Hypothetical situation here. Paizo decides to start working on Pathfinder 2.0, a totally new PnP RPG. It's not based on 3.x, 3.P or 4E. It's going to be completely brand spankin' new.
What radical departure(s) are you looking for from Pathfinder v1? You want less attacks at high levels or fewer spells per day so that high level play moves faster? You want SoS spells completely removed from the game? You want Barbarians removed and have the Fighter class able to cover that niche with selectable class abilities? You want that worthless Bard class out of core or maybe add in the Warlock type class? Maybe you only want three generic classes that you can build any concept imaginable? Is magic risky yet insanely powerful or can any schmuck with a $2 prayer book heal the party? Death to the Vacian spell system? No more HP?
What do you want? What are you pushing for?
Hypothetical situation here. Paizo decides to start working on Pathfinder 2.0, a totally new PnP RPG. It's not based on 3.x, 3.P or 4E. It's going to be completely brand spankin' new.
What radical departure(s) are you looking for from Pathfinder v1? You want less attacks at high levels or fewer spells per day so that high level play moves faster? You want SoS spells completely removed from the game? You want Barbarians removed and have the Fighter class able to cover that niche with selectable class abilities? You want that worthless Bard class out of core or maybe add in the Warlock type class? Maybe you only want three generic classes that you can build any concept imaginable? Is magic risky yet insanely powerful or can any schmuck with a $2 prayer book heal the party? Death to the Vacian spell system? No more HP?
What do you want? What are you pushing for?
None of the above? The lack of a gamebreaking "radical departure" is sort of the whole point.
Now minor tweaks I'd love to see, but tossing the whole system out and starting from scratch is sort of what made 4th edition such a mess.
Also, you want to remove bard for being pointless and sucky... but then add Warlock?!? We've obviously had some very divergent experiences with warlocks and bards...
All grognarding aside, I would like to see new options for the core classes, especially designs that give you more flexibility (Such as a fighter that can, through class ability selection, end up as something like a barbarian, or something like a duelist, depending on your whim, or a cleric that can be a bookish priest, or a front of the pack armor clad warrior, again, depending on the players choices), but none of that requires a new revision, just a set of optional classes at some point.
What do you want? What are you pushing for?
.
- No new rules that invalidate my fluff books.
- No new rules that cause Golarion to have a world changing event and skip ahead 100 years.
- No new rules that change the fundamental roles of the 3.5 classes. Fighters fight. Wizards cast spells. Rogues sneak and steal. Clerics heal and obliterate undead.
- Basic and Advanced rules sets.
None of the above? The lack of a gamebreaking "radical departure" is sort of the whole point.
It's the whole point of Pathfinder RPG. This is a hypothetical situation here, one which rewrites the rules from scratch.
Now minor tweaks I'd love to see, but tossing the whole system out and starting from scratch is sort of what made 4th edition such a mess.
I personally disagree. 4E is lame (IMO) because that's the kind of game they made. Pathfinder 2.0 wouldn't have to be.
Also, you want to remove bard for being pointless and sucky... but then add Warlock?!? We've obviously had some very divergent experiences with warlocks and bards...
I never said that I want all of these things. I asked you what you wanted. Thanks for taking the bait, though. :)
All grognarding aside, I would like to see new options for the core classes, especially designs that give you more flexibility (Such as a fighter that can, through class ability selection, end up as something like a barbarian, or something like a duelist, depending on your whim, or a cleric that can be a bookish priest, or a front of the pack armor clad warrior, again, depending on the players choices), but none of that requires a new revision, just a set of optional classes at some point.
Sounds like you are pretty much just want Paizo to continue tweeking 3.5 and not move to a new addition down the road. This is a perfectly valid preference.
Sounds like you are pretty much just want Paizo to continue tweeking 3.5 and not move to a new addition down the road. This is a perfectly valid preference.
Pretty much yeah, I'd like to see a lot of expansion on 3.5, optional rules, alternate mechanics, that sort of thing, but still have the core mechanics to fall back on, for compatibility.
We've obviously had some very divergent experiences with warlocks and bards.
Off topic a bit but based on this statement, yeah it does sound like it. I've got nothing against the Bard. He excels in his area of expertise and even has a new one in PFRPG.
I can't figure out how a Warlock could be considered weak though. I know they get this reputation for being a one trick pony but once they reach level 4 and can reliably use scrolls, they are extremely versatile spell casters. A little expensive? Yes, but very versatile. You've got to make sure to use your scrolls sparingly, though, and not just burn them on a whim.
We've obviously had some very divergent experiences with warlocks and bards.Off topic a bit but based on this statement, yeah it does sound like it. I've got nothing against the Bard. He excels in his area of expertise and even has a new one in PFRPG.
I can't figure out how a Warlock could be considered weak though. I know they get this reputation for being a one trick pony but once they reach level 4 and can reliably use scrolls, they are extremely versatile spell casters. A little expensive? Yes, but very versatile. You've got to make sure to use your scrolls sparingly, though, and not just burn them on a whim.
Meh, they've always just seemed like slightly weaker rogue/archer/striker types with a mediocre spell themed attack to me. Admittedly, I haven't had many players want to play one, so I may just not have seen them at their best, but it just felt like all they contributed to the party was some damage, and even at flat damage dealing, they were having a hard time keeping up.
Well, I have a fighter/rogue/warlock, who has Hideous Blow and Leaps & Bonuds and likes to tumble up to people and combine a sneak attacks with Eldritch Blast when using a subtle rapier. Often, he can deal out horrendous damage (anywhere from 6-10d6 damage), but he only attacks once per round.
We only just got !st edition lol. If they radically changed anything or started anew i would not buy it. That is the reason i didn't buy 4th edition.
Let's all pretend that it's several years in the future and we are all ready for that next version Pathfinder to come out. Jason announces that they are not going to continue supporting 3rd edition as it's close to 15 years old and everyone agrees [hypothetical].
What do you want? What ideas do you start throwing out there? Or are you all secretly writing your own PnP RPGs right now and don't want to give away your awesome ideas?
What do you want? What ideas do you start throwing out there? Or are you all secretly writing your own PnP RPGs right now and don't want to give away your awesome ideas?
Curses! Foiled again! (kidding, kidding)
|
I am not really interested in any radical departures. I do not mind drastically new options, as long as they are presented in modular manner and are truly OPTIONAL.Having the game hinged on groundbreaking new rules invalidates my 3.x/PF books (which I have spent a crap-ton of loot on and would like to continue using). So I am not in favor of drastic changes to the core at all.
But I am not opposed to trying new systems in the mix, as options, instead of wholesale updates. I like books like Unearthed Arcana, that have lots of new systems that I can cherry pick for my games. I like campaign setting books with new rules variants/options that I can cherry pick. I like player books in smaller doses that have new items to pick and chose from. And I love me some good fluff.
I am not so big on a total rewrite in place of what we have. Just like with WOTC. I do not care if Paizo makes and markets a BRAND NEW GAME, as long as they still offer support for the version I am playing.
Instead of a radical departure from the 3.x rule set I would much rather see Paizo use those game design braincells to make some drastic and new games in other genres aside from fantasy (give me mechs, spaceships, and old gods please), or maybe even some boardgame hotness.
But as for PFRPG. IT WAS JUST RELEASED. I like it a whole bunch. I say expand upon it at a nice slow and steady pace, and lets have this conversation about what I need to have changed in another decade IMO.
love,
malkav
Completely brand spanking new? I'm assuming that means a departure from d20 altogether? If so, I'd say remove classes entirely and make everything skill and possibly feat (though with a different name) based; perhaps with a section on how to emulate your favourite class from the current version of PFRPG for those who might be scared of the sudden flexibility.
Wouldn't this just be True20?
As for the overall thread, as others have said I wouldn't be looking for any great departure. I've already got True20, Castles and Crusades, Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Warriors and Warlocks, FantasyCraft, Earthdawn, Mojo, etc. for alternate systems. Why blow up one that works?
I must have been living under a rock, because I've never actually heard of True20 until now.
It's a nice modular system with enough of the d20 framework to help ease folks into the concept. I like it a lot, but can't find many players (they all like the class-based approach over the modular system).
I don't see much point in copying the 4E D&D mechanics in a wholesale manner.
The biggest problem to solve is reducing the slow grinding combat at higher levels. I don't know how much can be done to reduce the nightmarish bookkeeping, without rewriting the system entirely from scratch.
You could go to 1st ed style quick high level fights. They were quick because while the damage dealing abilities kept increasing the hit points did not really match that.
Me well for some classes my prefered changes are well known, so no need to mention the cleric for instance. For other classes some polish could be used, the fighter needs more built in abilities less reliance on feats to build him I think. The barbarian needs more flexibility in build, right now the clear choice is go with a two hander, but a more flexible build style would allow for two weapon builds and even archery builds. But the class is too much beserker and not really a barbarian like the name would imply, fixing that might also be a nice thing.
I am not really interested in any radical departures. I do not mind drastically new options, as long as they are presented in modular manner and are truly OPTIONAL.Having the game hinged on groundbreaking new rules invalidates my 3.x/PF books (which I have spent a crap-ton of loot on and would like to continue using). So I am not in favor of drastic changes to the core at all.
So, you're going to play 3.x based DND for the rest of your life?
Otherwise, you missed the point of this thread.I made the hypothethical assumption that everyone, including you, are ready for a new addition of Pathfinder. Jason states that he's doing a fresh redesign not based on any edition of any fantasy RPG and throws out a general "what do you want" and "be as vague or specific as you want".
For other classes some polish could be used, the fighter needs more built in abilities less reliance on feats to build him I think. The barbarian needs more flexibility in build, right now the clear choice is go with a two hander, but a more flexible build style would allow for two weapon builds and even archery builds. But the class is too much beserker and not really a barbarian like the name would imply, fixing that might also be a nice thing.
Perfectly valid and I'm not attacking your post at all. I am going to use it to illustrate a point though.
Maybe Fighters don't get feats anymore. Maybe you want them to have class abilities instead of just bonus feats. Granted these class abilities might be similar to feats. Maybe one of the fundamental differences between Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger are their melee fighting style (i.e. Two hand, Sword&Board or Two Weapon).
Maybe you'd like to keep feats but taylor them more speciffically to classes except for a small pool of general feats that every class can choose from. Maybe a Rogue would want to wait for that evasion-like ability until later or skip it altogether because it doesn't fit his character concept.
The main thing I'm looking for in this thread are the fundamental differences. Large concepts that you'd like to break away from. Of course we might just be too dug in to 3E to quickly envision something else eventually replacing it.
|
|
I am not really interested in any radical departures. I do not mind drastically new options, as long as they are presented in modular manner and are truly OPTIONAL.Having the game hinged on groundbreaking new rules invalidates my 3.x/PF books (which I have spent a crap-ton of loot on and would like to continue using). So I am not in favor of drastic changes to the core at all.So, you're going to play 3.x based DND for the rest of your life?
Otherwise, you missed the point of this thread.I made the hypothethical assumption that everyone, including you, are ready for a new addition of Pathfinder. Jason states that he's doing a fresh redesign not based on any edition of any fantasy RPG and throws out a general "what do you want" and "be as vague or specific as you want".
Actually, it is in fact my intent to use 3.5 D&D as the core rules system for most of my fantasy "D&D flavored" role play for the rest of my life. If I want to play something aside from 3.x I don't need Paizo to rewrite the system so that it is no longer compatible for me to have that experience. As I stated in my post I do not mind modular updates, as long as they are optional. Nor would I mind the development of new games of other genres.
But my opinion remains unchanged. I am not looking for a drastic departure from the current Pathfinder RPG. I like it fine just the way it is. Give me some updates and options, and new adventures, and I can go on indefinitely. I do not need a brand new set of rules to continue to derive enjoyment from a game at any point. I would much rather have some new fluff for inspiration and maybe a few new options for the same reason, than a complete rewrite.
If Paizo redid PFRPG to a brand new system I would take a look at it, but the reality of the situation is that unless it was the best new thing since sliced cheese, I would ultimately probably stick with 3.x or a variant.
love,
malkav
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, for those of you who are completely happy with the existing generation and would prefer to play it for the next 200 years, more power to you. I don't think this thread is intended for you. I am in agreement with the OP in thinking that I'd like to see something more extensive in a next generation (though I doubt it will happen 1- anytime soon and 2-if at all).
What I Do Not Want:
- It to "blandify" the system so that all characters end up feeling and playing basically the same.
- A very flat power curve so that all levels play almost the same.
- I do not want Spell, Greater Spell, Improved Greater Spell, Better Improved Greater Spell, Lesser Spell, Really Lesser Spell, Suckier Lesser Spell, Feat, Improved Feat, Better Feat, Improved Better Feat, Greater Improved Better Feat, etc.
What I Do Want:
- I want Feat/spell/skill 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, with increasing features/power/functionality as you gain the higher levels of said thing.
- I want non-spellcasters to be able to do as many interesting things as spellcasters, but in a completely different way and also have it offer a simplified path so that people who just want to play a simple character can choose "Package A" and not make any choices.
- I want the system to be setting neutral so the basic mechanics can be used cross genre.
- I'd prefer a class-less, level-less system where you buy abilities along the way with experience points you earn regardless of what you do or don't do in a session. Don't kill any monsters? Who cares. Maybe that's your preferred play-style. Maybe your group likes to talk orcs out of raping babies. Maybe you do nothing but go to a dinner all session. Maybe you spent the last three sessions trying to charm the lower article of clothing off of a significant NPC of the desired gender. I'd like to see a new experience model that just says "everyone gains X experience points per hour of playtime" or something.
What I Don't Care About:
- Compatibility with previous generations of rules.
For anyone who might actually be interested in collaborating on something, check out my current mental sidetrack.
Anyway, if you'd like to talk more about this (as well as try to come up with something) let me know here or email me (jreyst@gmail.com).
For other classes some polish could be used, the fighter needs more built in abilities less reliance on feats to build him I think. The barbarian needs more flexibility in build, right now the clear choice is go with a two hander, but a more flexible build style would allow for two weapon builds and even archery builds. But the class is too much beserker and not really a barbarian like the name would imply, fixing that might also be a nice thing.Perfectly valid and I'm not attacking your post at all. I am going to use it to illustrate a point though.
Maybe Fighters don't get feats anymore. Maybe you want them to have class abilities instead of just bonus feats. Granted these class abilities might be similar to feats. Maybe one of the fundamental differences between Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger are their melee fighting style (i.e. Two hand, Sword&Board or Two Weapon).
Maybe you'd like to keep feats but taylor them more speciffically to classes except for a small pool of general feats that every class can choose from. Maybe a Rogue would want to wait for that evasion-like ability until later or skip it altogether because it doesn't fit his character concept.
The main thing I'm looking for in this thread are the fundamental differences. Large concepts that you'd like to break away from. Of course we might just be too dug in to 3E to quickly envision something else eventually replacing it.
Well I guess to go a little more specific with what I was envisioning might clear this up.
Feats don't bother me either way. They can come or go, but some method to make different builds within various classes is needed.
I want to be able to make a Fighter (Trained Weapon user) who can be a focused sword and board guy, two hander guy, two weapon guy, or archer with some ability to also be decent at other aspects of combat. I want some method that supports building a beserker with a two hander or two weapons or a barbarian (Nature toughness and grit) who goes sword and board through sheer unbreakable grit, or a barbarian natural hunter type who uses a bow and arrow to bring death to his foes. I would love a ranger who can also specialize in his choosen stype, same as for the others relying a bit no skill and natural magic to accomplish what the fighter does with training and the barbarian does with grit and natural physical strength.
What I don't want is a class that is effectively 4 but all under the same name, I want one with mix and match pieces I can use to build what I want.
I wouldn't mind seeing a combat system that took into account not just attacking a monster but where exactly you attacked it. Damaging a creatures legs would have different effects (reduced movement) than attacking its body (full damage) or arms (lowered attack) or head (daze/confusion). I know that these effects can be achieved with various feats (hamstring) and such but I'd like to see it built into the core mechanic. I'd like monsters listed with descriptions of what actually happens if you damage or disable different parts of it. I think that it would bring an interesting dynamic to combat.
Simple. I want it to feel like the game I have been playing for 16+ years.
Meh, they've always just seemed like slightly weaker rogue/archer/striker types with a mediocre spell themed attack to me. Admittedly, I haven't had many players want to play one, so I may just not have seen them at their best, but it just felt like all they contributed to the party was some damage, and even at flat damage dealing, they were having a hard time keeping up.
[continuing off-thread-topic]
Warlocks are being played wrong if all they contribute is damage. Even ignoring their mastery of UMD (since any class can use UMD well now), all of their invocations are at will, and they get a lot of very, very nice things as invocations. Walls of fire or force at will ... shatter at will ... permanent spider climb ... permanent fly speed ... blindsense ... dimension door and invisibility at will ... black tentacles at will ... permanent baleful polymorph at will ... etc, etc, etc. Damage is the least aspect of the Warlock class.
Meh, they've always just seemed like slightly weaker rogue/archer/striker types with a mediocre spell themed attack to me. Admittedly, I haven't had many players want to play one, so I may just not have seen them at their best, but it just felt like all they contributed to the party was some damage, and even at flat damage dealing, they were having a hard time keeping up.[continuing off-thread-topic]
Warlocks are being played wrong if all they contribute is damage. Even ignoring their mastery of UMD (since any class can use UMD well now), all of their invocations are at will, and they get a lot of very, very nice things as invocations. Walls of fire or force at will ... shatter at will ... permanent spider climb ... permanent fly speed ... blindsense ... dimension door and invisibility at will ... black tentacles at will ... permanent baleful polymorph at will ... etc, etc, etc. Damage is the least aspect of the Warlock class.
Yeah, like I said, I may just not have seen them at their best.
On the other hand, I'd be interested in knowing which of any of those things a similarly leveled Sorcerer/Wizard couldn't do just as well (if not better) 99% of the time? (again, I don't have a ton of experience with Warlocks, so I'm not presenting myself as an expert, just giving my gut impression from seeing a couple of them played at moderate to low levels.)
I don't wanna see a 2nd ed. of Pathfinder for at least 18 years.
On the other hand, I'd be interested in knowing which of any of those things a similarly leveled Sorcerer/Wizard couldn't do just as well (if not better) 99% of the time?
Most of them. Even with specialization in a school and 2 extra spells from high intelligence, a wizard only gets 7 spells per day of each level. A 1st level Warlock can cast shatter 14,400 times per day; or, more practically, until every dangerous weapon-based enemy is weaponless. Warlocks get access to dimension door before wizards or sorcerers do, and again it's unlimited usage. Warlocks make the best anti-spellcasters, too, because they can get at-will repeating dispel magic, which would be a 6th level spell slot for a sorcerer or wizard, at 6th character level.
Warlocks are more focused than wizards or sorcerers; they have fewer tricks up their sleeve. However, those tricks are usually stronger than a wizard's or sorcerer's (another example is that the warlock's dimension door is paired with a 1-round duration major image; another is that their wall of fire is half untyped damage, so it hurts even creatures immune to fire), and they're usable infinitely.
|
|
What radical departure(s) are you looking for from Pathfinder v1?
Pretty much none of the above.
If I want something that departs significantly from 3.5-style play, I have 4e, I have M&M (including Warriors & Warlocks, for Fantasy play), I have True20, I have GURPS 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions, I have 2nd edition D&D, I have Vampire the M and Vampire the R, I have Aberrant, I have Trinity, I have Adventure!, I have tons of other White Wolf stuff, I have Gamma World (the original), Star Frontiers, Villains & Vigilantes, Psi World, Blue Planet, Prime Directive, Silver Age Sentinels and Nethys knows what else floating around my game room under a layer of dust.
Unless I write it myself, there will *never* be a game that has *everything* I want in it. Paizo has a market now. It's a significant chunk of the former 3.0/3.5 market. If they invented their own system out of whole cloth, no matter if it was the best damn invention since *fire,* they'd have an uphill slog to get anyone to take that leap of faith. (Lots would, and I'd probably buy it myself, but it would not have the same built-in audience that an OGL-compatible ruleset enjoys.)
Well I guess to go a little more specific with what I was envisioning might clear this up.Feats don't bother me either way. They can come or go, but some method to make different builds within various classes is needed.
I want to be able to make a Fighter (Trained Weapon user) who can be a focused sword and board guy, two hander guy, two weapon guy, or archer with some ability to also be decent at other aspects of combat. I want some method that supports building a beserker with a two hander or two weapons or a barbarian (Nature toughness...
I honestly think all the things I think the game could use could come out in the advanced players guide or just in erata for the current one.....I know at least one change could just come out in the erata and make me happy.
What do you want? What ideas do you start throwing out there? Or are you all secretly writing your own PnP RPGs right now and don't want to give away your awesome ideas?Curses! Foiled again! (kidding, kidding)
You too?
Wait, you were kidding...
No, thank you.
I'll take a "revised edition" maybe, correcting errors and perhaps the most offensive exploits that will no doubt appear over the coming years.
I'd also like a streamlined version of the exact same rules, with better information architecture and clearer language. (The wording of Vital Strike, the missing treasure tables or a replacement treasure procedure, etc/)
But please, leave the rules themselves alone. The last thing we need is for Paizo to get a mandate from the fans that we should be buying new editions every three years.
Most of them. Even with specialization in a school and 2 extra spells from high intelligence, a wizard only gets 7 spells per day of each level. A 1st level Warlock can cast shatter 14,400 times per day; or, more practically, until every dangerous weapon-based enemy is weaponless.
Interesting, I'll admit, but how often does a party fight more than 3-7 encounters in a given day. Past third level, wizards rarely have any issue running out of spells, which turns the Warlock's "I can use these few, very specific, effects all day long" into just "I can use these few, very specific, effects."
Warlocks get access to dimension door before wizards or sorcerers do, and again it's unlimited usage.
That's a fairly nice bump, but it doesn't seem that great in comparison to the sheer variety of spells that a wiz/sorc has access to.
Warlocks make the best anti-spellcasters, too, because they can get at-will repeating dispel magic, which would be a 6th level spell slot for a sorcerer or wizard, at 6th character level.
Again, interesting, but I'm not certain that qualifies them for the "best anti-spellcaster" position. A properly built rogue or archer type can shut down a caster almost as hard, and without spending every turn saying "I ready an action to counterspell..." and thus dealing 0 damage.
Warlocks are more focused than wizards or sorcerers; they have fewer tricks up their sleeve. However, those tricks are usually stronger than a wizard's or sorcerer's (another example is that the warlock's dimension door is paired with a 1-round duration major image; another is that their wall of fire is half untyped damage, so it hurts even creatures immune to fire), and they're usable infinitely.
I'll admit, the perks sound nice, the "usable infinitely" bit is rarely going to be a major bonus though, in my opinion. I'll keep my argument brief, since we're sort of threadjacking here, but I'm just not sure the perks outweigh the massive loss of flexibility.
I would like to see them remove static bonuses with the exception of level based bonuses and possibly feat bonuses from the "to hit" roll. Under the current rules, exceptionally high attributes and powerful magic weapons are too dominant in their influence on the outcome of an attack roll which, in effect, is the roll "to participate". I believe these bonuses should still be added to the damage roll and thus reward players with optimized builds for their efforts and ingenuity. However, the all or nothing nature of the to hit roll is too big a factor in the enjoyment of a combat to allow it to be affected to such a degree by these static character traits. It limits character flexibility and can be a major problem in mixed groups of power gamers and role-players, imo.
Naturally a reworking of the AC system and perhaps the spell DC system would be necessary after such a change.
I'll admit, the perks sound nice, the "usable infinitely" bit is rarely going to be a major bonus though, in my opinion. I'll keep my argument brief, since we're sort of threadjacking...
Don't underestimate the power of "taking 20" on a dispel magic check to get rid of a trap; of see inivisibility 24/7; of perminant flight; of a 250ft ranged touch attack that almost always hits and has no save for half (especially from 150ft in the sky).
I don't see much point in copying the 4E D&D mechanics in a wholesale manner.
The biggest problem to solve is reducing the slow grinding combat at higher levels. I don't know how much can be done to reduce the nightmarish bookkeeping, without rewriting the system entirely from scratch.
One option there is to remove itinerative attacks and grant damage bonuses in it's place. Such ad an extra die of damage for every 5 points of BAB.
I'll admit, the perks sound nice, the "usable infinitely" bit is rarely going to be a major bonus though, in my opinion. I'll keep my argument brief, since we're sort of threadjacking...Don't underestimate the power of "taking 20" on a dispel magic check to get rid of a trap; of see inivisibility 24/7; of perminant flight; of a 250ft ranged touch attack that almost always hits and has no save for half (especially from 150ft in the sky).
Hmmm... damn good points.. I may have been underestimating warlocks after all. Usable infinitely for in combat effects.. meh.. usable infinitely for out of combat effects.. now that gets interesting.
|
|
We only just got !st edition lol. If they radically changed anything or started anew i would not buy it. That is the reason i didn't buy 4th edition.I have to agree here ... I know this is hypothetical, but if I have to change to another system soon I am gonna give up and just play WOW all day.
I didn't switch to 43 because of the money invested in 3/3.5. If PFRPG 2.0 comes out any time soon I will just have to give up on role playing.
I'm not big on WoW, but I'm going to add my voice to this line of thought. I don't want a 2nd edition of the PFRPG.
Different printings, like Castles & Crusades? Sure. I'm okay with that.
A Pathfinder Lite version, as a self-contained boxed set, to introduce kids to the game? I'd buy that in a heartbeat.
Starting the cycles of editions again? Please, no. Enough is enough. If they decide to go with this kind of rince/repeat marketing, I'll just go get my AD&D books, launch a new campaign and leave PF aside just like I left Fourth edition go on its way. I read this meme of "inevitable second edition" of Pathfinder in which "Paizo transforms the game to such an extent it truly becomes Paizo's own game system" all over the place, coming often from people who don't like 3.5 and PFRPG in the first place, and all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Please, no. Not again.
This thread isn't quite going to way I thought it would. I figured it'd be a "I'd throw this in" or "I'd push for this kind of play". This definitely wins the award as my most smurfed thread ever. Can't everyone just play along? :)
man this is almost up there with "what would you change to fix 4e" flame bait thread. sure ya did not mean it that way but ya take your chances
man this is almost up there with "what would you change to fix 4e" flame bait thread. sure ya did not mean it that way but ya take your chances
I guess so. I never said that there's anything wrong with 3E. Sooner or later we'll want something different though, right? We're not all still playing 1E are we?
corse I didn't like 1e{i know blasphemy and all} I liked 2e alot, and enjoyed 3e. But what most folks are reading from your target is lets make pathfinder 4e like and no D&D anymore {not that your saying that}
If ya change something to far it's not th game ya want anymore. Most of use what it to be what it is, warts and all we have many other games to play for a diff feel
But what most folks are reading from your target is lets make pathfinder 4e like and no D&D anymore {not that your saying that}
I know, you'd think I came out and said "let's make Pathfinder into 4E" which doesn't even make any sense. :)
Christ! Just delete this whole thread. It's pointless. If you wanna start flame wars go to gleemax or whatever they call it. we havent gotten a bestiary, Gm guide, or even a gm screen and you're already talking about 2.0.
Give it a rest man Just enjoy the game.
I think I'm in the twilight zone.