| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides that, I'd like less spells or specialized casters. If you're Blaster your capacity for Crowd Control is limited, cost you more and you can't do it.
I hope this never happens, high magic, and in general the way casters works now, is something that I associated heavily with D&D/Pathfinder and one of the primary things that make them apart from other TTRPG.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides that, I'd like less spells or specialized casters. If you're Blaster your capacity for Crowd Control is limited, cost you more and you can't do it.I hope this never happens, high magic, and in general the way casters works now, is something that I associated heavily with D&D/Pathfinder and one of the primary things that make them apart from other TTRPG.
It's a matter of taste. I don't enjoy casters being extremely overpowered, and having limitless options.
Magic is just something you use and there's no drawback, meanwhile you have Power Attack, Fighting Defensively; all of them have an hindrance on your character, meanwhile Magic has none.Metamagic is the only thing and can be ignored a bit with Traits and specially Rods.
To get a Weapon that gives you a Feat, and I'm saying a single one, you have to pay a lot. Meanwhile casters can get tons of Feats just paying a bit and switch them on the fly.
Martial characters are forced to specialize or they suck (generally) while Magic can just pick Skill Focus feats all the way to level 20 and still be effective.
This enemy has high SR? Good, I will use all of my spells that have no SR check.
This enemy has DR/Slashing? Crap, now I need to change to my weapon for which I have no feats and therefore I will suck at swinging it. > By the way, you can have a Weapon change their damage, it actually cost you 1 feat and a Swift action! It's not even action free!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides that, I'd like less spells or specialized casters. If you're Blaster your capacity for Crowd Control is limited, cost you more and you can't do it.I hope this never happens, high magic, and in general the way casters works now, is something that I associated heavily with D&D/Pathfinder and one of the primary things that make them apart from other TTRPG.It's a matter of taste. I don't enjoy casters being extremely overpowered, and having limitless options.
Magic is just something you use and there's no drawback, meanwhile you have Power Attack, Fighting Defensively; all of them have an hindrance on your character, meanwhile Magic has none.
Metamagic is the only thing and can be ignored a bit with Traits and specially Rods.
To get a Weapon that gives you a Feat, and I'm saying a single one, you have to pay a lot. Meanwhile casters can get tons of Feats just paying a bit and switch them on the fly.Martial characters are forced to specialize or they suck (generally) while Magic can just pick Skill Focus feats all the way to level 20 and still be effective.
This enemy has high SR? Good, I will use all of my spells that have no SR check.
This enemy has DR/Slashing? Crap, now I need to change to my weapon for which I have no feats and therefore I will suck at swinging it. > By the way, you can have a Weapon change their damage, it actually cost you 1 feat and a Swift action! It's not even action free!
And again, high magic is some of the things that makes D&D/Pathfinder special and stand apart from other TTRPG. If you don't like high magic perhaps this is no the best system for your table. For me it makes more sense that a company protect their niche and what makes them special than throw it away and compete with the same product that other companies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, high magic is some of the things that makes D&D/Pathfinder special and stand apart from other TTRPG. If you don't like high magic perhaps this is no the best system for your table. For me it makes more sense that a company protect their niche and what makes them special than throw it away and compete with the same product that other companies.
But this is the point. Why be something so useless when you can be a Wizard, or Cleric.
You can keep Vancian Casting without being broken. It's not the system, it's the spells.
If you like playing a game with auto-win spells, well, there's nothing wrong. But not everyone enjoys doing it. And if enemies would use the same tactics PC use, there wouldn't be a campaign that last enough, because party would be murdered in seconds.
Everyone knows a party of Wizards works, while a Party of Rogues cries in the corner.
Magic can be powerful, yes, but being powerfull and allmighty and super versatile at the same time, well...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, high magic is some of the things that makes D&D/Pathfinder special and stand apart from other TTRPG. If you don't like high magic perhaps this is no the best system for your table. For me it makes more sense that a company protect their niche and what makes them special than throw it away and compete with the same product that other companies.But this is the point. Why be something so useless when you can be a Wizard, or Cleric.
You can keep Vancian Casting without being broken. It's not the system, it's the spells.
If you like playing a game with auto-win spells, well, there's nothing wrong. But not everyone enjoys doing it. And if enemies would use the same tactics PC use, there wouldn't be a campaign that last enough, because party would be murdered in seconds.Everyone knows a party of Wizards works, while a Party of Rogues cries in the corner.
Magic can be powerful, yes, but being powerfull and allmighty and super versatile at the same time, well...
The problem then is not the casters but the martials. I'm all in into make martials better, and I definitely will like to see martials shine as much as caster. But nerfing is something I personally despise, specially concerning magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, making everyone high power leads to rocket tag in combat, and "app for that" spells out of combat. This leads to number inflation & expectations on the party that creates, effectively, gear checks.
"You must pass through this insurmountable canyon, dealing with the terrible foes within...unless you can teleport 200 feet, then just ignore it". Something that can already be done in the current iteration, but take that to the extreme as best your imagination allows. If you have abilities that are infinitely powerful, you end up with parties that can solve a problem, and others that can't, simply by virtue of the spells they may (or may not) know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, would the "I'm not willing to rebuy books" folks have the same opinion of Pathfinder 2nd edition were to come out in, say, 2020?Can't speak for others, but I definitely wouldn't bother rebuying books.
If pathfinder went 2.0, whether tomorrow or in 2020 I can't see myself rebuying everything (or even anything), I just can't. At this point I have more 3PP books than Paizo stuff (and I have almost all the Paizo hardbacks) and there is no way of knowing if it would ever get updated, and honestly, I'd rather buy new stuff than buy the old stuff redone.
I honestly already have enough pathfinder books to play for the rest of my life so... yeah. I mean, Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, Sword of Air, Northlands Saga... those alone could easily keep me busy for a lot of years. That's just a few of the big adventure books I own... I also own a number of APs.
Pathfinder is the first system I've ever invested heavily in (I started out playing 3.5, but didn't own any books), and I just don't see any need to remake the wheel. There are tons of stories yet to be told and while I agree the core rulebook could use a REORGANIZATION - I don't think the rules really need to change. I personally never get sick of new classes, I buy 3PP books to get EVEN MORE classes and feats and races etc. I love them. So I just can't fathom the "there are too many rules" crowd.
Rules aside:
Paizo hasn't even really scratched the surface in terms of providing GM's aids, we could use NPC codexes for each of the class books, for example. I'd definitely buy another monster codex with different monster races/more builds for races in the first book.
and...
Adventures are a great way for Paizo to keep putting out new books without adding tons of options.
I just really don't understand the demand for a new edition. If you don't like the options, don't buy them, don't play with them, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, high magic is some of the things that makes D&D/Pathfinder special and stand apart from other TTRPG. If you don't like high magic perhaps this is no the best system for your table. For me it makes more sense that a company protect their niche and what makes them special than throw it away and compete with the same product that other companies.But this is the point. Why be something so useless when you can be a Wizard, or Cleric.
You can keep Vancian Casting without being broken. It's not the system, it's the spells.
If you like playing a game with auto-win spells, well, there's nothing wrong. But not everyone enjoys doing it. And if enemies would use the same tactics PC use, there wouldn't be a campaign that last enough, because party would be murdered in seconds.Everyone knows a party of Wizards works, while a Party of Rogues cries in the corner.
Magic can be powerful, yes, but being powerfull and allmighty and super versatile at the same time, well...
Spells are always going to auto-win *something* unless you're talking about making magic more a sideshow or roleplay device only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells are always going to auto-win *something* unless you're talking about making magic more a sideshow or roleplay device only.
There are many spells that despite a Save do something. Fireball does less damage, others fatigue instead of exhaust.
I'd like to see less feats/spells, but better options. There are several dozen feats that are never used, because they just don't work.
Look at Shield Focus: +1 AC. Unless it's a prerequisite there's no way you're taking this feat. It's horrible however you look at it. Even a fighter with 20 feats could take something better.
Spells it's a similar thing. You don't take Burning Hands at first level, you take Sleep/Color Spray. Unless you go crazy CL increase with burning hands, of course.
Overall I think Paizo keeps releasing new Spells that give even more options to Casters while Martial keep getting the same iteration of feats.
I mean, there's a level 2 Spell that basically allows you to create infinite Alchemical Items by paying the price once.
I don't mind Casters being versatile, but not omnipotent. That is my issue. Once you get enough gold you just get scrolls and are ready for everything. Meanwhile a martial could never do that, and if you give Martial crazy abilities people call them anime toons and dislike them.
The fact that a Martial gets stopped by a missing bridge, and the cast just laughs at it, it's a big problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One big plus, in my opinion, of going to a completely new rules set for Pathfinder 2.0 is that they could make the new rules more modular. Don't like alignment rules? Don't use that section. The way the current game is designed it's not so easy to remove alignment due to all the mechanical interactions.
My ideal scenario is a game system with the flexibility of gurps with the community and support of a company like Paizo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One big plus, in my opinion, of going to a completely new rules set for Pathfinder 2.0 is that they could make the new rules more modular. Don't like alignment rules? Don't use that section. The way the current game is designed it's not so easy to remove alignment due to all the mechanical interactions.
Sure it is. "Everyone gets treated as Neutral. Maybe if you have an aura you get treated as that." Done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall I think Paizo keeps releasing new Spells that give even more options to Casters while Martial keep getting the same iteration of feats.
I'm honestly about the tension in the planning of, say, a player companion works between "these options are popular, so if we support them more people will be interested in this book" versus "these options would benefit meaningfully from more support."
I mean, if Wizards are popular because they're good, and swashbucklers are unpopular because they're weak, would a book with more stuff for wizards sell better than a book with more stuff for swashbucklers?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel like 3PP are doing a better job than Paizo at creating options for the game at this point... like...
I guess where I am going with this tangent is that I don't see where the impetus is to do a new edition - even if sales are declining - (I haven't seen evidence of this). Even if it was, in fact, the case, I find it hard to believe it is because of the complexity of the ruleset.
If - hypothetically - sales are lower - It's more likely a combination of a number of things:
-folks not really liking Golarian so not buying adventure paths or already having enough of them and no time to run the ones they already own (me at this point on both - I own 5 APs - so definitely gave them a try and I also don't like their vibe).
-new players getting scooped by the newest version of the brand name tabletop game that is synonymous with this hobby instead of checking out the one with the unfortunate, shared-with-an-SUV name that kills its Search Engine Optimization
-Lower quality content, higher cost books. Occult adventures and bestiary 5 were awesome. But Horror Adventures, Inner Sea Races (should have known better than to grab this one), and Villain Codex were all let downs. The price of these books has gone up quite a bit in Canada too. And given that paizo's paper quality and binding is middling at best and always has been - that's led me to go more to 3PP which, oddly, seem to have way higher production values for the most part - or if they are the same or worse, their prices are much lower... $70 for inner sea races (which had nothing new for most races and was literally a copy and paste from the previous race book for faves of mine, like Tengu) or $60 for Advanced Race Compendium (ARC) from Kobold press.... um... I'll go with advanced race compendium (though in reality I will soon own both). I haven't seen the binding on ARC but I have read the PDF and there is way more useful and original crunch in there that is useful in my games...
I guess what I am saying is that even if financials were bad at Paizo (I doubt they are) there are things they could address that issue that don't begin and end with reissuing all their old books with slightly tweaked mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally own no books. I get all my information from the internet.
The books I value the most are the APs, because I'm too lazy to make up an adventure for the players, and I suck at plots.
This is actually one of the things that made me love PF more than DnD, their open content. Searching something for DnD was a pain. You had to check several books to find something and every time you used a Spell that wasn't OGL you either had to print it, take the book with you or be unlucky, because no internet.
I wouldn't have any issue if no PF 2.0 happens, but eventually it will have to. But revised rules and all of them on the same book would be cool.
Also, I think enforcing a new Action Economy would be great. Things from PFUnchained limit casters so much that is awesome while giving Martial a lot of new options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One big plus, in my opinion, of going to a completely new rules set for Pathfinder 2.0 is that they could make the new rules more modular. Don't like alignment rules? Don't use that section. The way the current game is designed it's not so easy to remove alignment due to all the mechanical interactions.
My ideal scenario is a game system with the flexibility of gurps with the community and support of a company like Paizo.
Admittedly, Pathfinder is starting to do that with things like Unchained (which coincidence has rules for removing alignment).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, making everyone high power leads to rocket tag in combat, and "app for that" spells out of combat. This leads to number inflation & expectations on the party that creates, effectively, gear checks.
"You must pass through this insurmountable canyon, dealing with the terrible foes within...unless you can teleport 200 feet, then just ignore it". Something that can already be done in the current iteration, but take that to the extreme as best your imagination allows. If you have abilities that are infinitely powerful, you end up with parties that can solve a problem, and others that can't, simply by virtue of the spells they may (or may not) know.
The problem here are not the casters neither the system but expectations and encounter design, you want too keep throwing the same kind of challenges at all levels, and that is not right. High level characters should be faced with corresponding challenges, and crossing a canyon isn't supposed to be challenging for high level characters, crossing a canyon sound like something for low level characters which BTW doesn't have access to teleport like effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly, Pathfinder is starting to do that with things like Unchained (which coincidence has rules for removing alignment).One big plus, in my opinion, of going to a completely new rules set for Pathfinder 2.0 is that they could make the new rules more modular. Don't like alignment rules? Don't use that section. The way the current game is designed it's not so easy to remove alignment due to all the mechanical interactions.
My ideal scenario is a game system with the flexibility of gurps with the community and support of a company like Paizo.
Do they have rules for Paladins without alignment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do they have rules for Paladins without alignment?
Yep.
Do they have rules for Paladins without alignment?Smite Evil becomes Smite Foe. Use judiciously or fall.
Interesting, do you think this option is better than using the alignment rules in the CRB?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I had fun statting up NPC duo of a paladin and antipaladin which worked for the state and had Smite [Enemy Nation] as a class feature.
Using the rules in my games also have lead to players thinking about the morals of their characters actions from the perspective of their character, rather than just going "I shouldn't do evil things".
His issue is that he wants a game with alignment and one or more of his players doesn't.Thing is, we don't talk about this in a very abstract way on a strict theoretical basis. We're talking about Pathfinder/D&D and that had alignment nearly from the beginning. So chances are, that for this GM, alignment might be one of the reasons they chose this system, so taking it out is not independent of the producers at all. That issue will simply not happen to them as long as the designers don't change it. If they do, they are in fact sabotaging his car, so he would be very right to blame them for it.
It's easy as that: if you don't like alignment, go find a GM who doesn't care about it either. Or go play another game.
Or advocate for taking alignment out of the system, but in this case, be honest about it and don't pretend that such a change wouldn't probably negatively impact other players who like to have alignment in their game.
Ok, exactly what aspect of alignment does this hypothetical GM want? Because there have been RPGs that have alignment exist within them without said alignment being imposed by default. And if all he wants is alignment as a background aspect of his world, then he is just as accommodated by the alignment restrictions being purged from the game as by alignment and all its mess staying in as is.
But if what he wants out of the system is not its ability to facilitate what he wants to do but whatever authority or ease or whatever it provides that lets him shut players down, then this hypothetical GM has crossed the line and is now expressing exactly the sort of selfishness that I say should not be the side starting with the advantage.
And let's be clear; yes, this guy can be simultaneously motivated by legitimate and selfish reasons. But just because the system as is accommodates both doesn't mean it should accommodate both. Yes, you can create a game that lets the GM have alignment in his world without also giving him the ability or ease to, through malice or negligence, impose restrictions that do not benefit him and only hamper the players.
That's what a hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0, if they did away with alignment restrictions, would illustrate. That he never needed the imposing aspect of alignment. That that aspect only serves selfish motives, even if the users don't realize it.
Unless, again, all he wanted was the imposing, in which case, yes, he deserves to be the one who has to struggle to get his point across for once. Is that the appeal of D&D/Pathfinder? The ease with which one can thumb their nose at another and bask in all the character concepts his fellow players are denied? If not, then let's not encourage it already.
I'm not pretending anything. If a Pathfinder 2.0 came out that removed alignment restrictions from the game, it would take away from some players' enjoyment. Hopefully, they would realize that what they enjoyed was never tied to the "restriction" aspect in the first place. And if that was the part they enjoyed, then I would be happy to hear that they no longer enjoy the game. Because when their enjoyment is contingent not on what they can do but on what others can't, then they should have to fight that uphill battle. Selfishness should not be catered to.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If/When it comes time for Paizo to do a PF2e, they'll do the same thing they did when PFRPG became a thing: they'll use the OGL to create a more-refined version of the game that they want to play and see if enough of us are willing to go along with it to keep the lights on and everyone employed.
So, yeah, whatever PF2e eventually comes along will probably have alignments, Vancian casting, etc. because the designers/developers appreciate those nods to Old School D&D and that's what they like. None of these guys are going to set out to make a game that they personally wouldn't want to play. Doing that would lead to a product that they themselves wouldn't care about and that's a recipe for disaster.
All the stuff that makes PF feel like D&D is preserved in the OGL. They aren't going to abandon it for a GURPS/Hero system styled game (IMHO).
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SNIP
-Skeld
Also Golarion has alignment in it and it's abit big to be the type of thing mechanically to have as a setting specific houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5e's spellcasting system isn't Vancian either.
It isn't? From reading the starter PDF for 5e, I got the strong impression that it is still Vancian.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5e casting is more like the arcanist model - you have a set of known/prepared spells, then expend your spell slots freely to cast from your list. Except spells don't actually scale with level unless you use higher level slots to cast them.
One thing I absolutely don't want is the inability to use "noncombat" spells in a combat time frame. I seriously have a problem with relegating such spells to rituals that take a lot of time. Heck I've had issues with Pathfinder making mending have a 10 minute casting time - that little change has ruined good plans in two separate APs for me.
I'm in the camp of giving martials more narrative options rather than taking them away from casters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It comes down to finding a proper middle ground. Not changing too much. Yet also making sure not to change too little. Both options will alienate fans.
If it's the same core book with better organization and art. But nothing changed. Their is very little reason for people to buy the same material twice. Even buying online I can't personally justify the expense. As for 4E and 5E. Just as 5E was announced. A month or so later. Suddenly Pathfinder Unchained is announced as a new product by absolute sheer coincidence. With a bunch of optional rules and fixes to certain classes. That up until that point. The devs were in no real hurry to fix. PU was released because unlike fans they saw that they might lose some fans to 5E and with the book try to keep them.
I find it both funny and strange that some here think the name Pathfinder is something that will turn away those interested in the rpg. Mostly no one cares imo. When we have a generic system that sounds like it's named after a bowel movement (Gurps). It still seems to sell fairly well imo. Unless the rpg has something truly negative attached to it say like FATAL again no one cares. If it's something that seems fun and interesting a person will buy it.
Alignment I think is something that either needs to be written and developed properly. Or removed altogether. If other rpgs can get buy without and it makes the game run smoothly for both players and DMs why do we really need it. Or better explained instead of vague descriptions too open to abuse by both players and DMs. Even Order of the Stick makes fun of it and with good reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Pathfinder is the same as any long running and supported game (such as MMOs). Should new content cater to the current heavily invested enthusiasts who want more power and more options or should they be appealing to new fans who need a gentle learning curve?
The two are a bit mutually exclusive unfortunately and unlike a MMO Paizo doesn't have nearly as much direct feedback or control over player's experiences so Paizo can't do much to slowly introduce new players to the power creep and option bloat that there is in the system and only if they want to.
I WILL say that the paizo.com frontpage is a disaster from this perspective though. It's a mess and needs a redesign badly. A redesign that funnels curious would be gamers to The Beginner's Box which is an amazing kit.
The problem with PF 2.0 is that it will split the playerbase for sure and, either make already published content harder to use in between two systems, or invalidate it completely.
Starfinder is really a bit of genius as a solution. It provides a lot of the benefits of a sequel (a fresh slate, no bloat) and the complete difference in theme mitigates the drawbacks.
Hell the ideal path forward I would say is that if the more streamlined (I'm assuming) Starfinder rules prove popular that it is ported back to Pathfinder as a 'Pathfinder Simplified Alternative Rule Book' or something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder though has to cater to both old and new fans. Offer enough new material without it being a new edition. Simply taking the PF core and putting in new art and better organization. While helpful and useful. Is not worth purchasing a second time to my group and myself. That's the main issue with Starfinder or any attempt at any new edition. They won't please everyone nor should they imo. One way or the other some fans will be lost. Just like the transition between 2E and 3E. The solution is either more Unchained books or a new edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure they've said that Starfinder is to Pathfinder what Pathfinder was to 3.5. What that means in practice we'll find out when Starfinder comes out.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment I think is something that either needs to be written and developed properly. Or removed altogether. If other rpgs can get buy without and it makes the game run smoothly for both players and DMs why do we really need it. Or better explained instead of vague descriptions too open to abuse by both players and DMs. Even Order of the Stick makes fun of it and with good reason.
Alignment is something that differentiates D&D/PF from other RPGs which is a good thing. I do not desire all RPG systems to become a generic one size fits all experience competition. After years of these discussions I've come to understand that many folks see RPG systems as one to rule them all approach. I think that middle ground can only be achieved through modular design.
In this case, alignment (which seemingly adds no benefit for you) can could be stripped out of your game. Meanwhile, I can still use it as the dynamic element that I've come to understand it in my game. A dial can even be added so you can have that alignment action list to ensure conformity at your table if you think that level is necessary. You provide options to everyone instead of making everyone compromise their experience.
*One theme I notice in many of your postings is about table conformity and a reliance on the rules to keep players and GMs honest. I dont think any ruleset is going to achieve that for you. Exploiters gonna exploit. There is a certain amount of communication in work groups you are simply going to have to learn on your own to have a successful game experience.*
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, exactly what aspect of alignment does this hypothetical GM want?
Oh, dunno, let's talk about me instead of this hypothetical GM. What I want, for example, is alignment spells as hardwired in the rules; the possibility to fall with having actual mechanical effects. The possibility of alignment shift in general, and the stories that come out of it. Not to speak of the existence of alignment planes and deities in D&D/PF, which is something that I actually love very much, for example and which makes no sense if alignment not exists. The whole story of the Golarion cosmology depends on it very much.
I grew up with the stories by Michael Moorcock. the eternal war between Chaos and Law. That you have something similar in D&D was one of the things which attracted me to the system very much. There are enough games out there that have no alignment, so I have no need for a D&D without it (it's actually the same with Vancian casting). In fact, I think that alignment is something very essential to D&D, so take it out of the game and it isn't D&D anymore.
As an aside, in 4E they didn't do away with alignment completely, so I'm not sure why this is even brought up here. I'm also not saying that it can't be changed or even improved upon. But do completely away with it, and you lose something that makes you stand up from the crowd.
By the way, I already allowed non-LG-paladins in my own games and did away with other alignment restrictions to accomodate a player's wish, so it's not about shutting players down at all. It's about having an established standard how the world functions and making clear that if you're anyhow playing against this standard, that you're an exception to the rule.
Like the whole idea that some guy I've never met before who lives a thousand miles away should be in charge of what character concepts are acceptable and which aren't even in a setting neutral context is really sort of silly.
I'm not quite sure about what you mean with that. So just for clarification: If I offer to run a game, maybe even let the players choose which setting we'll use, but then expect them to play characters which would be "realistic" for the chosen setting, would that be acceptable to you? Or, if you want to go against setting expectations, that I would want you to clear that with me and the other players beforehand; still acceptable?
Just asking because I'm not running "setting neutral" games.|
|
I never said it's not a a benefit to my game. Just that the current system either needs a codified set of rules on what a person who takes a alignment is allowed to do and can;t do. Or rewritten to be less open ended and vague. I get the point your trying to make Pan. I see no good reason why we can't improve the current alignment system. Just because it works for some does not mean it works for all. It can and does need improvement. As long as the system is so open ended and vague no amount of commuication is going to solve anything imo. Espcially when players and Dms are dead set on playing alignments a certain way.
I'm pretty sure they've said that Starfinder is to Pathfinder what Pathfinder was to 3.5. What that means in practice we'll find out when Starfinder comes out.
As long as it's more than just a rehash with new art and better production values I think it will sell fairly well. Otherwise it will still sell just not as well as it could. I'm not sure a decent amount of the fanbase simply wants more of the same. It kind of hard to justify buying it again imo.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's so much that "alignment adds nothing to games" but that "alignment is objective and knowable to people in the world" tends to detract from games. Ethical questions are only interesting, after all, if they are hard to answer. When alignment is an elemental force, someone wanting to know what the "good" thing to do can either consult with various detectors for elemental forces -or- we've decoupled "good" from "that which is most desirable" so it means something very different in the game sense than the common language use of the term.
I don't think the issue is so much "there's objective morality" so much as "it's knowable and discoverable" and in fact game mechanics are based on it.
I mean, the basic question that has motivated countless people for thousands of years is "Am I good?" is not a thing that should be so trivially resolved.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained has a grab bag of alternative alignment systems that could be used. Heck it's one of the most often homebrewed part of D&D. I'm sure something that fits different tastes better can be found in there.
Demons vs Devils is one of the most fascinating parts of D&D inspired lore for me and it wouldn't exist without the classic alignment system and the planes and creatures it inspired.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
