Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

251 to 300 of 606 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pennywit wrote:
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition?

No, it doesn't. People like pathfinder because it doesn't pull the rug out from under them. If you don't want to use splatbooks, don't.

A second edition would just mean invalidating splatbooks people have, which would not be pleasing to me. I like having lots of options, and having lots of options does not stop other people from choosing not to use those options.

If pathfinder "1st edition" ended I think I'd just focus on collecting books I don't already have for it and end it there. I am not up for rebuying all these books with slight changes to them.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
And that doesn't make a lick of sense. If Norgorber isn't a threat to a level 20 party then this game has serious issues.

Yeah, sorry, I should have taken time to explain what I meant. Namely, that I don't want to play in a setting, where magic isn't stronger than the sword. And, to be honest (and I know that that might not mesh too well with the Pathfinder approach), my style of gaming is a bit more down to earth. I like playing characters from zero to hero and I had never any urge to visit Abyss, Hell or even go one-one one against gods.

So, in my (wishful thinking) ideal world, caster PC classes would get nerfed hard and all this high magic hubba-bubba would be restricted for NPCs. So Norgorber would probably still be a threat to a level 20 group, but not as much a threat as a runelord or Old-Mage Jatembe.

Maybe that has to do with my literary preferences. I immensely enjoyed the tales about Niall of the Far Travels from the old dragon mags, but while he was an awesome fighter, he couldn't have ended all those supernatural threats without the help of demon goddess Emelkartha. In the Wheel of Time-series, there's high magic everywhere, but if I had to choose which characters to play, I'd choose between Mat, Perrin or Lan, all being mundane characters.

And for all of you who don't know this stuff, let's talk Star Wars. While Darth Vader is awesome (at least before we knew about his past^^), I would be much more interested in playing characters like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian.

And that's what I'm also looking for in playing D&D/Pathfinder. The Runelords are awesome, but in my opinion, no single player character should ever come near to this power level. And especially no mundane character.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I confess I am boggled by the idea that a god, actual deity, would not be stronger than a simple Runelord or mythic mage.

Even if you support the idea that magic must always trump the mundane, divinity typically trumps magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The original argument was referring to pre-ascension Norgorber; so a mortal, level 20 Rogue, but one who is such an amazingly exceptional Rogue he would eventually pass the Test of the Starstone and become God of Rogues. Of course, I'm saying all this but under current Pathfinder rules if I really wanted to build Norgorber as a mortal I would certainly use a Vivisectionist Alchemist...

WormysQueue wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
And that doesn't make a lick of sense. If Norgorber isn't a threat to a level 20 party then this game has serious issues.

Yeah, sorry, I should have taken time to explain what I meant. Namely, that I don't want to play in a setting, where magic isn't stronger than the sword. And, to be honest (and I know that that might not mesh too well with the Pathfinder approach), my style of gaming is a bit more down to earth. I like playing characters from zero to hero and I had never any urge to visit Abyss, Hell or even go one-one one against gods.

So, in my (wishful thinking) ideal world, caster PC classes would get nerfed hard and all this high magic hubba-bubba would be restricted for NPCs. So Norgorber would probably still be a threat to a level 20 group, but not as much a threat as a runelord or Old-Mage Jatembe.

Maybe that has to do with my literary preferences. I immensely enjoyed the tales about Niall of the Far Travels from the old dragon mags, but while he was an awesome fighter, he couldn't have ended all those supernatural threats without the help of demon goddess Emelkartha. In the Wheel of Time-series, there's high magic everywhere, but if I had to choose which characters to play, I'd choose between Mat, Perrin or Lan, all being mundane characters.

And for all of you who don't know this stuff, let's talk Star Wars. While Darth Vader is awesome (at least before we knew about his past^^), I would be much more interested in playing characters like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian.

And that's what I'm also looking for in playing D&D/Pathfinder. The Runelords are awesome, but in my opinion, no single player character should ever come near to this power level. And especially no mundane character.

PC's and NPC's being built with nearly identical sets of rules and expectations is one of the fundamental components of Pathfinder's design and changing it would require a very extensive rewrite.


wraithstrike wrote:
Actually it is a combination of both. New players will just follow the GM, but most players I have met have tried several systems, and they tend to migrate toward the one they like the best over time.

It's healthy to play different games. It gives you a better perspective on the design elements that you like and dislike. It helped put into focus how much Paizo's editing and layout work should be appreciated. Go read Shadowrun 5e's Core Rulebook, and tell me when you find the rules for what type of Matrix access your Lifestyle grants.


Having read the whole thread now, I will say I would support a revised Core Rulebook (Core: Revivified!) because the original is a hot mess. Even if they didn't change any of the rules or text at all, it could really use a reorg. I'd like an appendix with all tables together, for example.

I'd also very much like a collected book of magic spells. It would be an opportunity to both clarify existing spells, as well as providing a simple go-to for anyone wanting to do PFS or w/e without lugging 8 books around.

I definitely don't want any new edition that would require updating eolder materials or conversions for old materials. But books that consolidate material currently spread in 10 small paperbacks etc, yes please. Some of those paperbacks are hard to get (don't like PDFs) and I prefer hardcovers generally. Also it's annoying to look for things in one of 20 tiny books.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Very much the crux of the issue is the fact that 3.5 is long in the tooth. (well, 3rd edition really, since 3.0 isn't earth shattering different than the update that fixed more than it broke)

Stuff like Vancian Casting, class abilities being fettered out to other character via feats and magical items, and other things that can be improved.

It wouldn't be so much as a new edition than a re-tooling of what Paizo has done with the system and bringing out it's own OGL for the new version of the rules. To be honest, this isn't the Brand that needs to keep the Dinos in with the new when the rules get modernized and cleaned up.

I can imagine that a good number of customers will stay with the setting as the rules morph into a more cohesive and robust system.


Rub-Eta wrote:

{. . .}

So what's the point of Pathfinder 2? Is it supposed to be a refined version of the refined version? {. . .}

Actually, yes. Pathfinder is D&D 3.75; Pathfinder 2.0 would be D&D 3.875.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

{. . .}

So what's the point of Pathfinder 2? Is it supposed to be a refined version of the refined version? {. . .}

Actually, yes. Pathfinder is D&D 3.75; Pathfinder 2.0 would be D&D 3.875.

Wait does that mean as time goes to infinity Pathfinder approaches 4e?

I thought all the 3/4th BAB 6th casters were kind of same-y.


Rhedyn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

{. . .}

So what's the point of Pathfinder 2? Is it supposed to be a refined version of the refined version? {. . .}

Actually, yes. Pathfinder is D&D 3.75; Pathfinder 2.0 would be D&D 3.875.

Wait does that mean as time goes to infinity Pathfinder approaches 4e?

I thought all the 3/4th BAB 6th casters were kind of same-y.

The inquisitor and play very differently. The inquisitor is versatile and hits hard, while the bard is more about support and buffing, but with decent damage output.

They are not samey due to them doing different things in actual gameplay at different levels of competence.


wraithstrike wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

{. . .}

So what's the point of Pathfinder 2? Is it supposed to be a refined version of the refined version? {. . .}

Actually, yes. Pathfinder is D&D 3.75; Pathfinder 2.0 would be D&D 3.875.

Wait does that mean as time goes to infinity Pathfinder approaches 4e?

I thought all the 3/4th BAB 6th casters were kind of same-y.

The inquisitor and play very differently. The inquisitor is versatile and hits hard, while the bard is more about support and buffing, but with decent damage output.

They are not samey due to them doing different things in actual gameplay at different levels of competence.

As someone who spends a lot of time on 5e forums, I get told the exact same thing about 4e all the time.

"No really they played differently! Having the same fundamental mechanics doesn't make the classes derivative and symmetrically balanced."

EDIT: I remember getting buffed a lot by inquisitors and bards doing tons of damage.


Rhedyn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

{. . .}

So what's the point of Pathfinder 2? Is it supposed to be a refined version of the refined version? {. . .}

Actually, yes. Pathfinder is D&D 3.75; Pathfinder 2.0 would be D&D 3.875.

Wait does that mean as time goes to infinity Pathfinder approaches 4e?

I thought all the 3/4th BAB 6th casters were kind of same-y.

The inquisitor and play very differently. The inquisitor is versatile and hits hard, while the bard is more about support and buffing, but with decent damage output.

They are not samey due to them doing different things in actual gameplay at different levels of competence.

As someone who spends a lot of time on 5e forums, I get told the exact same thing about 4e all the time.

"No really they played differently! Having the same fundamental mechanics doesn't make the classes derivative and symmetrically balanced."

EDIT: I remember getting buffed a lot by inquisitors and bards doing tons of damage.

I just telling your their innate strengths, and inquisitors do not buff like bards do, nor do bards put out damage like bards do.

If you have some math to show they are samey with regard to damage output and buffing ability then it goes against the math that has already been done here.

"tons of damage" is not as accurate as actual numbers.


wraithstrike wrote:

I just telling your their innate strengths, and inquisitors do not buff like bards do, nor do bards put out damage like bards do.

If you have some math to show they are samey with regard to damage output and buffing ability then it goes against the math that has already been done here.

"tons of damage" is not as accurate as actual numbers.

I am saying that slightly different weights on the same metrics is a similar level of variance to 4e.


Nathanael Love wrote:

New World of Darkness was released in 2004.

In 2006 White Wolf was purchased by CCP-- an MMO manufacturer (known for Eve online).

In 2012 it was announced that they would cease publishing all tabletop games.

Let's pretend that WoD really did die in 2012 (rather than going from in-house to licensed). Your thesis is that NWoD is what killed it...eight years later? Seems like a rather slow acting poison, if that's what it was!

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Rhedyn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

{. . .}

So what's the point of Pathfinder 2? Is it supposed to be a refined version of the refined version? {. . .}

Actually, yes. Pathfinder is D&D 3.75; Pathfinder 2.0 would be D&D 3.875.

Wait does that mean as time goes to infinity Pathfinder approaches 4e?

Indeed, we'd have Zeno's RPG.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I confess I am boggled by the idea that a god, actual deity, would not be stronger than a simple Runelord or mythic mage.

Well, Arachnofiend talked about Pre-ascension Norgorber, so I wasn't talking about the god at all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
Rhedyn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The inquisitor and [bard] play very differently. The inquisitor is versatile and hits hard, while the bard is more about support and buffing, but with decent damage output.

They are not samey due to them doing different things in actual gameplay at different levels of competence.

As someone who spends a lot of time on 5e forums, I get told the exact same thing about 4e all the time.

"No really they played differently! Having the same fundamental mechanics doesn't make the classes derivative and symmetrically balanced."

4e had a clear and concise method of describing effects on the battle field. I think most people mistook uniform presentation of classes as uniformity of classes, and many people judged the game from only a cursory amount of play.

Just because there are only so many lego blocks, doesn't mean you can't combine them in near infinite combinations.


Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deinol wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The inquisitor and [bard] play very differently. The inquisitor is versatile and hits hard, while the bard is more about support and buffing, but with decent damage output.

They are not samey due to them doing different things in actual gameplay at different levels of competence.

As someone who spends a lot of time on 5e forums, I get told the exact same thing about 4e all the time.

"No really they played differently! Having the same fundamental mechanics doesn't make the classes derivative and symmetrically balanced."

4e had a clear and concise method of describing effects on the battle field. I think most people mistook uniform presentation of classes as uniformity of classes, and many people judged the game from only a cursory amount of play.

Just because there are only so many lego blocks, doesn't mean you can't combine them in near infinite combinations.

emphasized one of my problems with 4e. This is among other things but really I don't have THAT much animosity over 4e because I wasn't really around for the transition so I just got my own play experiences to deal with.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
glass wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

New World of Darkness was released in 2004.

In 2006 White Wolf was purchased by CCP-- an MMO manufacturer (known for Eve online).

In 2012 it was announced that they would cease publishing all tabletop games.

Let's pretend that WoD really did die in 2012 (rather than going from in-house to licensed). Your thesis is that NWoD is what killed it...eight years later? Seems like a rather slow acting poison, if that's what it was!

_
glass.

You are skipping the part where the company was sold and the people responsible and who stood to benefit financially were changed in 2006.

Two years from the release of the product line to having to be sold is pretty quick I'd say?

You're argument is like saying that TSR was successful in the late 1990s because Wizards of the Coast released 3rd edition in 2000.

You are conflating the "survival" of the IP with the survival of the company which are two different things.

Since 2006 White Wolf was sold as a company twice, and now Onyx Path is licensing the rights to print material for their setting. Those things are not the mark of a successful company, even if the IP still has fans and continues to be revived.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Face it, RPGs are a tough market. Whenever companies upgrade to a new edition, they risk splintering their fan base. The fact that Paizo has managed to successfully grow in this market is a testament to Lisa Stevens's business savvy, the skills and knowledge of the company's other leaders, and the staff's ability to make interesting, quality product. With great customer service added to the mix, a phenomenal company has been built. Why risk losing that? There is plenty more to explore with the system as it is, so I don't see them changing things up at this time with a 2.0. If there comes a time when it makes business sense, it will happen.


Arachnofiend wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I would hope that you would agree that a pre-ascension Cayden Cailean should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with Old-Mage Jatembe, and that a pre-ascension Norgorber would be just as much of a threat (if not more so) than any Runelord.
And that's the real problem. Because I wouldn't.
And that doesn't make a lick of sense. If Norgorber isn't a threat to a level 20 party then this game has serious issues.

I'd say thats more an issue of how a gm chooses to have a level 20 rogue engage the players than what kind of challenge he presents in a stand up fight vs another 20th level party.

Its just pcs are probably going to get bent out of shape at getting picked off one by one as they go to the bathroom, and having their secrets spilled to every two bit bard on the continent, and their weaknesses and locations leaked to any recurring enemies, and their supplies poisoned every time they leave town.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I would hope that you would agree that a pre-ascension Cayden Cailean should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with Old-Mage Jatembe, and that a pre-ascension Norgorber would be just as much of a threat (if not more so) than any Runelord.
And that's the real problem. Because I wouldn't.
And that doesn't make a lick of sense. If Norgorber isn't a threat to a level 20 party then this game has serious issues.

I'd say thats more an issue of how a gm chooses to have a level 20 rogue engage the players than what kind of challenge he presents in a stand up fight vs another 20th level party.

Its just pcs are probably going to get bent out of shape at getting picked off one by one as they go to the bathroom, and having their secrets spilled to every two bit bard on the continent, and their weaknesses and locations leaked to any recurring enemies, and their supplies poisoned every time they leave town.

Problem is a Rogue isn't better at doing that than any other class. If I want Norgorber to focus on that sort of villainy (which I agree that any GM that wants Norgorber as their main villain should do) I would build him as an Investigator.


Nathanael Love wrote:
glass wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

New World of Darkness was released in 2004.

In 2006 White Wolf was purchased by CCP-- an MMO manufacturer (known for Eve online).

In 2012 it was announced that they would cease publishing all tabletop games.

Let's pretend that WoD really did die in 2012 (rather than going from in-house to licensed). Your thesis is that NWoD is what killed it...eight years later? Seems like a rather slow acting poison, if that's what it was!

_
glass.

You are skipping the part where the company was sold and the people responsible and who stood to benefit financially were changed in 2006.

Two years from the release of the product line to having to be sold is pretty quick I'd say?

You're argument is like saying that TSR was successful in the late 1990s because Wizards of the Coast released 3rd edition in 2000.

You are conflating the "survival" of the IP with the survival of the company which are two different things.

Since 2006 White Wolf was sold as a company twice, and now Onyx Path is licensing the rights to print material for their setting. Those things are not the mark of a successful company, even if the IP still has fans and continues to be revived.

A company being sold doesn't inherently mean that a company isn't profitable. In many cases it means that a product is profitable or marketable enough that it is worth investing in or owning.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not to mention for all we know it was still a profitable company and were given a decent amount of money to sell. Which keeps getting ignored. As long as product is being produced on a semi-regular basis. Whether it's the original people or new people. To be at least the company is not dead. The ip is still profitable. I don't consider it dead.

You know how many dead RPGs/company came and went in the market. It's rare for a rpg or particular ip to have enough interest to be bought more than once IMO. I don't know about anyone else but I'm going to assume that if a person(s) are going to invest or reinvest in the same ip more than once. TgY chances are good it was profitable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Those things are not the mark of a successful company,

The mark of a successful company is profits. That's it. NWoD continues to make profits, so it is successful. Of course, D&D 4e also made money, as did 5e, but you ignore those facts because they is inconvenient to your dogma.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:


The mark of a successful company is profits. That's it. NWoD continues to make profits, so it is successful. Of course, D&D 4e also made money, as did 5e, but you ignore those facts because they is inconvenient to your dogma.

I get the point he is saying. NL would have more of a point if NWOD was truly dead and gone with no support. I'm assuming that because one company or another wants to invest in keeping the various WW IPs alive that their profitable in one way or the other. Who invests in non-profitable IPs. It's one hell of a risk to do with little gain sometimes. As well most of us don't care who releases the books. Original devs, new devs as long as we get new material that's all that matters to me at least.

If Wotc was tired of Paizo and managed to buy out the company. Yet still release material for Pathfinder. I would still buy from them. I would be sad for a very little while for those who lost their jobs. But as long as I can get more material that's all that matters.


Technically nWoD is dead. However, CHRONICLES of Darkness is rising from it's ashes.

Onyx Path (and presumably White Wolf/Paradox Interactive) have decided to rename the line, which helps make make the distinction between (classic) World of Darkness and Chronicles (formerly new World) of Darkness more...distinct.

Liberty's Edge

True but that's a recent development and a good one IMO. Old or New WOD who cares. Pick one or the other or both and enjoy. Up until then I never felt that Nwod was unprofitable or that WW was truly dead. Under new management for sure but far from dead IMO.


I would buy a 2nd edition immediately. I didn't read the above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber

World of Darkness was in the ICV2 top 5 RPGs consistently from 2004-2009. It spent most of that time in the number 2 spot. That is hardly the sign of a failing RPG line. In fact, it's only CCPs decision to stop producing books that killed the line. Turns out, even the number 2 RPG makes chump change compared to video games.

NWoD was more successful than most non-D&D games dream to be.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even then it's not so much that the line was unprofitable. That CCP wanted to focus more on Eve Online.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think people are using vastly different metrics to determine the profitability and success of a system.

Lets take a non game example. Horror movies as theatrical releases vs say, most big budget action/sci-fi movies.

Horror movies are incredibly successful and profitable. The major reason being that they are incredibly cheap to produce for the most part (Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch being extreme examples). They don't require elaborate cutting edge special effects nor draw on star appeal.

Now look at the big budget sci-fi movies. Many of them have budgets that balloon up to 200 million or more. They require a ton of investment of resources and are also incredibly risky. For every Avatar or Star Wars you have a Terminator Genysis or Fantastic Four. When they are sucessful boy are they sucessful; when they are not the #$%@ hits the fan.

If we relate this metaphor to game systems, Paizo and Pathfinder are the big budget movies; Paizo employs I would guess would be the largest number of staff of any RPG company, even 5E. They have a regular release cycle for multiple lines, and editions translated across many languages. Paizo thus has a higher threshold of sales it needs to maintain sucess.

That is why edition change is so risky. It's the same reason why studios reboot/sequel so much, or adapt existing work. If a new edition is released and is not approximately as successful as the current iteration, Paizo is potentially looking at a troubled future, which could include staff lay-offs, damaged reputations, damage to other lines, etc. RPG lines with relatively small staffs or who rely on contributors/part-time help are not faced with this issue. I would hazard a guess that Onyx Path is probably closer to the latter and the horror movie analogy than it is to Paizo.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
137ben wrote:


The mark of a successful company is profits. That's it. NWoD continues to make profits, so it is successful. Of course, D&D 4e also made money, as did 5e, but you ignore those facts because they is inconvenient to your dogma.

Clearly it did not make profits. You don't sell off, announce the end of publication, sell again, then license something which is bringing in profits.

You seem to be confusing sales for profits.

I don't put a lot of stock into being "in the top 5" in sales obscurely from a website with no figures attached.

If the drop off from #1 to #5 goes from 100,000 to 2,000 being ahead of the guy at #6 is pretty meaningless

Liberty's Edge

Nowhere have I seen anyone who had or has the ip saying that it was not profitable. Sometimes a company/people/person sells something that is profitable because someone offers them enough money. A offer they can't refuse. It happens all the time. What do I know as I'm sure that never ever happens. I think your too busy carrying a torch for the orginal devs who lost their jobs to see that you might be wrong imo.


Rhedyn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I just telling your their innate strengths, and inquisitors do not buff like bards do, nor do bards put out damage like bards do.

If you have some math to show they are samey with regard to damage output and buffing ability then it goes against the math that has already been done here.

"tons of damage" is not as accurate as actual numbers.

I am saying that slightly different weights on the same metrics is a similar level of variance to 4e.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the scale of the word "slightly".


wraithstrike wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I just telling your their innate strengths, and inquisitors do not buff like bards do, nor do bards put out damage like bards do.

If you have some math to show they are samey with regard to damage output and buffing ability then it goes against the math that has already been done here.

"tons of damage" is not as accurate as actual numbers.

I am saying that slightly different weights on the same metrics is a similar level of variance to 4e.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the scale of the word "slightly".

Bigger than a breadbox.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Nowhere have I seen anyone who had or has the ip saying that it was not profitable. Sometimes a company/people/person sells something that is profitable because someone offers them enough money. A offer they can't refuse. It happens all the time. What do I know as I'm sure that never ever happens. I think your too busy carrying a torch for the orginal devs who lost their jobs to see that you might be wrong imo.

And I think you are completely naive and have no concept of how business works.

It's on though; you can keep thinking that something hat failed three times in the last six years had no problems and was a perfect butterfly.

You don't get sold to a company that then announces the end of all production then licensed to a much smaller company of you are profitable.

You just don't.

White wolf was a big company- bigger than paizo is now, as big as the dnd team at wotc.

The people producing those ips now are not. They are closer in size to 3rd party companies with at most a handful of employees.

If you can't see that this kind of outcome (firing most of your employees) is not what paizo wants because you just want to beat the drum for change without acknowledging that it brings a lot of risks then I think you are the one carrying a ridiculous torch.

Liberty's Edge

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


And I think you are completely naive and have no concept of how business works.

I know how business and far from naive about it. For better or worse sometimes business is not fair.

Nathanael Love wrote:


It's on though; you can keep thinking that something hat failed three times in the last six years had no problems and was a perfect butterfly.

It's interesting how you simply ignore anything that does not fit your particular viewpoint. To me a rpg company is a failure if it no longer publish anything anymore. Being sold to another company is not a failure to me anyway. A company could very well be profitable. Yet the owners could very well have had a profitable company yet offered money to sell. Keep ignoring that as well.

Nathanael Love wrote:


You don't get sold to a company that then announces the end of all production then licensed to a much smaller company of you are profitable.

It's called downsizing which can happen even if a company is profitable. I was let go last year from my job not because the company was not profitable. They prefered to higher new people so they could pay them less. I recently went to the same store and behold they were still open. I'm assuming they were profitable. Again sometimes business is not fair you live with it and accept.

Nathanael Love wrote:


White wolf was a big company- bigger than paizo is now, as big as the dnd team at wotc.

Size of a company does not mean it's not profitable. Those that bought out the company simply may want to keep costs down. Or reduce the amount of employees while giving more of a workload to the smaller remaining employees. Hardly fair but it happens all the time. I used to work in a bookstore. Where we went from four people to working on the floor. To three, Two then finally one. Not because the company I worked for was unprofitable. The new owners kept cutting corners and trimming to the point where if one person was sick it meant one person had to cover two floors. Not unprofitable. Simply cheap owners. The only reason they closed the store was that another company wanted the location. Threw a whole bunch of money at the owners who sold it. Again not unprofitable.

Nathanael Love wrote:


The people producing those ips now are not. They are closer in size to 3rd party companies with at most a handful of employees.

Which again has no bearing on how profitable a company is. Welcome to the wonderful world of downsizing. Where even profitable companies may have their staff fired or let go. Simply because owners don't want to pay for a bigger sized staff. I'm the one being accused of being naive and not knowing how business works.

Nathanael Love wrote:


If you can't see that this kind of outcome (firing most of your employees) is not what paizo wants because you just want to beat the drum for change without acknowledging that it brings a lot of risks then I think you are the one carrying a ridiculous torch.

Well welcome to the wonders of capitalism where even hard working employees can be fired in the name of profits. I don't agree with it. Wish it worked differently but that's how life works. Who knows what the future may hold for Paizo or any other company. If a company is losing money. you don't risk bankruptcy simply to keep people employed. That type of stuff works in after school specials. Or feel good movies. Where in the end everything works out. Real life works differently. Sometimes people can and will be let go because they have to for the good of the company. Sometimes they do it to save money.

As for change. Keeping the status quo and changing nothing or very little to any rpg also has risks as well. Sure some will buy a unchanged or slightly houseruled version of rpg. Many won't because the cost of reinvesting in the same material that has the same flaws is simply not worth it. Something change is bad. Sometimes it's needed. Each has it's risks. Personally I think they need to offer more with the next edition. Or at the very least fix martial caster disparity at the minimum. If not keep the current system and keep supporting it.


This was a pretty interesting thread.


Indeed it was. I might as well though my hat into the pile.
I think PF does not need a new edition at this moment, but is near granteed to need one in the future. Pathfinder is not a perfect system and will require it's flaws to be fixed eventually. How and when that happens is impossible to guess, like no one really can. It's like trying to pin-point doomsday, just impossible. Businesses change and evolve, Piazo will do the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Stuff on downsizing, profitability, etc.

While I don't completely agree with Nathanael, I don't think your definition of profitable at least in relation to discussion at hand makes much sense. Products can be continued to be produced and sold at low levels that I assume must provide some level of profit. Laser disc players and VHS tapes only stopped being produced within the last few years, however I don't think you can really consider either products successful in the grand scheme of things compared to blue-ray players or dvds. If a product can efficiently operate and maximize profits with a staff of a hundred, and another product can only do with a staff of 10, I wouldn't hesitate to say the first product was more sucessful and profitable than the second.

Downsizing, or selling your company/IP to progressively smaller institutions, generally is not hailed as great accomplishment. The former usually means that you are now longer making the profits necessary to continue production as is. The latter means that you see very little room for further growth of your product and you are better selling it off in one piece than trying to develop it more.

I don't know much about the white wolf situation, but to relate this to Paizo, I would indeed consider downsizing or selling off of company products to the opposite of success. I think the people running the company do as well, which is honestly why they are fairly conservative for the most part as far as most game mechanics or setting details. I wouldn't really expect an announcement regarding a new edition until they start showing a decline in profit within one or several of their major lines. Even then, I would bet that whatever new edition comes about will still keep most of the core elements of Pathfinder and will share a large degree of compatibility with the current edition.

Liberty's Edge

I was the victim of downsizing so I'm not a fan of it. Do I wish it would not happen. Of course but it's not going to stop. As long as profits are the main thing with certain companies it will continue.

If they can offer more than a rehash while fixing some or all the flaws. As well as maintaining backwards compabilty I think it would sell more than one that just more of the same. I just can't see as much interest in a new edition if it's just more of the same. They need to offer material for both old, current and former fans. At the very least enough to invest 120+$. If and when it happens I expect to see it when profits decline.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A reorganized Core Rulebook (or set thereof) with bug fixes to the current system would probably get a lot of takers.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

A reorganized Core Rulebook (or set thereof) with bug fixes to the current system would probably get a lot of takers.

It think it's hit or miss imo. At least with new material one has a reason to reinvest. A better organized core book while something that is needed. Needs to have some new material. For me at least it's hard to justify spending 50$+ on a core book with little to no changes. With them also giving away their rules on the SRD. Even a edition with new material maybe a loss. Why buy when one can simply take what they need from the SRD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

A reorganized Core Rulebook (or set thereof) with bug fixes to the current system would probably get a lot of takers.

It think it's hit or miss imo. At least with new material one has a reason to reinvest. A better organized core book while something that is needed. Needs to have some new material. For me at least it's hard to justify spending 50$+ on a core book with little to no changes. With them also giving away their rules on the SRD. Even a edition with new material maybe a loss. Why buy when one can simply take what they need from the SRD.

The same reason the Core Rule book is still one of the best selling books they have printed?

Because its nice to hold the rules in your hands.


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

A reorganized Core Rulebook (or set thereof) with bug fixes to the current system would probably get a lot of takers.

It think it's hit or miss imo. At least with new material one has a reason to reinvest. A better organized core book while something that is needed. Needs to have some new material. For me at least it's hard to justify spending 50$+ on a core book with little to no changes. With them also giving away their rules on the SRD. Even a edition with new material maybe a loss. Why buy when one can simply take what they need from the SRD.

The same reason the Core Rule book is still one of the best selling books they have printed?

Because its nice to hold the rules in your hands.

I think you probably meant this, but it bears making clear. It continues to be a top seller every year. On top of all the people who buy it every year, there would also be a huge uptick in sales from people who wanted the reorganized version even if folks like memorax don't care to buy it.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
memorax wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

A reorganized Core Rulebook (or set thereof) with bug fixes to the current system would probably get a lot of takers.

It think it's hit or miss imo. At least with new material one has a reason to reinvest. A better organized core book while something that is needed. Needs to have some new material. For me at least it's hard to justify spending 50$+ on a core book with little to no changes. With them also giving away their rules on the SRD. Even a edition with new material maybe a loss. Why buy when one can simply take what they need from the SRD.

The same reason the Core Rule book is still one of the best selling books they have printed?

Because its nice to hold the rules in your hands.

I think you probably meant this, but it bears making clear. It continues to be a top seller every year. On top of all the people who buy it every year, there would also be a huge uptick in sales from people who wanted the reorganized version even if folks like memorax don't care to buy it.

Yes, exactly. Our group owns 5 core rule books currently, three of them purchased in the last year for instance.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:


The same reason the Core Rule book is still one of the best selling books they have printed?

I know the current edition sells well. It all depends if a large segment of the fanbase want to spend 50$+ on the same or mostly same material twice. Just with better organization and production values. One can say the same with a new edition as well. At least with mostly new material one has a reason to spend the money. If Paizo offers nothing new. A gaming group will simply buy a new copy. Read it quickly and careful. Copy what they need then return it for a refund.

Nathanael Love wrote:


Because its nice to hold the rules in your hands.

It is and I like print. More and more though I and others find ourselves wanting to switch to PDF. With the SRD you don't even need a physical copy. With Paizo just giving it away why waste the money on a print version when a free online version will do the trick.

What's being ignored is that some here act like gamers will act like them and only like them. Their willing to spend the same amount of money on a rehash of a rehash of yet another potential rehash. So everyone else will. It's simply not how people react. I don't assume that because I want mostly new material that everyone does.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:


I think you probably meant this, but it bears making clear. It continues to be a top seller every year. On top of all the people who buy it every year, there would also be a huge uptick in sales from people who wanted the reorganized version even if folks like memorax don't care to buy it.

One does not even need to buy a physical copy with Paizo just giving it away. Again I think gamers need to look at he whole of the situation not what they will do.

A rehash of a rehash of yet another potentail rehash is simply not going to do as well as the current edition imo. A 50$+ purchase at a LGS or a 30-35$+ online purchase through Amazon. For the same material that fixes nothing or very little. I just can't see it doing as well. Already some stick with 3.5. because they don't think PF offers enough new material.

Fans will ask what are you doing to fix the system. If Paizo response is not good enough they will stick with the current edition. Don't underestimate the cheapness of the average consumer. If the Fighter/martial caster disparity is not addressed chances are good it will fail rather than succeed. It's enough of issue with some fans that they won't even look at the rehashed core imo.

Granted a new edition may alienate old and new fans as well. Yet their a reason to reinvest. Backwards compitabilty is not good enough anymore. We have have the current edition for that


Personally, I see a lot more room to grow, so It'd be a damn shame to throw away what we have already. I want to see a game give robust, encompassing options but be actually good (which I think Pathfinder is), so I say full steam ahead for Pathfinder.

From a logistics standpoint, I don't think it is practical either. They are a smaller team that isn't supported by a larger company. A second edition is a risky maneuver that probably won't payoff.

251 to 300 of 606 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.