required to fix the disparity properly. I mean, it makes sense that not everyone likes the idea of effectively saying "Okay you mage classes can stay the same, but fighters have to take mythic ranks", but it is a very limiting factor of the fanbase.


And there are many of those to whom the 'disparity' as you call it is not a very large or a factor at all in their home games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
And there are many of those to whom the 'disparity' as you call it is not a very large or a factor at all in their home games.

So? Just because ebola didn't infect the whole planet, didn't mean it wasn't a giant issue.


Just because you don't like the way it is doesn't mean it is, it also doesn't mean you have to eliminate the 'mundane' class someone might actually want to play jus because when other semi mystical martial options are already available. It's one piece and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. There are many other classes, but why should YOUR play preferences deny other people a piece they might want?


Fixing fighters is simple - give them martial flexibility at first level just like a brawler in exchange for their bonus 1st level feat and have it scale the same as a brawler.

The ability to chose their feats to fit the particularly challenge is awesome.


Hmmm.... it was my understanding that what with all the new stuff thats come out, the fighter HAS been 'fixed' ?!?


RDM42 wrote:
Just because you don't like the way it is doesn't mean it is, it also doesn't mean you have to eliminate the 'mundane' class someone might actually want to play jus because when other semi mystical martial options are already available.

Never said the mundane class should be removed actually. I am fully for new classes or for it to be something like an unchained class. I would Prefer that they didn't just remake the fighter in a core rulebook and make it all superpowered, as that changes the classes identity and that they made it a variant or a new class.

Quote:
It's one piece and you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

Completely agree.

Quote:
There are many other classes, but why should YOUR play preferences deny other people a piece they might want?

Actually, it isn't my play preferences that are denying anything. My preference does not remove your class from play. It is the preference of individuals who have tastes that are opposed to superpowered martials that stop them being created, "because they would overshadow the current martials". It's your side that's denying other people pieces, not ours. Tome of Battle didn't remove the fighter class from the game.

The Sword wrote:
Fixing fighters is simple - give them martial flexibility.

That makes them slightly better at combat, and thus does not fix fighters in any manner.

Quote:
Hmmm.... it was my understanding that what with all the new stuff thats come out, the fighter HAS been 'fixed' ?!?

It's better with recent player companions and combat stamina, but... "better" doesn't say much. I mean, none of those things actually fix the weaknesses of the class like how they can do nothing but combat (which I maintain is primarily a thematic issue, since... well Fighters Fight, which is why I am an advocate for a new class).


Combat feats have several applications outside of combat and free up fighters to use their many feats for out of combat reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Combat feats have several applications outside of combat and free up fighters to use their many feats for out of combat reasons.

Not really, I mean I can only think of two feats that actually give out of combat ability that fighters would be able to get Eldritch Heritage and Leadership (which is the strongest feat in the game, and not much reason for someone to not take it when it comes to mechanics). In addition, wizards do not need to spend a single feat to actually even be good. When I play a wizard, I have much more option for what to pick than as a fighter since "Okay, I can be good at my role or suck at my role... I'll pick being good at my role", while wizards get "Okay, lets see, do I want to supercharge some spells, be able to make any item imaginable AND break WBL, be able to call in angels with CR higher than me that does what I want without having to win any rolls, only have to spend a minute to prepare a spell for a specific situation, get a cool familiar, etc.... and being a wizard I get bonus feats as well."


Granted it's in combat, but an example ability might be the ability to impose an intimidate style effect using your attack roll as your intimidate check. At higher levels could become a burst effect, etc.


RDM42 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
I guess part of my divide would be powerful but subtle vs powerful but flashy. Natural abilities to overcome damage resistance, increased social or skill abilities of some sort. The ability to put status effect riders on attacks like dazed, staggered or bleeding easier and earlier.
Does throwing a spear through ten guys count as flashy (sincere question)?
That seems a bit over the top in the 'cleaves buildings' mode, yes.

You have confused mundane with average american.

It's not that throwing a spear through ten people is a wizard with a sword focus, it's that you don't believe high level fighters should be a thing. You'd rather have something that is technically a high level fighter but doesn't do anything a high level fighter can do aside from swing his sword.

If the high level fighter cannot move fast, control the battlefield, survive, and do damage then he is useless compared to any other real hero of that level in combat. Out of combat mundane fighter-man still struggles because the mere ability to hit things next to him also means he can't possess any skills of value to a plot line.


Rhedyn wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
I guess part of my divide would be powerful but subtle vs powerful but flashy. Natural abilities to overcome damage resistance, increased social or skill abilities of some sort. The ability to put status effect riders on attacks like dazed, staggered or bleeding easier and earlier.
Does throwing a spear through ten guys count as flashy (sincere question)?
That seems a bit over the top in the 'cleaves buildings' mode, yes.

You have confused mundane with average american.

It's not that throwing a spear through ten people is a wizard with a sword focus, it's that you don't believe high level fighters should be a thing. You'd rather have something that is technically a high level fighter but doesn't do anything a high level fighter can do aside from swing his sword.

If the high level fighter cannot move fast, control the battlefield, survive, and do damage then he is useless compared to any other real hero of that level in combat. Out of combat mundane fighter-man still struggles because the mere ability to hit things next to him also means he can't possess any skills of value to a plot line.

Thank you oh so much for (inaccurately) telling me what I believe.

Especially since just a modicum or effort put into reading my prior posts would show me talking about thing other than 'just swinging the sword'. It might not be to the degree you like, but there you are. Tastes differ.


Rhedyn wrote:
Out of combat mundane fighter-man still struggles because the mere ability to hit things next to him also means he can't possess any skills of value to a plot line.

He can be the hobbits to the party's fellowship of the ring?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to point out - some people want a character whose only thing is "swing his sword." For some players making a bunch of decisions every round of combat isn't all that fun. It's okay if the fighter doesn't suit your playstyle - there are plenty of other classes out there.

If you make every class full of complicated options, you lose the player who doesn't enjoy that.


ryric wrote:

Just to point out - some people want a character whose only thing is "swing his sword." For some players making a bunch of decisions every round of combat isn't all that fun. It's okay if the fighter doesn't suit your playstyle - there are plenty of other classes out there.

If you make every class full of complicated options, you lose the player who doesn't enjoy that.

....

Quote:
Never said the mundane class should be removed actually. I am fully for new classes or for it to be something like an unchained class. I would Prefer that they didn't just remake the fighter in a core rulebook and make it all superpowered, as that changes the classes identity and that they made it a variant or a new class.
Quote:
Actually, it isn't my play preferences that are denying anything. My preference does not remove your class from play. It is the preference of individuals who have tastes that are opposed to superpowered martials that stop them being created, "because they would overshadow the current martials". It's your side that's denying other people pieces, not ours. Tome of Battle didn't remove the fighter class from the game.

Liberty's Edge

Bluenose wrote:


I think for some people, giving the non-magical classes anything that is as good as a spell that isn't "Swing and Hope" would horribly damage their preferences. Magic does special things; magic is special; mundane is ordinary; if an ordinary thing is as good as a special thing then that's wrong; therefore anything done with magic must be better than the same task performed without it. So yes, it would have ruined their sense of backwards compatibility and/or immersion to have fighters that aren't one trick ponies with a trick that isn't all that good.

I just seems lile a excuse to not give fighters nice things imo. I'm not even asking for some of the major changes from other threads. Just something that makes them stand out. As it is they really don't stand out imo. At the same time if some of the fanbase hate change then they should say so. Saying that giving fighters more ruins immersion. Means they can't really play other fantasy rpgs. Earthdawn they can't play that because fighters do more than swing and hit. 5E and 13th Age can't play that their immersion is ruined.

A Fighter is a hard sell at a new gaming table. Unless a player wants to keep it simple. Beyond being a easy class it has nothing to really make it standout from other melee classes. Paladins have class abilites and can smite evil. Barbarians get rage powers and rage. Fighters can swing and hit and they get a joke of a bonus from Bravery.


RDM42 wrote:

Snarky but wrong.

Some people want a class option which isn't just a Mage using a sword as a focus.

How interesting. One sentence that claims I'm wrong; the second which is a precise example of my point, that letting fighters do anything extraordinary is seen to make them a mage with a sword and detracts from the 'specialness' of magic.


5e literally has a fighter that is the best sword swinger in the game with some out of combat options (even Champion has athletic ability others don't). It's super, super easy to do.

3.5 literally has the worst weapon based combat rules of any D&D edition (and D&D is at the bottom of the scale compared to all TTRPGs). Not subjectively, not with an asterisk. Pathfinder made then slightly better, but the obsession with not rocking the boat managed to foul up the math of the maneuver system so badly that it is not a true combat option in later levels (a common theme with the game as a whole).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
memorax wrote:
At the same time if some of the fanbase hate change then they should say so.

This is something I'm going to be very interested in watching play out if 2.0 is ever announced.

As I said above, I think there was huge incentive to "change as little as possible" when Pathfinder was first being developed. My expectation is that significantly more people will be wanting to see Paizo adopt a fresher approach approach, this time around. (Though I'm sure there'll be a number who want to continue to use their current PF stuff).

451 to 500 of 608 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.