POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder? (From Erik Mona's Interview)

[knightnday]

bugleyman wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.

The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.

No doubt. Of course, calling them out isn't exactly a non-aggressive bit either. Therein lies the problem here, which we've seen played out in the last few days with the release of the Advanced Class Guide and dire comments about how folks will never pay for it and how horrible it is and so on. Happens with a lot of books, a lot of changes to the system. My personal favorites are when someone is never ever going to buy another Paizo product.

I'm not sure it is a new version of the game we need, but a new version of the message boards and/or fans. It doesn't take a "Paizo Defense Force" to note when people are being negative, antagonistic, or not even in the neighborhood of constructive in their criticism.

Pan wrote:

I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.

The forums are welcoming, but many of the participants aren't. I've watched far longer than I've posted and there are what I call "The Usual Suspects", a counter to the Paizo Defense Force if you will, that run out to stir the post and be as negative as they can about the product. It may not run people off the forums, but it certainly puts a damper on people who are not willing to deal with the sheer level of hostility on some of the subjects to bother to post.

Yeah, it's probably just an Internet thing, but it doesn't really help anything.

[DrDeth]

Steve Geddes wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

I voted NO, but a updated 1.5 with all the FAQ and updated added, after they have gone thru the FAQ backlog would be nice.

Isn't the "FAQ backlog" always going to exist? By the time they answer or dismiss the current batch, there'll be more wont there?

I'd have assumed that the more complicated the game got, the more options with the potential to clash, the more FAQs there'll be.

Certainly, of course. But there's a large backlog from when SKR left. More or less I want the Core rules FAQ's cleared out.

[Buri]

Nathanael Love wrote:

You'd only have to redo most of the work. . . but really its coo, it works. . .

Under those assumptions it should be easy to run the Original Against the Giants in pathfinder, since "all" you have to do is convert monsters. . .

Believe me-- the fluff remaining the same and all the stats changing matters more than you think,

Hardly. Throwing a monster into a campaign is easy. Why they're there, the impact they have, and so on is the hard part. Besides, with a new edition comes new bestiaries. No 'conversion' is needed. Just use the new stat block. The way Paizo writes its APs requires you to look up stats anyway. Only AP specific stats are in the books which are just a handful as is.

Plus, with Paizo being who they are, do you really think they wouldn't provide the updated entries? Do you really think the players here wouldn't post them for everything even if they didn't?

[Buri]

Triphoppenskip wrote:

And as it is I barely have the free time to do the necessary prep work to run one now. Adding extra time to converting a Pathfinder 2 Edition ap so that it is backwards compatible to everything I already own will make it virtually impossible for me. So still no, my vote is not swayed.

You already have to look up monster stats as part of prep. If that's already leaving you with barely enough time to play, then perhaps you should reexamine your choices in how you spend your time.

[DrDeth]

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

[Shadowborn]

I'd like to reply to the people that want a new edition, but most of the words I'd like to use will be blocked by the profanity filter. Suffice it to say I'm firmly against the idea.

[Triphoppenskip]

Buri wrote:

Triphoppenskip wrote:

And as it is I barely have the free time to do the necessary prep work to run one now. Adding extra time to converting a Pathfinder 2 Edition ap so that it is backwards compatible to everything I already own will make it virtually impossible for me. So still no, my vote is not swayed.

You already have to look up monster stats as part of prep. If that's already leaving you with barely enough time to play, then perhaps you should reexamine your choices in how you spend your time.

Sure let me quit my job, stop preparing meals, drop all house work etc. that way I'll have plenty of time to devote to my hobby. Lol if only.

[Triphoppenskip]

DrDeth wrote:

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

Exactly. There is no guarantee that new is going to be better. There is the possibility it may be completely different then what they are looking for then no one is happy.

[Lord Foul II]

Issac Daneil wrote:

Truthfully, I've never seen the point of entering a new version short of; If it's broke, fix it.

Pathfinder is not broken. I've heard arguments about content bloat, but you can just section of bits and say; "We don't use that." You could even revise your choices after a bit, and make the version feel like new several times.

this is also my vote

I'm trying to avoid a common pitfall of my fellow engineers (if it ain't broke it don't have enough features yet)
I like pathfinder, it's my favorite system, (I do play other systems as well, mixing it up is fun)
Sure, there are a few details I would change if I could, (introducing a battle sorcerer archetype and a warlock class, fusing the rouge and ninja together, adding the glory rouge and detect magic 3/day because regular rouges kinda suck, giving a ki blast to both monks and ninjas (monks getting it earlier) implementing gestalt as an official optional rule set etc etc etc)
But all in all those are really minor things, and things I can homebrew in my own games,
None of the changes I would implement radically alter the way the game is played, nothing that would justify throwing out all that is already in place
Look at TSR and WotC,
Each time they changed editions a radical change occurred that changed fundamental aspects of the game
From 1e to 2e (aka advanced d&d) psionics were changed from something any sufficiently smart person can pick up to an actual class, certain races were no longer stuck in a class that was essentially what we would now call racial paragon classes,... Not sure what else 1e was before my time
From 2e to 3.0&3.5: multiclassing system changed, weapon proficiency changed, non weapon proficiency system changed to feats and skills, level cap removed, level adjustment added, epic rules added, rules for deities changed, spells changed, additional classes added, PrCs added,stat system changed
3.0 to 3.5 numerous errors fixed
3.5 to 4... Loads, spelcasting especially, never played it

Doesn't need the massive changes for you to call it a new edition

[Undone]

The current edition is very nearly exactly what I want.

There are less than 10 feats out of thousands I don't think should exist. At least half of those ten (Leadership, crafting feats) are legacy feats that shape a game.

Every spell before 9th level magic has less than 20 spells which can't be GM'ed by any reasonable standard (Simulacrum comes to mind). Everything else is fine.

When you put out less than 1% of OP material with how many options you've put forward you're doing a good job.

Leave things as they are.

I don't fear change I just think changing what is already good is like fixing a broken clock. It's a dumb idea.

[eggplantman]

I really do not want to start over. I'm still enjoying making up characters and playing as much as ever and new books only add to the enjoyment such as the Ultimate Campaign.

Do I tweak a few things? Sure, but I really don't want to invest in a restart.

[Buri]

Triphoppenskip wrote:

Sure let me quit my job, stop preparing meals, drop all house work etc. that way I'll have plenty of time to devote to my hobby. Lol if only.

Dude(tte), if you gotta quit your job and stop eating just to convert some monster stat arrays and reading an AP book then you either a) work and eat too much or b) play Pathfinder way too much. Either way, lol, that's some dedication.

[Buri]

DrDeth wrote:

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

Except that's EXTREMELY unlikely. In the couple of times there's been a Paizo blog where they've completely rewritten something as a thought experiment, it's been great and well received. An entire edition like that might make my head explode. Literally. O.O

I don't want a new edition to compete with 5th. I want a new edition (and have longer than I've wanted to play 5th these last couple months) so that Paizo's creative staff can actually shine without the need to pander to an old system. Their uniquely own mechanics are generally excellent. I want more of that. I want a Pathfinder that is uniquely its own system.

[Triphoppenskip]

Buri wrote:

Triphoppenskip wrote:

Sure let me quit my job, stop preparing meals, drop all house work etc. that way I'll have plenty of time to devote to my hobby. Lol if only.

Dude(tte), if you gotta quit your job and stop eating just to convert some monster stat arrays and reading an AP book then you either a) work and eat too much or b) play Pathfinder way too much. Either way, lol, that's some dedication.

Hmmm you could have a point on the eat too much lol. But I defiantly don't play pathfinder enough, at least not as much as I would like.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Buri wrote:

Triphoppenskip wrote:

Sure let me quit my job, stop preparing meals, drop all house work etc. that way I'll have plenty of time to devote to my hobby. Lol if only.

Dude(tte), if you gotta quit your job and stop eating just to convert some monster stat arrays and reading an AP book then you either a) work and eat too much or b) play Pathfinder way too much. Either way, lol, that's some dedication.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to play a dead edition. One of the many hassles of such is converting the interesting new stuff to your old stuff.

[Squirrel_Dude]

DrDeth wrote:

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

If the change isn't there, or isn't announced I don't have to buy it or care about it. I still have Pathfinder, or D&D 5e or 3.5 or whatever other system I want to play.

I think that at most levels Pathfinder is a good game. Good shouldn't be allowed to prevent great.

[Reeven]

Considering I like alignments, Vancian casting, feats, skills, the respective powers and abilities of the classes, and everything else that makes 3.F 3.F, I don't really see why I would ever move to a new edition.

[Buri]

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to play a dead edition. One of the many hassles of such is converting the interesting new stuff to your old stuff.

Absolutely not. I'm just saying from what we've already seen time and again on here, Paizo often goes above and beyond in that respect and the community here is top notch for contributing in a myriad number of ways. For something like converting monster entries to a new system being portrayed as life/hobby disrupting is blowing that aspect of converting way out of proportion.

[Thazar]

Nope the game is fun as it stands. New rule books and options are what is needed.

Now a Pathfinder Modern style book based upon Supernatural/Buffy/Warehouse 13 could be fun.

And while it is not my cup of tea a Pathfinder Super Hero off shoot would be cool too.

But no, I am very happy with the sword and sorcery that is Pathfinder as it stands.

[Scavion]

DrDeth wrote:

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

So basically if they release a new edition and change nothing?

That seems to defeat the purpose of making a new edition.

[Morgen]

I'd be just fine with seeing an Advanced Pathfinder game of some sort.

At least historically role-playing games tend to have another take on their idea that goes less or more well. Though there was some book coming out that had a different take on the system that didn't take into account older game's compatibility.

[Mike Franke]

I'm sure someone has already said this, but what makes you think we aren't already playing the second edition of pathfinder? Look at the evolution of the classes over the last couple of years plus totally new mechanics like grit and arcane pools not to mention the many errata. Pathfinder today is clearly different from what it was a few years ago even if it isn't officially a "new edition" and that, at least to me, seems to be a good way to do things. No reboots necessary.

[Suichimo]

Warning, long post ahead.

DrDeth wrote:

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

For me, at the very base of things is the martial vs. caster disparity. One side eventually becomes nothing more than mere peasants compared to the other side. There are other things, but I'll talk about those in a bit.

A lot of this is on the caster side. The very philosophy behind them is that they get monstrously powerful abilities that are usable only a few times per day. I imagine a good bit of people will say that this only really gets out of hand when the DM allows the fifteen minute work day, but I don't think that is true. With specialization, high Int, and magic items(including a bonded item) you have a minimum of six ninth level spells per day. Six! So if the average day has three to four encounters during it, in two of those encounters you can drop two ninth level spells. One ninth level spell will likely end the fight by itself. On top of those, you have your eighth and lower level spells. So the entire philosophy of ULTIMATE COSMIC POWAH but itty bitty casting space is bupkiss from the start. In 5e, casters get a single ninth level spell per day, with no way of getting it back.

Another problem with casters is "I have a spell for everything". This only gets worse with each new splat books, we've already seen it in 3.5 where even books like Complete Warrior and the Tome of Battle had spells in them. This is one of the reasons I liked 4e's splats. Martial Power only had Martial abilities in it, Divine Power had Divine, Arcane Power had Arcane, and so on. Back on the starting point of this paragraph, starting from second level spells, at the latest, you have gems like Knock and Rope Trick. The first of those obsoletes one of your party Rogue's main features, the second removes the need for a night watch.

The third major problem exists in the feats meant for casters. Take a look at the vast majority of the metamagic and item creation feats, which are easily the two strongest subsets of feats in the game. I count about five Metamagic feats that have prerequisites, these being Knowledge skills, Spellcraft, and caster level, you may not already meet. The two most useful item creation feats, Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor, have no requirements outside of caster level, and Wizards get Scribe Scroll for free. This is the exact opposite situation for the martial characters who have to deal with long feat lines just to get their character to do what they initially conceived. This is another area that I think 5e is doing very well.

For the martials, we've got nearly the opposite of the first point I had for casters. The design philosophy for martials was "I can swing my weapon/fire my bow/attack" all day long. So since they could do it for as long as they wanted, this needed to be fairly low powered. The problem here is that they actually can't do it all day long as they will eventually run out of HP, even fighting nothing but hordes of level 1 commoners as they will crit every so often. It might take them longer than the caster to run out, but they eventually will. Possibly the single biggest grievance here is the melee character's inability to move and full attack in the same round.

From there, you have the casters stepping on the toes of the martials as mentioned above. Do you have a Monk in your party built for grappling? The caster has Black Tentacles. Fighter focused on tripping his opponents? Grease. The Rogue who sneaks in to the enemy base and robs them blind/sabotages their armory? Invisibility, Knock, and numerous other spells. The Fighter? Animal companion/Eidolon/Summoning.

Finally, to expand on the martial side of the feat issue, let us take a look at a couple of feats from the recently released Advanced Class Guide:

Advanced Class Guide, Pg 141 wrote:

Anticipate Dodge (Combat)

Your knowledge of mobility and your attack prowess allow you to thwart elusive opponents.
Prerequisites: Dodge, Mobility; base attack bonus +7, brawler† level 4th, or monk level 4th.
Benefit: You automatically know whether a creature you can see has a dodge bonus to its AC. You gain up to a +2 bonus on attack rolls against a target that has a dodge bonus. This bonus cannot exceed the dodge bonus of the creature you attack.

So, for the cost of three bad feats, you can ignore a single feat your opponent MIGHT have.

Advanced Class Guide, Pg 144 wrote:

Coordinated Shot (Combat, Teamwork)

Your ranged attacks against an opponent take advantage of your ally’s positioning.
Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot.
Benefit: If your ally with this feat is threatening an opponent and is not providing cover to that opponent against your ranged attacks, you gain a +1 bonus on ranged attacks against that opponent. If your ally with this feat is flanking that opponent with another ally (even if that other ally doesn’t have this feat), this bonus increases to +2.

This one's requirements aren't that bad, Point-Blank Shot is a feat pretty much every archer will have, but then you notice its Teamwork tag. So not only do you need the feat to get an extremely small benefit for the cost of two feats, you need a buddy that has it as well. Also, your buddy has to be in melee combat for you to get the effect, which is precisely where archers shouldn't be.

Advanced Class Guide, Pg 154 wrote:

Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)

You collect all your power into a single vicious and debilitating punch.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler’s flurry† class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch. Make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack or a flurry of blows (your choice) with the normal attack bonus for each attack. For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage, adding it to any damage the attack has already dealt from previous rolls (if any). If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit.

Now, considering my last two feats, you might be asking yourself "Why is Suichimo including Pummeling Style, which is a great feat, in with two such obviously terrible feats?" To that, I'll answer, the reason I'm including this feat in with the previous feats is the uproar this one feat has caused. There have been at least two threads, that I know of, that have discussed what weapons you can use with this and just how overpowered it is. I've seen people go so far as to say you can ONLY use punches with this feat, not even head butts/kicks/elbows. Yet, in the same book we get the Divine Protection feat, a feat that literally every Charisma based spell caster that can get access to it will take it, and we've actually got people arguing that it is just fine.

Do I want to see spell casting gone? No. They can even keep vancian casting. I would like to see the power of spells reigned in drastically. I would also like to see martials get their own nifty tools, that aren't bound to reality, to play around with as well.

I know this may be a generational thing, but I'm absolutely fine with my swordmasters flinging sword beams around like Link. I'm fine with my hammer users smacking the ground and opening up chasms. I'm fine with my melees being able to reflexively jump in to a caster's Dimension Door and follow him. And I'm fine with throwing a weapon or item and using that to fly, similar to Thor or Tao Pai Pai.

TL;DR Reign casters in and let the martials have more to play with. I just don't think this can be done with the 3.5 mindset that Pathfinder follows to a "t".

[Buri]

Mike Franke wrote:

I'm sure someone has already said this, but what makes you think we aren't already playing the second edition of pathfinder? Look at the evolution of the classes over the last couple of years plus totally new mechanics like grit and arcane pools not to mention the many errata.

Oh hell yeah. I made a thread about this where the Pathfinder Defense Force came out with gusto full of 'where's ur proof?' responses and hyperbolic statements. It got locked before a dozen or so comments. This is absolutely their current strategy. They also issue errata on long time fundamentals of the game for current balance issues, and push it all out as if it's just business as usual all the while trying to say 'oh, no, totes not making a new edition of Pathfinder.'

To me it's utter b!$@!&~&. It's underhanded and ruins any sense of what 'playing Pathfinder' means. When that kind of BS is acceptable then it dilutes the system and co-opts the vast majority of the user base in their new way of doing things even though someone could very well have liked the got into the game for how things were originally done. How? PFS which also happens to be the probably the main reason for the errata in the first place. Those guys have to enforce the current rule set and when those players play outside of PFS there's this dissonance and questions so either gaming groups adapt or face maybe losing players. THEN! The PFS folks complain about the current rules and push changes to make it the way they want because GMs get a hair up their ass because they have to actually think about how to run a game. It then turns into a huge ball of nepotism because the PFS folks like to be chummy from the bottom up.

It's a massive churn that over time makes the game utterly horrible compared to what it was. It's one of the main reasons why I hate Pathfinder in its current implementation. Not so much for the system itself but how Paizo has come to treat it. It's like they can't be confident in their own product so why should I? Then, I have to put up with needless nonsense from my PF gaming group because they're forced to change how they play and naturally I get drug along with them and when I try to play the game I bought I get questioned, rules debates happen, and it's just a s%&*ty experience.

[Stereofm]

Quite frankly, I have not seen any of it. I rejoined PFS after a long absence, and I saw none of that.

[Buri]

I see it often. I play home games regularly with two PFS VLs, both of whom are store coordinators and have played with my state's VC. As great as they are as people, there's a metric f-ton of ego that can get thrown around the moment question the role of PFS to Paizo and Pathfinder overall even if you just passively ask questions and don't agree with their responses. Then, out come the stories of how one of them run personal games for the likes of Erik Mona and Mike Brock. Evidence? I'll just start recording my conversations.

[jorunkun]

Well - what I'd like to see is a cleaned-up core rules book. Reduce complexity, cut bloat, add the most popular options from later books. A sort of compendium / best-of approach.

[glass]

I haven't voted, because it is not as simple as a straight yes-no answer.

On the one hand, the rules could definitely use an overhaul. But that was true the day after they were launched so that alone does make it time for a new edition.

On the other, I will withhold judgement as to whether an overhaul done by Paizo would be an improvement until I see Pathfinder Unchained. And if that bit about sales still increasing year on year is true, then this obviously isn't time for new edition, business wise.

The only thing I can say for definite at this stage is that I do not want a new edition that does not fix Spellcasters and Sidekicks.

[Rob Godfrey]

YES, take the nerf hammer to the sacred cows, or buff the unloved martials to usefulness I care not which.

[Dara Mac Donnacha]

Rob Godfrey wrote:

YES, take the nerf hammer to the sacred cows, or buff the unloved martials to usefulness I care not which.

Yes. The game needs a good overhaul. Take everything they've learned over the past few years and apply it from the ground up.

[Kevin Mack]

bugleyman wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.

The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.

To be fair while it is a thing it's a thing that in my experiance most game systems (or game companies) seem to have to various degrees Shadowrun has it, exalted has it 4e had it etc

[Jeven]

I have no idea.

Paizo would have to propose a PF 2.0 and then describe what they plan to do before I could decide if I like the concept or not.

There is a huge difference between a bit of housekeeping work on the CRB, to fix and tidy and present it better, and a complete redesign of the game from the ground up.

[Wrath]

I like pathfinder, no doubt about it.

What I like more though is Paizos adventures. As long as they write adventure paths of this quality I'll support the company. I've just started playing some 5 th edition. It's far far easier to DM and prepare for than pathfinder. A few more weeks will give me a feel for what it's really like. The best thing is, if 5th works out to be better for me, I can convert the pathfinder APs almost effortlessly.

If they changed editions, I wouldn't buy the books this time. I'd use the online resources to make changes as necessary and run the huge quantity of modules I already own. Plus all the Golarion specific books I own shouldn't need changing.

I don't have time to create worlds and write amazing plots any more. But given how similar 3.5 is to pathfinder is to 5 th edition, converting the well written ones that out there is very easy.

[Nathanael Love]

Rob Godfrey wrote:

YES, take the nerf hammer to the sacred cows, or buff the unloved martials to usefulness I care not which.

Yeah! All those players who came to PF because they basically liked 3.5 and hated when Vancian casting was taken away and martials were given "love", give those guys that Paizo built their business upon the big middle finger!

Lets make sure its unrecognizable! Make sure you know you are playing PATHFINDER and that all tradition from D&D editions is eradicated!

And if you want to play a WIZARD? then GET OUT! PATHFINDER IS NOT FOR YOU!

/sarcasm

[moppom]

The system seriously needs some balancing and streamlining, so: "Yes."

PF has a solid foundation, in some ways, but in others it is all over the damn place.

And I say this as a fan of d20 in general, incidentally. It's a great base to work from. But yes, work does need to be done.

[memorax]

Scavion wrote:

So basically if they release a new edition and change nothing?

That seems to defeat the purpose of making a new edition.

It's interesting how those who do not want any change or little expect Paizo to work on then sell such a edition. Why would I or anyone else buy it. If there is nothing new. Why even waste time or effort on playtesting what is essentially a rehash. Good luck trying to sell the same game twice by the way. I don't see it as being as successful as this one. First gamers are cheap. Second the community in general is in no mood for another 3.5 rehahsh. How do you plan to generate interest in a product with no changes. I'm sure to be ignored yet I'm curious.

While I would not mind to see Vancain caasting go away it should still remain while offering a new system for casting spells side by side. No new magic system means zero interest for me and others. I have the current edition if I want to play with just vancian casting.

Martials should get nice things. Both Wizards and Martails should be able to do amazing things in game. If the new edition or rehashed editions keeps martials from getting nice things good luck trying to sell it is all I'm going to say. As again I can stick to this edition.

Backwards compitabiliy would be nice yet not a must. Again no reason to buy a rehashed edition if that is a design goal because the current allows me to do the same already.

[Lady Firebird]

kaboom! wrote:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."

Yes, absolutely. Pathfinder has such a wealth of material out now that no single group or game could possibly explore it all in any reasonable timeframe. More than enough exists to provide endless opportunities for gaming. What I'd like to see is a second edition by Paizo. I like their production values. The developers seem like good people. I'd like to see a second edition somewhere between D&D 5E and Fantasy Craft in terms of complexity. Something dynamic, faster to stat up than 3.x/PF or Fantasy Craft is, but not quite so "light" as 5E. Something where martial classes get to be on par with their spellcasting compatriots, and probably one where (by default) magic-users don't end up at the ridiculously godlike levels they eventually attain.

A good monster construction system, too. That would be ideal. I love to create monsters and traps and things to play with the rules.

[Joana]

Scavion wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

So basically if they release a new edition and change nothing?

That seems to defeat the purpose of making a new edition.

No, what he's saying is, if you ask 50 people who want a new edition what specific changes are non-negotiable, you'll probably get at least 10 different answers. Just changing things doesn't mean you'll get the changes you want. No system will please everybody.

For instance, a simplified or streamlined game with quicker prep and character creation doesn't interest me at all. I want a complex game with more options than I'll ever get around to using. That's what keeps me from getting bored with it.

[memorax]

If the design goal is to please everyone in the design process it's doomed to failure. The devs will never get 100% approval on anything. All that matters is if a majority are happy with it. If that means no changes to the exisiting rpg. Than so be it. I will be dissappointed yet still keep playing and buying product. If the no change side wins then my advice to the devs is not even waste time on the next edition. Gamers don't like buying the same rpg twice with no changes. With apps and the SRD it's going to probably be the first time imo that 0the PFcore is not going to sell as well imo

[Lady Firebird]

Joana wrote:

For instance, a simplified or streamlined game with quicker prep and character creation doesn't interest me at all. I want a complex game with more options than I'll ever get around to using. That's what keeps me from getting bored with it.

This presumes that "simplified" or "streamlined" in the context of Pathfinder's current engine means no complexity or a lack of options. It does not. At least I wouldn't want to see something as simple as 13th Age in a Pathfinder 2E. But simpler than "immensely complex and time-consuming" has a lot of ground between "rules light" and "Release the Krunchken."

A hypothetical Pathfinder 2nd Edition could absolutely streamline the core engine, cut away cruft, and still provide as many options as it does now. You could fix the glaring holes in the basic system if you abandon a "compatibility über alles" approach and refine the general concepts. You could accomplish this and still leave room for just as many character and campaign options—possibly more, if you're working with a better-designed system lacking some of the big fundamental flaws of its predecessor.

Wrap it up in that pretty Paizo packaging and you'd have at least one instant convert.

[TerraNova]

Not yet

["Devil's Advocate"]

True, it doesn't, (mean you will get the changes you want), but IF there was a decision to make a new edition, there would no doubt be a lot of talks and interaction with the fans before hand, and there are a lot of topic that keep coming up.

*Alignment issues/Paladin basic code of conduct
*Reach, and how PF changed it in regards to diagonals
*Monk issues
*Fighter issues
*Rogue issues
*Cleric issues
*That the Core game and classes need the APG treatment
*Light and Darkness
*Stealth (and Concealment removing Sneak Attack)
*2+Int skill points
*Far too many Traits (and other things) that either do the exact same thing, or are just worse than another Trait
*Feats with Prereqs that really don't help with the Feat you want to take, are unrelated, etc. . .
*Feat Chains that are not really worth a Feat, and would be better served being a single or a fewer number of Feats in the Chain that naturally upgraded
*CMB/CMD being a kind of poor system that doesn't scale well with levels, (even maxed out, combat maneuvers become worse at higher levels as monsters CMD gets much higher than CMB)

So there is no promise that if they did a new edition it would fix any issues, it's probably pretty safe to assume that that would be a main focus, at least for some. It's also pretty safe to assume that such a book would focus on not invalidating older material, particularly story and setting material (although the setting is doing a great job of that on it's own). And based on Paizo's history of such things, with the possible exception of the ACG, it's likely that A.) they would do a really good job, and B.) most would like it, and C.) it would bring even more fans. Personally, I would be very interested if they even looked at trying to improve even half or a quarter of these things, or however many that are often brought up that I didn't list.

It wouldn't split the fanbase any more that Unchained (or the announcement of it) has, not any other books like the APG, UC/UM/UE, or ISG. I kind of think it's ridiculous, at this point where it's just a hypothetical to assume otherwise unless you are of the opinion that most of the PF books since the CRB are garbage.

[Ziggy Sprinkles]

No like the system fine as is. Would like an adventure path that started at 20 though and a book similar to 3.5 savage species.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

No, I don't want a new edition of Pathfinder.

If anything, I want a new edition of Pathfinder players.

["Devil's Advocate"]

memorax wrote:

Gamers don't like buying the same rpg twice with no changes. With apps and the SRD it's going to probably be the first time imo that 0the PFcore is not going to sell as well imo.

I'm not sure we have an example of a selling an RPG twice with no changes. We do have plenty of examples of reselling an RPG with moderate to heavy changes, and from the looks, they tend to do very well. 3.0 -> 3.5, nWoD -> The God Machine, oWoD (which was out of print and no longer supported) -> the 20th Anniversary editions, WotC rereleasing the 1st-3rd Edition core books, which as I understand all sold pretty well. Even Paizo and Pathfinder have rereleased their Core book in what 5 different "printings" editions, and by all accounts their fanbase and sells keep growing exponentially.

[Stark_]

I have to ask people who bring up the martial-caster discrepancy this: do you really believe that if there was a new edition of Pathfinder that these problems would be fixed? We just came off the heels of a book that introduced the Arcanist, with the strongest spellcasting mechanic in the game and the ability to pilfer entire core class features from other powerful classes, and the Swashbuckler, with a swift action bottleneck worthy of legend, no simple access to pounce, and a class feature to shore up the worst base saves in the game that is laughably worse than Divine Protection, a feat that will be taken by every oracle from now until doomsday. This is Pathfinder. This is the philosophy the design team has been using for years. And honestly, for all its perceived flaws, it's an incredibly fun system. I don't want to see all this interesting material wiped out for change that may or may not happen.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Reprints with errata is not the same thing as a new edition, not that school textbook authors know that...

[BigDTBone]

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

memorax wrote:

Gamers don't like buying the same rpg twice with no changes. With apps and the SRD it's going to probably be the first time imo that 0the PFcore is not going to sell as well imo.

I'm not sure we have an example of a selling an RPG twice with no changes. We do have plenty of examples of reselling an RPG with moderate to heavy changes, and from the looks, they tend to do very well. 3.0 -> 3.5, nWoD -> The God Machine, oWoD (which was out of print and no longer supported) -> the 20th Anniversary editions, WotC rereleasing the 1st-3rd Edition core books, which as I understand all sold pretty well. Even Paizo and Pathfinder have rereleased their Core book in what 5 different "printings" editions, and by all accounts their fanbase and sells keep growing exponentially.

The CRB is in its 6th printing. The revisions are a by-product of that, not a cause. The printings 1-5 sold out.

[Majuba]

For me, the game was exactly what I wanted it to be five years ago (Pre-APG).