I'm starting to think pathfinder 2.0 should happen


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I've done a complete 180. For years I detested the idea of a 2.0 for pathfinder. After all, pathfinder was designed as a reverse compatible improvement over 3.5, which is likely the most highly regarded version of D&D. The very idea of pathfinder seemed like a repudiation of the notion that every 5 to 10 years you have to throw out your old tomes and buy Wizards of the Coast's shiny new pile of books. It seemed so eternal. 3.75 forever, the promised land. But more and more I notice that Paizo's ambitious attempts at reforming an iconic but wonky system have led to some real bloat and confusion.

To show what I mean, let's take a hypothetical character. Let's call him Rollagar. I want to make him a druid, variant multiclass barbarian (because turning into a raging bear is awesome). Then let's say down the line I want to take one level in rogue.

I'm left with a lot of questions. As an optional system, will the DM let me variant multiclass? Will he let me use the unchained Rage rules? I don't know, that's another optional system. Then can I traditionally multiclass that level in rogue after variant multiclassing? The rules say something to the idea of "I don't know, not such a great idea ask your dm". Can the rogue be unchained? Whattevs, ask your dm.

I think a lot of these new rule designs have been a lot of fun, but they need to be organized and codified to streamline the game. I think there should be one summoner that works, one barbarian that works, one rogue that works. I think that these reformed classes, combined with brilliant optional role systems like VMC and automatic bonus progression, show great promise and show us what a pathfinder 2nd edition could look like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh. its been a while since i've seen a PF 2.0 thread. have they really died in popularity lately or i have just been that absent?

For what its worth, i love the ABP because it divorces the heroes from their tools.

i hate the VMC system because it takes a huge hit to resources that are already byzantine (how many feats are there now? how many have prereqs?) and takes ages to pay off. i like systems where your character has their "thing" running by level 2 or 3 and just let it scale from there.

2.0 will happen. but i dont see us as there yet.

Interestingly, Starfinder is their next big departure from the 3.x rules and i am very curious to see what they do with that. i dont see it as a direct test for 2.0 rules but they will pick up a lot of lessons learned from it that will filter into new content down the line, thats just how experience works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Left a couple things out.

The legacy of 3.5 left behind some problems that need to be addressed. The way trap making works for example is just absurd. You pay an amount of gold suitable for training, feeding and lodging an army for some immobile trap that may or may not work. To get something resembling an actual trap to be deployed in the field you need the trapper ranger or a similar archetype or the learn ranger trap feat and they're fairly weak options.

The approach to multiclassing is pretty bad too, and characters almost neve do it


5 people marked this as a favorite.

No.


21 people marked this as a favorite.

I would strongly be in favor of a CRB 2.0 that fixes all the nonsense of the CRB without dramatically altering the base game. There's a lot of content that I think works just fine within PFRPG as a whole. It's the CRB that's really the problem. Lack of parallel language, failure to incorporate full rules for conditions in the glossary (i.e. magic chapter says that unconscious = willing, but not the glossary), prosaic writing in what is effectively a technical manual...many, many issues come up in the CRB and Paizo has significantly grown as a company since then. The publishing quality is better now than when the CRB was originally released. Errata docs don't address the basic problems of the book. I'm not even going to bring up the legacy balance stuff as a primary concern - I'm far more concerned about how the CRB is muddied by poor organization and writing quality.

A lot of the things you brought up are GM decisions. That's by design and I think it's fine. Allowable source material is a table decision.

Shadow Lodge

36 people marked this as a favorite.

We're already well into 2.0, they just didn't reboot the product lines to do it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that after Starfinder gets settled Paizo should look into a new edition. However, I think that the next, and any further, edition should be more about revising the rules, not starting over. These revisions should be similar enough that the new one and the old are compatible.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
We're already well into 2.0, they just didn't reboot the product lines to do it.

There's a reason I hold the relatively unpopular opinion that the ACG classes are better balanced in virtually every way than the CRB classes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
TOZ wrote:
We're already well into 2.0, they just didn't reboot the product lines to do it.
There's a reason I hold the relatively unpopular opinion that the ACG classes are better balanced in virtually every way than the CRB classes.

Is that a very unpopular opinion? i would suggest that the APG and ACG classes are extremely capable and balanced... with perhaps a few minor exceptions. still i would agree with you more than i would disagree.

What Paizo has done with the 3/4 BAB chassis are amazing and I wouldn't mind a new system where they were the norm and the 1/2 or full BABs were gone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
We're already well into 2.0, they just didn't reboot the product lines to do it.

:P I could see an argument for us having reached PF 1.5 with the new classes, sub systems, errata/faqs and new abilities that secretly errata'd how things previously worked but you cant go ahead and claim its a full new edition without something whacking the core system into a new alignment.

Sovereign Court

Zolanoteph wrote:


The approach to multiclassing is pretty bad too, and characters almost neve do it

umm what? I know ACG offered up some straight class options for MC fans, but MC is just fine in PF. YMCV


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i think he is referring to multiclassing as going for large chunks of two classes rather than the "normal" dipping of 1-2 levels you see in most builds that multiclass?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want 2.0. That means starting over again. I've done that too much with game systems and it's annoying having to start with basics again and wait for option to come out in the same books repeated.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It would help if the metaphorical hands rule, the spell manifestation rule, and other "assumed but not stated" rules were clearly spelled out in a revised CRB.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
...but you cant go ahead and claim its a full new edition without something whacking the core system into a new alignment.

Compare the first printing to the sixth. Welcome to Pathfinder 2.0, or whatever you prefer to call it.


Torbyne wrote:
Serisan wrote:
TOZ wrote:
We're already well into 2.0, they just didn't reboot the product lines to do it.
There's a reason I hold the relatively unpopular opinion that the ACG classes are better balanced in virtually every way than the CRB classes.

Is that a very unpopular opinion? i would suggest that the APG and ACG classes are extremely capable and balanced... with perhaps a few minor exceptions. still i would agree with you more than i would disagree.

What Paizo has done with the 3/4 BAB chassis are amazing and I wouldn't mind a new system where they were the norm and the 1/2 or full BABs were gone.

I've gotten a lot of haterade in the past for it.

Generally, I agree with you re: 3/4 BAB chassis. I'm not looking for a "dump the system and start over" refresh, though - just continue to write more 3/4s and adjust new content appropriately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder X! its more Xtreme. Pathmaster maybe? Roadfinder!

i dont see us as in 2.0 yet though because i secretly want there to be a 2.0 and i want it to change a lot of things, not just scatter some options to work around issues.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:
As an optional system, will the DM let me variant multiclass? Will he let me use the unchained Rage rules?

Will the DM let you take Leadership? Will you be allowed to craft magic item? Will you be allowed access to purchase magic gear or is that entire section of the book for the DM to pick from? Is encumbrance strictly enforced or not? Do you need to track arrow consumption precisely after mid-low levels or can that be hand-waved safely?

There are a tonnes of options even in Core that require DM consultation. "Is this rule permitted" applies to pretty much any game, regardless of if you start including additional books.

"I need to talk to another person at the table" isn't much of a justification for a new game edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game is as simple or as complex as you want it and therein lies its beauty. There is no need for Pathfinder 2.0. Jump on the 5e train if you want less options and something shiny and new.

Liberty's Edge

We will see. I would not mind. It has to both offer enough new material. Without simply being a rehash of the current system with better production values and new art. Not something that I think is easily done imo. As well if something like that were to happen. They will lose some members that unaviodable. They will not please everyone nor should they imo. I think the closest thing we will see is Starfinder. As well they need to fix some issues not port them over to the new core book. Otherwise it's a waste of time and money imo.


Serisan wrote:
There's a reason I hold the relatively unpopular opinion that the ACG classes are better balanced in virtually every way than the CRB classes.

That's scary when I think about it.

Serisan wrote:
Generally, I agree with you re: 3/4 BAB chassis. I'm not looking for a "dump the system and start over" refresh, though - just continue to write more 3/4s and adjust new content appropriately.

I'd like to see more full BAB classes with 4th level casting (still no Int based one). They're like martials, but they can also have some stuff.

I'd also like to see something between 9th and 6th level casters (a bit more casty than 6th level caster but not like the "push-to-win" button collection that 9th level casters are).


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:

To show what I mean, let's take a hypothetical character. Let's call him Rollagar. I want to make him a druid, variant multiclass barbarian (because turning into a raging bear is awesome). Then let's say down the line I want to take one level in rogue.

I'm left with a lot of questions. As an optional system, will the DM let me variant multiclass? Will he let me use the unchained Rage rules? I don't know, that's another optional system. Then can I traditionally multiclass that level in rogue after variant multiclassing? The rules say something to the idea of "I don't know, not such a great idea ask your dm". Can the rogue be unchained? Whattevs, ask your dm.

I think a lot of these new rule designs have been a lot of fun, but they need to be organized and codified to streamline the game. I think there should be one summoner that works, one barbarian that works, one rogue that works. I think that these reformed classes, combined with brilliant optional role systems like VMC and automatic bonus progression, show great promise and show us what a pathfinder 2nd edition could look like.

What I'm getting out of this is that you think that creating a 2.0 version will force DMs to accept your choices without the option of veto.

In a word, okay in some words: You can't possibly be more wrong.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:
i dont see us as in 2.0 yet though because i secretly want there to be a 2.0 and i want it to change a lot of things, not just scatter some options to work around issues.

How much benefit will doing that bring? Enough to outweigh the costs? This is a system made for people who refused such changes before, and Paizo has quite a few $50 hardcovers of the CRB that would be rendered unmarketable in such a case.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it time to ask for Pathfinder 2.0 already!

sets up ticket window.

Two months passes so quickly!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like your ideal version of PF2.0 is one in which the GM is not allowed to make any decisions over what they want to allow in their game.

I can promise you that any version of PF2.0 will still have modular subsystems that GMs and groups can pick and choose from, choose to ignore, or change dramatically with house rules anyway.

It's a core strength - if not THE core strength - of the system.


22 people marked this as a favorite.

A while ago I reached the point where I'd bought enough Paizo rulebooks. In fact, I know exactly when it happened: when the Occult Adventures playtest hit and I looked at those classes. It seemed like every single one of them had some new subsystem I had to learn just to know how to play it, and I discovered that I had no interest in doing that anymore. And Ultimate Intrigue was just a joke to me when I looked at the Vigilante -- why would I ever bother to learn that class?

This is not to say that the OA classes or the Vigilante classes are bad classes -- heck, maybe they're the greatest classes ever committed to paper. I wouldn't know because I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE. I have reached saturation point and I am not willing to absorb anything new in this system.

Pathfnder is a chassis that has had enough things bolted onto it that it's gotten simultaneously boring and irritating. In other words, we've passed the point where expansion tips over into bloat. Bloat bloat bloat. Bloaty McBloatface. And the solution to bloat isn't more bloat.

This is well illustrated by my reaction to the Patghfinder Unchained facelifts: the fighter was boring, but adding a whole bunch of fiddly bits to it just made it boring and fiddly; the rogue was dependent on suicidal sneak attacks, and adding a bunch of fiddly bits to it just made it suicidal and fiddly; the summoner was a one-man army, but putting his troops into uniforms just meant it was a regular one-man army instead of a guerilla force. The problem was the core design of these classes, not that their purse clashed with their heels.

Meanwhile, casters are still lame at low levels and broken at high levels, martials still face the problem of declining returns, and whole thing was innovative 16 years ago but isn't getting any younger. A lot of great ideas have been introduced into RPGs in the last 16 years, but Pathfinder necessarily ignores them all. Pathfinder came about as part of the same reaction that produced the OSR retro-clones, but ironically Pathfinder itself is now retro.

But you know what would flip that on its head? A new edition that tips over the Etch-a-Sketch and goes in a new direction -- a Paizo direction, not a holdover from the WotC direction. Let Paizo show what it can do when it unshackles itself from ancient assumptions and questions everything. Let's see if it can solve the questions that have bedeviled D&D since its inception. This doesn't have to cut completely from whole cloth the way 4E did -- 5E proved you can still come up with a new game that feels like D&D. I bet Paizo could do just as well if it tried.

It would at least make me interested enough to buy a few new books.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
i dont see us as in 2.0 yet though because i secretly want there to be a 2.0 and i want it to change a lot of things, not just scatter some options to work around issues.
How much benefit will doing that bring? Enough to outweigh the costs? This is a system made for people who refused such changes before, and Paizo has quite a few $50 hardcovers of the CRB that would be rendered unmarketable in such a case.

Well, to put it in a generalized view, the options are continue as is and produce more books in each line. To cancel some lines as they run out of valueable material to add in to the existing game. To do a product refresh with a new version of older material (ie PF 2.0)

Option 1 gives us perpetually more rules and options that inevitably start to infringe on things that used to be taken for granted and forces more and more onto GMs who have to decide which subsystems they bring in to their games. and based on that choice the players have to respond with their character options within that set which creates its own level of complexity.

Option 2 eventually gets us to just APs and Bestiaries while reprinting old books. Its hard to see what that would look like in the long run but my gut feeling is the table top version of "post game content"

Option 3 is what most publishers eventually choose. what system out there doesnt eventually reboot in some fashion? i think part of the reason Pathfinder succeeded so well is D&D moved on before it was ready, it was only 5 years from 3.5 that they moved on to 4th, right? but 3.5 also became a much more crowded design space than Pathfinder has been so maybe they felt more of a push than Pathfinder is experiencing? Anyways, i feel it is a safe assumption that there will come a point where Paizo follows the industry norm and re-invents the system. I have some vague hopes about what that would look like but who knows what they'll go with.

I could see a sort of acceptable half-measure if they went with something like a Core Rule Book Unchained. But that would be a very hefty book...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well...a cleaned Core Rulebook with a redesigned layout and a few minor tweaks to the rules wouldn't be too bad, especially if it was similar enough to the current version that you wouldn't need to buy new books.

Realistically...with Starfinder coming out, I would expect such a book until Starfinder itself is decently fleshed out. At that point, between popular unchained rules, well received mechanics from other hardcovers, and whatever they do with Starfinder, the developers would have a pretty good idea of what a Pathfinder 2.0 looks like.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As much as folks clamor for a PF 2.0 I don't think Paizo needs to make one for better or worse. Since 5E went in the direction it did, there is still a market of folks who don't want it. Those folks turn to PF. As long as APs are the bread and butter I wouldn't expect a 2.0 anytime soon, IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aren't there licensing issues that would get in the way of "Pathfinder 2nd Edition: We Fixed Everything" edition?

I mean, every TTRPG in history has had a revision or just went away until it got a revision, so I don't think PF is exempt from that. I'm just not sure how it would happen.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I might buy a revised CRB, but it would have to be significantly updated and justified. I like the ever expanding options pathfinder is bringing us, and I have so much material now that Paizo would probably loose me as a customer if they released an incompatible 2nd edition.

That said, I think Starfinder is the way forward. I suspect it will be different enough to count as a new game and if it does well I believe we could see other "new game universes" with different rule flavours.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
It's a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I don't think so. I think its a case of why do it if you don't have to?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not exactly sure how asking them to both release something new and updated. Yet not too different. Is realistic and feasible imo. As I said it is really hard to accomplish. As no matter waht it will alienate fas. I can justify buying another CRB with nothing new. Just as I can understand will not buy a crb if it's too different. I think they may as well keep producing the current edition until it becomes non-proftiable for them to do so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I think they may as well keep producing the current edition until it becomes non-proftiable for them to do so.

There's a consideration though about whether making more and more rules for things will just make the "I don't want to rebuy everything" even worse. Like if Paizo does decide to bite the bullet and fix all the outstanding problems, if the book was going to have new versions everybody's favorite classes, races, feats, spells, and equipment it would weight 200 lbs and be unprintable.

So if they do release 2.0, there's going to be a lot of people sad that they can't play their favorite class, or that the revision does not yet represent their favorite option for their favorite class. The more new rules they print, the more people who are going to see their favorite thing go away when they revise.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:


I don't think so. I think its a case of why do it if you don't have to?

I think eventually it will have to happen. Whether we want it not imo. Changes happens everywhere even rpgs. Sooner or later.

Liberty's Edge

Good points Possible Cabbage. Yet like the changeover from 2E to 3E. They lost some fans. So while it would be great to have a edition to please them all. I'm not sure if it's possible imo. Otherwise if one tries to please everyone nothing gets done imo.

BTW great forum name. It makes for a great joke. Possible Cabbage, Tiny Coffee and Tarantula walk into a bar.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Pan wrote:


I don't think so. I think its a case of why do it if you don't have to?
I think eventually it will have to happen. Whether we want it not imo. Changes happens everywhere even rpgs. Sooner or later.

Right, I'm betting on later, which is why they aint dammed if they don't.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
memorax wrote:
I think they may as well keep producing the current edition until it becomes non-proftiable for them to do so.

There's a consideration though about whether making more and more rules for things will just make the "I don't want to rebuy everything" even worse. Like if Paizo does decide to bite the bullet and fix all the outstanding problems, if the book was going to have new versions everybody's favorite classes, races, feats, spells, and equipment it would weight 200 lbs and be unprintable.

So if they do release 2.0, there's going to be a lot of people sad that they can't play their favorite class, or that the revision does not yet represent their favorite option for their favorite class. The more new rules they print, the more people who are going to see their favorite thing go away when they revise.

A good call out here. I was very annoyed when my favorite options where not available on 4E launch. I was told to "hang on, the rules will eventually work in your favor and you will get what you want in PHB II,III,IV,etc." I didn't stick around.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:


Right, I'm betting on later, which is why they aint dammed if they don't.

It's hard to guess really. It could later , much later or never. No one really news except the Devs.

Pan wrote:


A good call out here. I was very annoyed when my favorite options where not available on 4E launch. I was told to "hang on, the rules will eventually work in your favor and you will get what you want in PHB II,III,IV,etc." I didn't stick around.

To be fair though Paizo also does spread rules all over the place. What should have been one book for more Martial options. Is spread between the Weapon Master, Armor Master, Melee, Ranged toolbox/Handbook. Many rpg companies use thsi model not just Wotc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hopefully, we are in the Compendium phase of this edition and getting revised rulebooks that compile things will happen soon.

That said, there is a lot of space to release new books, and not necessarily with linear bloat.

Adventurer's Guide seems to be on the right track, and there's always room for more Bestiaries.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, Pathfinder sold itself on being pretty backwards compatible with 3.5, why wouldn't any theoretical 2.0 do the same? Instead of wholesale being a new game I think it's more likely to be a continuation of what they've already been doing with their newer books in terms of updating and revising options.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Well, Pathfinder sold itself on being pretty backwards compatible with 3.5, why wouldn't any theoretical 2.0 do the same? Instead of wholesale being a new game I think it's more likely to be a continuation of what they've already been doing with their newer books in terms of updating and revising options.

Lot of folks want to see what Paizo can do unchained. Also, a new system might allow them to get out from under the OGL. Not saying, just sayin.

Liberty's Edge

The main issue is if nothing changes due to backwards compatible. What then is the reason to buy a CRB if it's just a rehash of the current one. Paizo needs to justify why I and others would need to buy the same material again. If nothing changes I see no reason to put aside my current CRB or other books.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:


Lot of folks want to see what Paizo can do unchained. Also, a new system might allow them to get out from under the OGL. Not saying, just sayin.

Maybe Starfinbder is a tentative step in this direction.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is just my opinion, but the extent of changes that I'd like to see in a Pathfinder 2.0 is a restructuring and reclassification of the fundamental rules on how things like combat work.

Like, you don't need to reboot the whole game to clean up the combat section so rules are better organized within the text. (And really, the fact that rules are all over the place isn't really Paizo's fault—they were largely copying WoTC style, and you can't blame them for wanting to keep things as samey as possible during a time where Paizo wasn't known for game publishing.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
We're already well into 2.0, they just didn't reboot the product lines to do it.

That reboot is past due.

The core rules need to be updated to include newer options and clean up artifacts created during the transition from 3.5. Other hardcover works should be updated in a similar fashion, starting with the oldest.

That is all 2.0 needs. Compatibility with existing content should remain. The change in version will free Paizo to change page numbers, rework archetypes/prestige classes that simply don't function, etc.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
That reboot is past due.

That reboot will cause more problems than it solves.

The Exchange

I assume you can use starfinder to run fantasy games. so that could be 2.0 for you.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

GeneticDrift wrote:
I assume you can use starfinder to run fantasy games. so that could be 2.0 for you.

Is Starfinder the test bed for Pathfinder II?

1 to 50 of 924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I'm starting to think pathfinder 2.0 should happen All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.