| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obligatory Topic Derail Post:
Infusing Golarion into the core rules is the worst idea imaginable.
If they don't do that, I will buy all the new books.
If they DO do that, I will buy none of the new books.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm out.
Starfinder wasn't backwards compatible so this version won't be either, thus invalidating a shelf of Pathfinder books.
Not what I wanted. I won't be a part of it.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the question "Why a new system (2.0) is being created?"
I think they've been pretty clear about that in the FAQ.
```
When we created the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game back in 2008, we'd already built up a decade of professional experience with the 3.0 and 3.5 rules and had a pretty good idea how they could be improved to make the game more fun, easier to teach, and better at telling the kinds of fantasy stories we like. Ten years later, we've had similar experiences with our own game, with a similarly long list of things we can improve upon.
Archetypes are a good example of what we mean. Introduced in the Advanced Player's Guide a full year after the release of the Core Rulebook, archetypes have gone on to become a much-loved and fundamental part of the Pathfinder experience. We generally assume that just about everyone uses them, yet they appear nowhere in the Core Rulebook. Now, we could have just opened the Core Rulebook files and added a chapter about archetypes sometime in the last decade, but we've always maintained that, basic errata aside, if we're going to "open the patient," we might as well perform surgery on as many problem areas as possible. Finally, our list of things we wanted to change (often inspired by our own games or feedback from fans at conventions and on our forums) grew to the point that it was worth opening up the patient and performing surgery. And we need your help to make sure we don't get too crazy with the scalpel!
```
I also think that Pathfinder has become the legacy of the old guard, and is no longer at all an attractive game for a new audience, unless they are inducted by a Pathfinder-player. Making a game that's exciting for both new and old players is a pretty important evolution, even if it's painful to transition.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
is no longer at all an attractive game for a new audience, unless they are inducted by a Pathfinder-player
Do you really think this will change with a new edition? I'd guess 98% of new TTRPG gamers are inducted by an existing gamer. The 2% who buy a book because they've always wanted to try an RPG will go for D&D just based off name recognition. I doubt PF2E is going to get any significant portion of its sales from brand new players who have never played TTRPGs but want to dive into GMing.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm out.
Starfinder wasn't backwards compatible so this version won't be either, thus invalidating a shelf of Pathfinder books.
Not what I wanted. I won't be a part of it.
I agree, I've spent ENTIRELY too much on books to switch systems. I like pathfinder, not interested in a "streamlined" game. IF I was I would have tried out 5th edition already.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think the main rulebook can do a much better job of keeping that new gamer in the group and engaged with her character, that's for sure.
That's good. Hopefully you get enough new gamers to offset the exodus of old ones. That's the idea here, right?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's good. Hopefully you get enough new gamers to offset the exodus of old ones. That's the idea here, right?I really think the main rulebook can do a much better job of keeping that new gamer in the group and engaged with her character, that's for sure.
It definatley looks like it. Bring in the new kids, throw out the old guard. Who needs them anyway?
I expected better from Paizo
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that a new edition is needed, and I look forward to it. Like the above DM I have also been playing since D&D. As the FAQ mentioned PF has been here since 2008 and was based on 10 ish years of 3rd Ed. That means this has been around for nearly 18 years, its time for a change or past time.
Or people could also visit the threads bringing up power creep and rules bloat. I suppose they could opt to not publish new books butt hat doesn't sound like a sound idea either.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
is no longer at all an attractive game for a new audience, unless they are inducted by a Pathfinder-playerDo you really think this will change with a new edition? I'd guess 98% of new TTRPG gamers are inducted by an existing gamer. The 2% who buy a book because they've always wanted to try an RPG will go for D&D just based off name recognition. I doubt PF2E is going to get any significant portion of its sales from brand new players who have never played TTRPGs but want to dive into GMing.
If we're talking about vision, then yes, a company has to believe this to succeed.
D&D 5e brought in an army of new players on the merit of its mechanics which merged the old and new aspects of the game.
13th Age brought in an array of players on the merit of its mechanics for heroic fantasy roleplaying.
Making a game which stands on its own legs is entirely an understandable way to make a game that is successful.
Sure, I will definitely agree at least that the majority of tabletop gamers still get into it by word-of-mouth, I don't think it's anywhere close to 98%, or you wouldn't see the indie RPG scene explode so nicely around Forge, the OSR, the AEDU-derivatives, and the wide world of tabletop RPGs around us.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
10 years out of a rule system is great but when you add the 10 years of additional books and introducing new things to the system over time the creators will be changes they want to make.
Magic items need a re-tooling (Love Starfinder in this aspect)
Gamers hate buying new books all over again. Paizo is oging to keep Pathfinder 1st Edition alive which is amazing in its own right.
Lastly unlike other companies that change systems in 3-4 years, Paizo waited and allowed Pathfinder to mature. The game is ready to for a 2nd edition.
To our Paizo overlords, Let's see whatcha got for us :-)
I am excited to see what they have done for all of us.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have thousands of dollars in books if 2nd edition makes them useless I will avoid it until I run out of 1st edition material (I still have 10 AP's to run).
There are many things in Starfinder I DO NOT like and hope they will not transfer into Pathfinder 2nd.
When Starfinder came out I hoped Pathfinder would not suffer or change to make it more like the "new popular game" I fear it might.
All that said I am preordering the playtest to see what it is like.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
10 years out of a rule system is great but when you add the 10 years of additional books and introducing new things to the system over time the creators will be changes they want to make.
Magic items need a re-tooling (Love Starfinder in this aspect)
Gamers hate buying new books all over again. Paizo is oging to keep Pathfinder 1st Edition alive which is amazing in its own right.
Lastly unlike other companies that change systems in 3-4 years, Paizo waited and allowed Pathfinder to mature. The game is ready to for a 2nd edition.
To our Paizo overlords, Let's see whatcha got for us :-)
I am excited to see what they have done for all of us.
If it's Starfinder Fantasy Edition, count me out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's Starfinder Fantasy Edition, count me out.
Agreed. I hate what they did to combat in Starfinder. It feels dumbed down. Might as well call it D&D 5.2. Blagh.
The sky is falling.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, that worries me. After all, Starfinder was supposed to be the culminations of "all the lessons we have learned from Pathfinder" and it turned out to be an incredibly unenjoyable game, mechanics-wise
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
Just like PF2 is.
Paizo isn't going to send a hit squad around to your houses to seize and burn your old "invalidated" books.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Played since redbox(1e), and editions are a feature of the hobby. Dnd/PF has not been my only system and i'm ok with this.
I hope the new edition brings more changes i like then ones i don't, but i will check it out.
3.5 to PF i overall liked, hopefully after more is revealed the same will be true here.
I was very worried about backwards compatability during that change, i understand why people post about it this time too. I don't use a single 3.5 product in my PF games these days however, i am amused at myself in hindsight.
(p.s., i also have thousands of dollars invested in content, moreso when rolling back to earlier editions)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big element of the rules revision is that, over the last few hardcovers, the design team has I think increasingly chafed from the chains of the core rulebook. There are a lot of little things that were inherited from 3.5 that constrain the design space for new classes/items/rule systems. Whether its the power level of a class or the interpretation of the rule. Designing a new book has the potential to open up new areas for exploration in game design, and build new concepts.
Really the only thing that makes me worried is how the new game is going to be sold here on out. I mostly am optimistic that we won't simply see a rehash of the released books: MOSTLY
Also I will be a sad panda if the Starfinder monster rules are adopted :(
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
Just like PF2 is.
Paizo isn't going to send a hit squad around to your houses to seize and burn your old "invalidated" books.
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead. If a language is not longer actively spoken, if it only exist in scripture of days long gone, how are the newer languages optional? Those languages are called 'dead' for a reason
This is something I've been thinking they needed for a long time (since at least 2014) but never thought would happen. The massive rules bloat, trap options, feat trees and more turn off so many players! Indeed, I'm running a game irl and the session 0 I ran a few weeks back I had two players quit because they were pulling on info from d20pfsrd and didn't know how to make heads or tails of the rules and were beyond terrified of the sheer amount of rules they would have to deal with. Both of these players are still in my 5e and my newer Genesys games btw and have been playing longer than even I have (one player has been around since AD&D 1e was new)
Getting the system updated and hopefully making more of the classes on-par with one another and streamlining character generation will be a big step forward imho and could help provide even more choice for players.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead. If a language is not longer actively spoken, if it only exist in scripture of days long gone, how are the newer languages optional? Those languages are called 'dead' for a reasonI never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
Just like PF2 is.
Paizo isn't going to send a hit squad around to your houses to seize and burn your old "invalidated" books.
What kind of new content do you need? Rules or Adventures?
There is almost 20 years of rules to play with. And adventures can be adapted to any system.I know people still playing OD&D, 1st Edition D&D, 2nd Edition D&D, 3rd Edition D&D etc.
Have you exhausted all compatible content?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead. If a language is not longer actively spoken, if it only exist in scripture of days long gone, how are the newer languages optional? Those languages are called 'dead' for a reasonI never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
Just like PF2 is.
Paizo isn't going to send a hit squad around to your houses to seize and burn your old "invalidated" books.
What kind of new content do you need? Rules or Adventures?
There is almost 20 years of rules to play with. And adventures can be adapted to any system.
I know people still playing OD&D, 1st Edition D&D, 2nd Edition D&D, 3rd Edition D&D etc.
Have you exhausted all compatible content?
And furthermore what possible content does the game still lack at this point? We have rules to run an adventure in everything from a prehistoric to a sci-fi setting (and the latter can even be done without Starfinder). Every class concept can be approximated decently well with the existing classes and their archetypes. We have Arcane, Divine, Psychic, and Psionic and Bo9S courtesy of DSP. I guess you might still be holding out for Paizo's take on Magic of Blue Incarnum?
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
It definatley looks like it. Bring in the new kids, throw out the old guard. Who needs them anyway?That's good. Hopefully you get enough new gamers to offset the exodus of old ones. That's the idea here, right?I really think the main rulebook can do a much better job of keeping that new gamer in the group and engaged with her character, that's for sure.
I have seen a plethora of old names in these threads, people I haven't seen on the forums in years. The old guard will see what Paizo does before they throw themselves out.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's good. Hopefully you get enough new gamers to offset the exodus of old ones. That's the idea here, right?I really think the main rulebook can do a much better job of keeping that new gamer in the group and engaged with her character, that's for sure.
It definatley looks like it. Bring in the new kids, throw out the old guard. Who needs them anyway?
I expected better from Paizo
This is ridiculous. There are plenty of people here that consider themselves "old guard," myself included.
No one is being throw out, although there are a few who are loudly jumping overboard.
-Skeld
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead.
That's the popular theory / justification for bloat around here, but if that's ACTUALLY the case, then why is 5th edition, a system that has had very little rules expansion in the three years since the core books came out, beating Pathfinder so handily?
You don't have to be constantly spurting out splatbooks of bloat like a man with diarrhea overdosing on laxatives in order to avoid your system dying. 5th edition finally puts this old chestnut to rest.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is being throw out, although there are a few who are loudly jumping overboard.
I wouldn't say overboard. There's a whole lot of ships currently sailing on the RPG ocean. If you don't like the direction the ship you're currently on, then it's a pretty good bet you will be able to find one that's going a lot closer to the direction you like.
|
|
No one is being throw out, although there are a few who are loudly jumping overboard.I wouldn't say overboard. There's a whole lot of ships currently sailing on the RPG ocean. If you don't like the direction the ship you're currently on, then it's a pretty good bet you will be able to find one that's going a lot closer to the direction you like.
They are jumping overboard from the SS Pathfinder. Whether they land in the Sea of No Gaming or on another ship is completely irrelevant.
-Skeld
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've read of the plans for Pathfinder 2.0, it seems like some of the changes seem to be aimed at doing things akin to 5E. I'm not sure that's really the best idea. Fans of 5E already have 5E. Changing things to be more like 5E probably won't bring many of them to Pathfinder, and stands a decent chance of getting existing Pathfinder fans to abandon ship (to extend the ship metaphor even further). I'm not sure that a PF/5E hybrid will gain any more fans than it stands to loose.
On the other hand, if they keep compatibility to the extent that some of the bigger fanboys want them to, there's barely a point in putting out a new edition (other than reselling the last decade's worth of content in a new package). If they keep compatibility, then all the stuff that's broken will STILL be broken.
(Although I do find it amusing that some of the stuff I've seen actually has them finally acknowledging the caster/martial disparity as a real thing, and not just some "conspiracy theory cooked up by people with an agenda" that they've officially tried to paint it as in the past.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's nice to be an outsider on all of this ....it will be interesting to see how all this shakes out with the fanbase/existing player turnover vs. new players once the new system rolls out.
Edition changes are a good study in human nature, brand loyalty/fanaticism and the five stages of grief.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen a plethora of old names in these threads, people I haven't seen on the forums in years. The old guard will see what Paizo does before they throw themselves out.
I'm definitely not old guard, but I will admit to mostly reading through the Pathfinder 2E stuff out of morbid curiosity, and it basically seems like a losing situation for Paizo all-around. Probably helps that I don't really have a horse in this race, I moved on to other systems years ago.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to draw a comparison here that I think a lot of people won't necessarily agree with, but I can assure you is relevant. I work for a technology company with pretty deep roots. We're currently going through end-of-support procedures for several pieces of software. We have replacements out there that are straight up better in virtually every way - security, ease of use, functionality, interface/UX enhancements, update velocity, etc. - and we have financial incentives for customers to move to the replacement products.
Some won't.
It doesn't matter how much their ROI would improve, how much easier their lives would be, or how it impacts other people at the org. Somewhere in there, a decision maker won't make the move. Some will stick with the product they've been using, even though we won't support it. Usually, the ones who are most resistant to moving tend to be afraid of the change. They tend to be experts in the old software, acting as gatekeepers between their staff and their data. Many of them are terrified that they will become obsolete if the org makes the change.
I see the same behavior trends in some of the posts since this announcement.
I understand and appreciate the concerns that people have about their investment being invalidated. I've got a substantial collection of PDFs, hardcovers, etc. I've got 4 GM stars in PFS and a pile of organized play characters that won't be able to partake in Season 11+ content. My investment is pretty significant, but I realize that a new edition coming out is about an evolution of product vision.
Paizo has outright said, as many have observed in the past, that they are not the same company that created the CRB. Some individuals are still there, but the company has grown and evolved over the intervening decade. The writing quality has gone up on average, ideas are plentiful, and we see regular posts about just how many complaints people have about the system. With sales up over the past year, they're less exposed to risk than prior years and ready to embark on the new edition. That's a good thing. It gives a lot of people - players, GMs, contributors, etc. - a lot of opportunity to explore.
While some folks won't make the move, there's still a TON of content out there and, quite frankly, there are likely going to be some folks continuing to create adventures for first edition. There's something like 22 APs at this point including War for the Crown, 45 available modules, and 251 organized play scenarios from Paizo alone. Other publishers have made significant amounts of content, as well. And, of course, nobody is stopping anyone from making their own homebrew campaign.
With all that said, first edition has gotten to the point where I can't recommend it to the average new player. It's too arcane and too big. The user experience is dated. It's not easy to use or learn. I find myself being the gatekeeper between the game mechanics and the other players. Unlike my customers, where that equates to some semblance of job security, I find that prospect terrifying for the hobby. It turns out that there are lots of people who can be interested in being part of our stories, but feel marginalized or intimidated by the rules. That can change with a new edition.
Just like I tell my customers, nobody is going to raid their office and take away their software once we end-of-life it. Your first edition is still yours, you can continue to weave your stories and create memories with it. Those books don't just get dumpstered because of a new edition coming out. It's good for the hobby, though, to make a bigger tent by way of a new edition.
I plan to follow the same path as I did with Starfinder and subscribe to the new edition. I want to see where Paizo takes it and see the spark of inspiration that comes of it. Paizo's financial success in that endeavor helps fuel my enjoyment of the game, so I find it worthwhile to invest in that. If nothing else, I'll certainly feel better handing a pregen to the person who says they just want to watch so they can experience something with a redesigned user experience and improved ease of use.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's good. Hopefully you get enough new gamers to offset the exodus of old ones. That's the idea here, right?I really think the main rulebook can do a much better job of keeping that new gamer in the group and engaged with her character, that's for sure.
No. The idea is to retain as many current players as possible while making the game more attractive and easier to learn and play for folks who have not ever given Pathfinder a try, or who are currently playing other systems.
We're not out to trade one type of gamer for the other. WE WANT THEM ALL!!!!
(Of course, we're not going to GET them all, so we want to make the best game we can and hope that--especially after months of customer feedback--we create something that a very large number of people--if not everybody--will enjoy playing.)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the arguments here for a new system are reminiscent for 4e, yet gamers still felt that they were losing a great deal of support with it coming out. I myself felt that way when all the splat books I got really were worthless. Especially if I wanted to continue doing organized play. And then Paizo came along with Pathfinder and gave us something to use our old stuff while also getting more support, both rules-wise and adventure-wise.
The thing people are forgetting is that Pathfinder was built on giving 3.5 fans most support, both ruleswise and adventurewise. And now a decade later, we're faced with the same issues that WotC dealt us. I'm not really happy about this, no. I like 3.5 and I'd rather not see a full blown new edition that invalidates any support for the books I bought from Paizo. I don't like 5e and truthfully, I'm not a fan of Starfinder. If Pathfinder 2e is going to be like those, I just don't see myself shelling out more money for it. Especially if they are pulling the plug on supporting PF1.
I'm not happy with this. If my GM were still alive, he'd be very sad about hearing this.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the arguments here for a new system are reminiscent for 4e, yet gamers still felt that they were losing a great deal of support with it coming out. I myself felt that way when all the splat books I got really were worthless. Especially if I wanted to continue doing organized play. And then Paizo came along with Pathfinder and gave us something to use our old stuff while also getting more support, both rules-wise and adventure-wise.
The thing people are forgetting is that Pathfinder was built on giving 3.5 fans most support, both ruleswise and adventurewise. And now a decade later, we're faced with the same issues that WotC dealt us. I'm not really happy about this, no. I like 3.5 and I'd rather not see a full blown new edition that invalidates any support for the books I bought from Paizo. I don't like 5e and truthfully, I'm not a fan of Starfinder. If Pathfinder 2e is going to be like those, I just don't see myself shelling out more money for it. Especially if they are pulling the plug on supporting PF1.
I'm not happy with this. If my GM were still alive, he'd be very sad about hearing this.
I have a feeling that Pathfinder 2.0 is going to be Paizo's own 4th edition, in many ways.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
especially after months of customer feedbackBetween layout and sending off to the printer in time to get it back, that's probably 4-5 months of customer feedback that will actually be made in time for it to affect Pathfinder 2.0...AT BEST.
It'll be longer than that, but it will also be heavily structured with lots of surveys and other feedback mechanisms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh... It's been 10 years, already (since the Alpha Playtest).
Honestly, I'm a little ambivalent.
I can definitely see the need to streamline the central system mechanics, and there's been a lot of rules development and expansion from the Core Rulebook (including both the RPG and setting lines). I don't think the design space is completely mined out, but there was starting to be some conceptual overlap with already published material (for instance, several of the archetypes in Ultimate Intrigue feel like better options in a "nature-based" campaign than some of the ones in Ultimate Wilderness). No do I consider 10 years to be "too short" to start working on an updated version.
On the other hand, change usually causes at least a little anxiety. I actually avoided switching to 3.0 for a couple years; after going through the transition from 1st Ed AD&D to 2nd Ed back in the the late '80s, and having purchased a good-sized library of material, I was pretty comfortable with the 2nd Ed + Player's Option mechanics as a basis for (at least some of) my fantasy campaigns. When I actually looked at the 3.0 rules, the unified mechanics made a lot of things I was doing easier and more elegant; granted, there was a level of customization that was lost, but for most things it was more strait-forward. I would have liked for class design/features in 3.x/Pathfinder to be a bit more modular (similar to the generic classes, allowing more flexibility with mixing and matching); 3.x had some ideas (racial substitution levels) and Pathfinder archetypes went a bit further, but I think the way Starfinder handles archetypes is a good direction (with rather more support, of course) to prevent having to design separate archetypes that occupy the same conceptual space for multiple classes. Of course, if I want to go full-bore customization, I can always run a fantasy game using HERO System.
TL;DR: I'll wait and see what the mechanics are like, but overall I guess you could say I'm cautiously optimistic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erik, since you are watching here, and you're one of THE bosses, may I interest you in a divergent path of base characters that will promote market share, increase the diversity of the amazing Pathfinder lines, and make PF 2.0 a completely different animal (pun partially intended!) from all OTHER offerings that are out there?
I've already posted this in a couple of threads, but hey, saturation can't hurt, can it?
Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm. Bring in the tengu, the wayang, the nagajii and... *shudder* kitsune..
Show a system that has learned from its mistakes and grows with the setting that it has developed over the years, build a whole new paradigm that fully extols and supports the new system 2.0 in a way that 1.0 sometimes could not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins? Meh.
EDIT: A new edition needs more than just one race added to it. This is a magnum opus a crown jewel, a magnificent work of splendor. Expand those horizons... DARE to explore them!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope pathfinder 2.0 uses a lot of the mechanics changes of star finder. particularly the attack changes and the higher level spells taking more resources. I am excited to see what is to come.
I remember my old dm swearing up and down that first edition was best and the later systems ruined it. I believed that for a long time till I sat down with the new books. To this day I'm glad I updated and kept an open enough mind to read the next generation of stuff. Not an old dog that can't learn new tricks yet!