| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do not want.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, thank you!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do want. Feat bloat alone has made Pathfinder ridiculous.
Next year's "Doomsday Clock AP" is the perfect vehicle for doing so, or could be.
Munch.
Do want. Feat bloat alone has made Pathfinder ridiculous.
Next year's "Doomsday Clock AP" is the perfect vehicle for doing so, or could be.
It hasn't got to 3.5 levels yet surely?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a nickel for every time somebody claimed that a new Paizo product was a secret test bed for Pathfinder 2nd edition, I'd have enough money to buy each of those products.
Whatever lessons get learned from Starfinder will undoubtedly find their way into Pathfinder 2.0 someday, just like the lessons learned from the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Campaign, Pathfinder Unchained, the Beginner Box, and so on will get incorporated.
In terms of using Starfinder as the chassis for a new Pathfinder system, though, I would think it would be wise to at least wait a year or two to see what bugs and issues emerge during widespread play.
2019 will mark the Pathfinder RPG's 10th birthday, so I imagine a 2nd edition will be coming sooner or later. When that day comes, I'm sure it will resemble a lot of the different design elements that Paizo has refined over the past decade.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd certainly buy a hardcover on the topic of "how to play Pathfinder with the Starfinder rules."
If somebody starts statting out a lot of archaic weapons and armor of varying levels for Starfinder, then I would believe that something like the topic of this thread is in the works.
It hasn't got to 3.5 levels yet surely?Do want. Feat bloat alone has made Pathfinder ridiculous.
Next year's "Doomsday Clock AP" is the perfect vehicle for doing so, or could be.
According to this, there are a combined 1,479 OGL Pathfinder feats, including 3rd party, as of March 23rd, 2014 that d20pfsrd.org is aware of. The majority of these are from Paizo. So as of 3 1/2 years ago there were almost 1,500 feats. Since then I'm reasonably confident that Paizo all by themselves has published in the vicinity of 1,500 feats for Pathfinder.
It's pretty bad when (a) their own PRD has not been updated at all in 15+ months (last update as of 2-3 days ago indicated August 2015 but someone else asserts a more recent date of ~15 months back); (b) the two major independent websites supporting PF can't keep current with updating - I give mad props to Archives of Nethys for doing their level best to do so!; and (c) they are publishing multiple versions of the same basic feat. 3 different versions or variations of Antagonize, at least. Multiple different feats for ranged attacking without provocation of AoO. Multiple different feats for casting spells on the sly. Etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NEVER!
It hasn't got to 3.5 levels yet surely?Do want. Feat bloat alone has made Pathfinder ridiculous.
Next year's "Doomsday Clock AP" is the perfect vehicle for doing so, or could be.
According to this, there are a combined 1,479 OGL Pathfinder feats, including 3rd party, as of March 23rd, 2014 that d20pfsrd.org is aware of. The majority of these are from Paizo. So as of 3 1/2 years ago there were almost 1,500 feats. Since then I'm reasonably confident that Paizo all by themselves has published in the vicinity of 1,500 feats for Pathfinder.
It's pretty bad when (a) their own PRD has not been updated at all in 15+ months (last update as of 2-3 days ago indicated August 2015 but someone else asserts a more recent date of ~15 months back); (b) the two major independent websites supporting PF can't keep current with updating - I give mad props to Archives of Nethys for doing their level best to do so!; and (c) they are publishing multiple versions of the same basic feat. 3 different versions or variations of Antagonize, at least. Multiple different feats for ranged attacking without provocation of AoO. Multiple different feats for casting spells on the sly. Etc.
You say this like it's a bad thing. The only bad thing I see above is their web presence being out of date.
| 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo knows enough about its own history to know that alienating its current fan base by releasing a radically different game as the next edition of their current, popular one is a bad idea.
If a serious attempt is made to address the flaws in the current edition than I might buy it. If it's more of the same not interested.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to this, there are a combined 1,479 OGL Pathfinder feats, including 3rd party, as of March 23rd, 2014 that d20pfsrd.org is aware of. The majority of these are from Paizo. So as of 3 1/2 years ago there were almost 1,500 feats. Since then I'm reasonably confident that Paizo all by themselves has published in the vicinity of 1,500 feats for Pathfinder.
It's closer to 3000 feats, actually. I did an analysis here based on an up-to-date listing on Paizo's PRD (which gave me an accurate count of all feats on the PRD) as well as some extrapolation on my part to estimate the number of feats published in sources that are not included on the PRD.
This is slightly less than what I got from WotC's 3.5 feat index, but close enough to be within my margins of error given that I needed to make some estimates. So Pathfinder is either very close to surpassing, or recently has surpassed, D&D 3.5 in terms of total feat count.
I think the big problem with doing a Pathfinder 2.0 is that everyone expects different things from it. This is especially relevant given that Pathfinder as a product got its foot in the door due to backlash against D&D 4E.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, I think they are probably going to make their own new fantasy line.
Pathfinder can keep going for more decades, as it is quite evident, that there is a market for everybody and tabletop players are creatures of habit. I mean Old school D&D still sell with OSR various products. They even get some awards at rpg ennies and the likes.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part Paizo usually surprises me with being 'ahead of the game' and coming out with new and interesting products. Why don't we wait until players actually get a feel for Starfinder before predicting what the next move is. I hope it is a great success and instead of completely changing Pathfinder perhaps Paizo shifts focus into providing more Starfinder content. Allow us time to enjoy and appreciate the amount of Pathfinder content already out there.
Quite honestly, I think they are probably going to make their own new fantasy line.
Pathfinder can keep going for more decades, as it is quite evident, that there is a market for everybody and tabletop players are creatures of habit. I mean Old school D&D still sell with OSR various products. They even get some awards at rpg ennies and the likes.
A new fantasy line? Do you mean something in a different setting - like something Steampunk for example (struggling to think of a suitably different fantasy setting but it is 11pm here)
For the most part Paizo usually surprises me with being 'ahead of the game' and coming out with new and interesting products. Why don't we wait until players actually get a feel for Starfinder before predicting what the next move is. I hope it is a great success and instead of completely changing Pathfinder perhaps Paizo shifts focus into providing more Starfinder content. Allow us time to enjoy and appreciate the amount of Pathfinder content already out there.
I'd like to see them diversify without having to sacrifice focus on one over the other. The number of things there are to cover in Pathfinder alone is already too high for them to manage alone. I worry (based mostly on Paizo blog coverage) that Starfinder is going to unduly detract from Pathfinder development. This would be a sad thing--I really like the stuff they've been coming up with, and there are so many avenues left to explore.
At the same time, I hope Starfinder is awesome as well . . . but if I have to choose between the two, I'll keep Pathfinder and just play Spelljammy adventures using PF rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's closer to 3000 feats, actually. I did an analysis here based on an up-to-date listing on Paizo's PRD (which gave me an accurate count of all feats on the PRD) as well as some extrapolation on my part to estimate the number of feats published in sources that are not included on the PRD.
That should fit pretty well. I maintain my own character option tables, and before Adventurer's Guide and Adventurer's Army 2 it contained 2,714 unique feats. Counting the few feats with same name but different mechanics as separate feats, that is.
It's closer to 3000 feats, actually. I did an analysis here based on an up-to-date listing on Paizo's PRD (which gave me an accurate count of all feats on the PRD) as well as some extrapolation on my part to estimate the number of feats published in sources that are not included on the PRD.That should fit pretty well. I maintain my own character option tables, and before Adventurer's Guide and Adventurer's Army 2 it contained 2,714 unique feats. Counting the few feats with same name but different mechanics as separate feats, that is.
3,000 feats with about a [ridiculously large number] coming. *le sigh*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3,000 feats with about a [ridiculously large number] coming. *le sigh*It's closer to 3000 feats, actually. I did an analysis here based on an up-to-date listing on Paizo's PRD (which gave me an accurate count of all feats on the PRD) as well as some extrapolation on my part to estimate the number of feats published in sources that are not included on the PRD.That should fit pretty well. I maintain my own character option tables, and before Adventurer's Guide and Adventurer's Army 2 it contained 2,714 unique feats. Counting the few feats with same name but different mechanics as separate feats, that is.
I know! Variety is terrible! ; )
I know! Variety is terrible! ; )3,000 feats with about a [ridiculously large number] coming. *le sigh*It's closer to 3000 feats, actually. I did an analysis here based on an up-to-date listing on Paizo's PRD (which gave me an accurate count of all feats on the PRD) as well as some extrapolation on my part to estimate the number of feats published in sources that are not included on the PRD.That should fit pretty well. I maintain my own character option tables, and before Adventurer's Guide and Adventurer's Army 2 it contained 2,714 unique feats. Counting the few feats with same name but different mechanics as separate feats, that is.
Variety is fine. Until you can't attain "epitome of concept" within the allocation of 10 or so non-combat feats available. Feats that should be options either baked in, via traits, boons or simple handwavium are a waste of print. Everything does not have to be optioned in by a feat or series of eats. That's my problem with a great many of the feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that some feats . . . aren't. (I'm looking at you, Equipment Trick (mirror)--I shouldn't need a feat to do that!) But I'm pretty confident that I could find a good use for more than 1/30th of the published feats. And throwing it all out to start over just wastes a ton of money and paper and leaves us right back where we started ten years later.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then don't use those options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then don't use those options.
It's a lot of work to sift through them to find the gems. Not everyone keeps up with all the new releases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see them diversify without having to sacrifice focus on one over the other. The number of things there are to cover in Pathfinder alone is already too high for them to manage alone.
I understand, but do you want more Pathfinder Rules/Options or just more 'fluff' (i.e. Adventure Paths and story elements)? I'm all for more fluff style content. I just don't think I need more Rules/Options.
The other problem with feat glut is that most of them are, to put it charitably, wastes of space. Options that even the fluffiest mother couldn't love. Who honestly cares about 3000 feats when maybe 100 of those are actually worth using? The other 2900+ are just traps or plain useless as you sift through for the good stuff.
We are starting to derail this thread, but I have to agree w/ the problem of feat glut. My concern is I'm just beginning to transition from 3.5 to PF, and when I see a gazillion feats, it becomes sensory overload. I don't know where to begin picking them; perhaps just in the hardcovers I will start w/ I guess.
Back on topic: I don't know what the SF chassis is, so it's impossible for me to comment on whether that would be a good thing for PF 2.0. Assuming that's going to be a thing at some point.
Merging topics: if they do go to PF 2.0, please think about a way to stop feat bloat from happening!
|
Then don't use those options.It's a lot of work to sift through them to find the gems. Not everyone keeps up with all the new releases.
nobody could.
there's stuff in the rules line, the setting line, the adventure path line, the character line ...
i mean... there's bizarre amounts of stuff. cool stuff - but you'd have to remember it to go get it... i was just thinking about something like the VOLCANOES OF GOLARION entry in book 5 of Giantslayer with multiple lava and volcano and fire themed add ons for characters... it's great, but I mean... yeah. There's gobs and gobs of stuff like that.
|
I have a feeling that Starfinder IS Pathfinder 2.0, made specifically in an attempt to placate all the most loudly-voiced bandwagon gripes.
I don't want it to swallow up Pathfinder; if anything, I'm hoping Starfinder will gradually become more like Pathfinder.
I say bring it. The 3.5 chassis is simply archaic at this point. Refine, tighten, streamline, and break the shackles of "3.5 compatible!"
Burn it all!
I see, so I spent the '000s collecting all those 3.0/3.5 books for nothing? Screw that. I'd rather they make some deal with Wizards of the Coast so they can directly import and update all the wonderful 3.0/3.5 material.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see them diversify without having to sacrifice focus on one over the other. The number of things there are to cover in Pathfinder alone is already too high for them to manage alone.I understand, but do you want more Pathfinder Rules/Options or just more 'fluff' (i.e. Adventure Paths and story elements)? I'm all for more fluff style content. I just don't think I need more Rules/Options.
Both. Very much both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling that Starfinder IS Pathfinder 2.0, made specifically in an attempt to placate all the most loudly-voiced bandwagon gripes.
I don't want it to swallow up Pathfinder; if anything, I'm hoping Starfinder will gradually become more like Pathfinder.
It will.
I have done some scanning of Starfinder over the last hour or so.
There are parts I would consider adapting for pathfInder that really don't need Pathfinder 2 2 to be created. These include:
- Merging of feats and removal of others - they seem to have listened to some very common feat houserules to streamline this
- Character themes : would need tweaking but some could be lifted
- perhaps stamina system
Things I am not sure about (mainly because might cause a lot of book keeping):
- new stat and ability score advancement system. But I do really like how significant the stat boosts are and the removal of dump stats
My point is many of these things do not require a new pathfinder system
(Note: I got as far as the class section but was prompted to glance at feats when I saw the weapon spec wording. I have not read about how combat works e.g manoeuvres and shooting into combat. I assume no penalty on this in Starfinder. Unsure if this change would be gamebreaking in Pathfinder)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo knows enough about its own history to know that alienating its current fan base by releasing a radically different game as the next edition of their current, popular one is a bad idea.
I think honestly a lot of this comes down to timescale. There were 12 years between the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and the second edition of Dungeons and Dragons and that was all well and good. There were six years between AD&D 2e and AD&D 2e Revised (think 2.5e) and that was fine. Five years after that, 3rd edition came out and that was fine too.
But only three years after 3rd edition 3rd edition Revised (3.5e) came out, and only 5 years after that 4th edition came out. Some people had ended up buying the Player's Handbook 3 times over the course of ~8 years.
The Pathfinder core rulebook is now eight years old. If Pathfinder 2.0 comes out three years from now, Pathfinder will have had as long a run as AD&D did between 2nd edition and 3rd. Having to buy a new core rulebook every decade is not an unreasonable imposition.
I think Paizo knows enough about its own history to know that alienating its current fan base by releasing a radically different game as the next edition of their current, popular one is a bad idea.I think honestly a lot of this comes down to timescale. There were 12 years between the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and the second edition of Dungeons and Dragons and that was all well and good. There were six years between AD&D 2e and AD&D 2e Revised (think 2.5e) and that was fine. Five years after that, 3rd edition came out and that was fine too.
But only three years after 3rd edition 3rd edition Revised (3.5e) came out, and only 5 years after that 4th edition came out. Some people had ended up buying the Player's Handbook 3 times over the course of ~8 years.
The Pathfinder core rulebook is now eight years old. If Pathfinder 2.0 comes out three years from now, Pathfinder will have had as long a run as AD&D did between 2nd edition and 3rd. Having to buy a new core rulebook every decade is not an unreasonable imposition.
Exactly. Just don't pull WotC's stunt of cranking stuff out until the day before release of PF 2.0 and things'll work out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is testing for 2.0, just like Unchained was. I wouldn't be surprised if all or only some of it is in PF 2.0. Who cares though, let's just enjoy a new system and a new creation for awhile.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to assume that Starfinder is testing for Starfinder and enjoy it (or not) on its own merits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
∆∆ thread title.
Rabblerouser.
It hasn't got to 3.5 levels yet surely?Do want. Feat bloat alone has made Pathfinder ridiculous.
Next year's "Doomsday Clock AP" is the perfect vehicle for doing so, or could be.
According to this, there are a combined 1,479 OGL Pathfinder feats, including 3rd party, as of March 23rd, 2014 that d20pfsrd.org is aware of. The majority of these are from Paizo. So as of 3 1/2 years ago there were almost 1,500 feats. Since then I'm reasonably confident that Paizo all by themselves has published in the vicinity of 1,500 feats for Pathfinder.
It's pretty bad when (a) their own PRD has not been updated at all in 15+ months (last update as of 2-3 days ago indicated August 2015 but someone else asserts a more recent date of ~15 months back); (b) the two major independent websites supporting PF can't keep current with updating - I give mad props to Archives of Nethys for doing their level best to do so!; and (c) they are publishing multiple versions of the same basic feat. 3 different versions or variations of Antagonize, at least. Multiple different feats for ranged attacking without provocation of AoO. Multiple different feats for casting spells on the sly. Etc.
I assert 15 months because it says so right on the front page of the PRD:
5/25/2016 - Updated with content from Bestiary 5. Improved Spell List index, updated global indices, and corrected bugs/issues from the reporting thread.
In reading through Starfinder since getting my hardcover CRB, it's kind of daunting to think about a "Pathfinder 2.0" that retains its flavor while updating into Starfinder rules. Equipment itself is such a significant flavor change. In Pathfinder, being the post-apocalyptic setting and mode that it is, the best items are either immeasurably ancient from the height of a lost civilization (Azlant what?) or lost treasures of heroes. The Shory built flying pyramids and basically got wiped out. The Ghol-gan Empire went mad and effectively died out as a society. Numeria...Thassilon...all of these grand places that are effectively looted by adventurers because virtually nobody can make the best stuff anymore.
By comparison, equipment in Starfinder is mass-produced, but your relative reputation (via your character level) restricts your ability to purchase just as much as the money. More populous place? It's more likely that someone there will sell you something more powerful than you could get elsewhere. Improvements are modular instead of inherent. Improvements are in design and materials, not how magic'd up they are. Some of those improvements can be moved between pieces of gear.
That's a HUGE jump. The game is massively different for those changes. I don't know that the medieval fantasy genre is the same for changing like that.
Disintegration rifle = staff of power. GP value w/ WBL vs item levels with corresponding cash cost/ABP cost.
A lot of artifacts are rather wuss with a few exceptions. Save DCs of 20 for an artifact or near-artifact in Pathfinder is ... abysmal.
Item crafting rules in SF port over without the annoying piles of feat taxes levied to make items. SF characters with the right skills can (by making the crafting DCs) make magic items (unless I missed something, to be fair). PF characters have to hop through a lot more hoops for the same thing.
If you're not 15th-18th level in either game you can't make/buy the best stuff at all.
Quite frankly, a lot of items are designated artifacts as a point of meta-gaming "not for players, even if their characters are as capable or more capable that the villains that they defeat".
There's not even an option to figure out how to make artifacts of your own. As absurdly high as it is possible to get skill bonuses without even considering extraordinary measures, this should be possible. From the PoV of some AP's BBEGs, they've made multiple artifacts and continue to be able to do so with impunity without having mythic anything at all or being demigods or what have you, just access to 9th level spells at a minimum.
Artifacts are the one gaping hole in 3e's "everyone plays by the same rules" mantra. I understand that some artifacts should be/are macguffins. Many of them are decidedly not, merely being incredibly rare magic items that are really tricky to get rid of.
NPCs figure out how to make artifacts all the time, in a relative hurry at that. WotR and 2ndD I believe have two examples of this very thing occurring per-script by NPCs with less than a decade's efforts and research. There are probably others that I'm not remembering.
20th level alchemists have a class feature that not only allows them to make a minor artifact, but to make said minor artifact 1/month at NO COST for 8 hours' work. All they need is a suitable work space and a giant ball of lint, *pouf* 1 free philosopher's stone. 25,000 gp a month, forever.
Lastly, who's to say right at the moment that Starfinder doesn't have artifacts of its own? Pretty sure that the Starstone counts as one. Now that is an artifact. Not a hopped up legendary nine lives eater. ;)
|
|
A new fantasy line? Do you mean something in a different setting - like something Steampunk for example (struggling to think of a suitably different fantasy setting but it is 11pm here)Quite honestly, I think they are probably going to make their own new fantasy line.
Pathfinder can keep going for more decades, as it is quite evident, that there is a market for everybody and tabletop players are creatures of habit. I mean Old school D&D still sell with OSR various products. They even get some awards at rpg ennies and the likes.
Yeah a different setting even, I mean Golarion is of course their main line but quite honestly, right now for a new system, might as well start from scratch and quite possibly remove some core concepts of the game.
The core classes of the game are basically weighting us down from the beginning...guess it's fair to say we are "chained" to these core concepts.
Wait, equipment in Starfinder has level requirements?