Am I the only one who remembers 3.X bloat?
No, no you're not. But you would think there would be more of us...
I'm not against fixing what needs to be fixed, but if it's going to be called Pathfinder anything, it better still be Pathfinder, not some new game. Making something new but keeping an old name to cash in on brand recognition is a jerk move.Didn't all four editions of Dungeons and Dragons do this to some extent?
1e didn't. Because it was a new game. A new kind of game even. Yeah.
I don't know too much about 2e.
3e definitely didn't.
By the way, you necro'd the ... out of my old thread.
You brought it up. I looked at the thread and responded. Yeah, that's my excuse.....
Of course, I think I unwittingly did the same exact thing yesterday.
... So what's yours? :P
- Get rid of the Vancian "spells per day" magic system. It's a sacred cow that needs to die.
- Replace all "Per Day" abilities with Encounter-based abilities, a-la Star Wars Saga.Actually, pretty much all of my desire for change revolves around that. Per-Day abilities and spells lead to players hoarding their resources for the "really big things," and leads to a very metagame-influenced "wake/rest" schedule for players... "Well, we've had three encounters that lasted for all of twenty minutes, but we're nearly out of resources... time to rest for eight hours and get our stuff back!"
That's just lame, and doesn't lend itself to the sort of epic, heroic adventuring that we're signing up to play in.
Isn't this what they did in 4e?
Isn't this what they did in 4e?
- Get rid of the Vancian "spells per day" magic system. It's a sacred cow that needs to die.
- Replace all "Per Day" abilities with Encounter-based abilities, a-la Star Wars Saga.Actually, pretty much all of my desire for change revolves around that. Per-Day abilities and spells lead to players hoarding their resources for the "really big things," and leads to a very metagame-influenced "wake/rest" schedule for players... "Well, we've had three encounters that lasted for all of twenty minutes, but we're nearly out of resources... time to rest for eight hours and get our stuff back!"
That's just lame, and doesn't lend itself to the sort of epic, heroic adventuring that we're signing up to play in.
No, not really.
The Per-Encounter mechanic in SW:Saga was brilliant and balanced and worked as intended.
Replacing the single-focus Per-Encounter mechanic with a Daily/Encounter/At-Will schema turned things right back on their meta-gaming ear.
With a list of Talent Trees that you can get all manner of skill-enhancements, per-encounter abilities, and the like (training, combat prowess, etc) from, you end up with everyone having something to do each encounter (one of the stated goals of PFRPG), everyone has something different to do, most importantly, and you have a wide variety of things available at all times.
While you technically get that in 4E, the mechanic was altered in such a way that - in every 4E game I've ever played - people immediately call for an Extended Rest after throwing their dailies, and all the at-will/encounter/daily powers between each class are essentially the same. After a while, every character looks the same.
I'm in no way advocating making PF like 4E. I'm saying - get rid of the "Per Diem" mechanic entirely. Don't just scratch off a serial number and call it brand new.
If you want to give every character something cool to do in every encounter, then having a diminishing resource that ends up being hoarded and then blown all at once at the "big thing of the day" is not the way to do it. Not spells, not class abilities, not items.
Heroic Fantasy adventure heroes in literature don't hit four encounters and then rest for a day. They go until they can't go any further. They fight hordes of evil. They march for days across relentless terrain.
They do not say "crap, I'm out of fifth level spells. Let's camp for the night!"
My suggestion is not to make PF into what 4E is, not at all. 4E is more of the same, where everything is so compartmentalized and "balanced fairly" that every class is eventually just like every other class (as said ad infinitum all over the boards). My suggestion is to get rid of things on a "per day" basis and simply give them to their respective classes as selectable talents, skills, powers - whatever you feel like calling them - and allow them to be used a number of times per encounter. Take them off of the "hoard this resource" list and put them on the "I'm going to use this ability because it's FUN" list.
That make more sense?
Yes, but 4e also applied that frequency to several other things. What do you mean my fighter can do that reliably, but only once per encounter?
Lilith's got my point.
I'm not saying "My Fighter can only reliably Power Attack once per encounter."
I'm saying "A number of times per Encounter, I can do this other cool thing" that has nothing to do with Power Attack. Maybe I can make a really cool attack that not only hurts my foe, but - if he fails to resist my Intimidate check - moves him five feet in a direction of my choosing.
Maybe several levels later I can pick another talent that further enhances that one - so that when I hit him, and he fails to resist my Intimidate check - he's knocked for such a hard blow that he ends up going an additional set of 5' squares (based on my STR bonus), and gets knocked prone.
Now, my Fighter can still use Power Attack whenever he wants. He can still use all of his Feats and Skills and CMB maneuvers - all of those things.
But each Encounter, he's got a cool amount of other things he can crank out.
The same applies to Rogues, or Wizards, or what-have-you.
It's not a matter of codifying everything that each class can do into a list of At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers, like in 4E, but in providing further options to enhance that class. Customization, not compartmentalization.
See what I'm on about?
-Edit to Add-
Go read the SW: Saga core book. It explains it a lot better than I'm doing here. Stupid migraine.
The notion that Paizo would publish a new system that invalidated all of their previous adventure content is patently ridiculous.
Pathfinder exists because Paizo wanted to build on their previous library of adventure content. I cannot imagine any "new edition" that would significantly depart from the current rules. If anything, we can expect a revised edition that integrates and cleans up the additions from the current line of books, collects the base classes, tabulates the archetypes (yes please) and maybe streamlines some of the rules.
A total rewrite is a figment of the OP's imagination. I could be wrong, judge for yourself, but someone needed to say it.
A total rewrite is a figment of the OP's imagination. I could be wrong, judge for yourself, but someone needed to say it.I doubt that anyone needed to say it. I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware of it already. This thread is a pipe dream along the lines of "What if the radioactive spider had bit Ben Parker instead of his nephew?"
Sincere thanks LT, I think I get it now.
In that case, I think Base Attack Bonus should be integrated into the skill system. Magic too. Archtypes are good, but powers should be broken down into a modular system, so we don't have to do that weird class ability algebra and constantly hit dead ends to get the class we want.
Also, playing it should make me wealthier and more handsome with each session.
|
I'm not against fixing what needs to be fixed, but if it's going to be called Pathfinder anything, it better still be Pathfinder, not some new game. Making something new but keeping an old name to cash in on brand recognition is a jerk move.Didn't all four editions of Dungeons and Dragons do this to some extent?
Original, 1E, B/X, BECMI, 2E, and RC all were variations on the same system, much like 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
3E threw all of that away, and changed pretty much everything.
I'm not overly familiar with 4E, so I can't really comment on it.
I'm not against fixing what needs to be fixed, but if it's going to be called Pathfinder anything, it better still be Pathfinder, not some new game. Making something new but keeping an old name to cash in on brand recognition is a jerk move.Didn't all four editions of Dungeons and Dragons do this to some extent?Original, 1E, B/X, BECMI, 2E, and RC all were variations on the same system, much like 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
3E threw all of that away, and changed pretty much everything.
I'm not overly familiar with 4E, so I can't really comment on it.
3e did not "throw all of that away". As LT wrote, they did some things differently. For instance, multiclassing now stacks classes instead of gestalting.
4E threw it all away. For instance, you really can't multiclass....and don't try to tell me that you can. Plugging in one use of a half-assed power from a different class is not multiclassing.
As to the OP's point; I would do much as jemstone has suggested. SW Saga Ed is pretty well done, though it's a bit too clean and simple, but then that was the goal. The approach to the mechanics is excellent, if not the details. 4E, ironically, got the numbers right; at least with attacks, skills, and defenses. Everything else they did pretty much sucks.
I think the only significant change that 3X brought was giving every character the same exp chart. Everything else was pretty much the same, just in a different form (as 'x + 2 = y' is the same as 'x = y - 2'). 4E was the first HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE change of the game system.
I thought that 3.0 was a big change from 2.x. I don't have a lot of experience with earlier editions but I thought the game mechanics were way different. THAC0; lots of charts to roll on; rolling high wasn't always good, sometimes you wanted to roll low; race/class restrictions and caps; strange thing with the STR stat 18(52) and probably a million other things that I've never been aware of.
The flavor might have been the same but the mechanics were completely different. Earlier editions weren't d20.
|
|
I think the only significant change that 3X brought was giving every character the same exp chart. Everything else was pretty much the same, just in a different form (as 'x + 2 = y' is the same as 'x = y - 2'). 4E was the first HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE change of the game system.I thought that 3.0 was a big change from 2.x. I don't have a lot of experience with earlier editions but I thought the game mechanics were way different. THAC0; lots of charts to roll on; rolling high wasn't always good, sometimes you wanted to roll low; race/class restrictions and caps; strange thing with the STR stat 18(52) and probably a million other things that I've never been aware of.
The flavor might have been the same but the mechanics were completely different. Earlier editions weren't d20.
I've generally found that the people who doggedly insist that 3.X is still essentially the same as 0E, 1E, Basic, and 2E (or, more often, 1E and 2E, since such people also utterly ignore 0E and Basic) are the ones who want to rage at 4E for changing and "not being D&D anymore". So they soon realize that the same charge could be leveled at 3.X, so they scramble to say it's essentially the same, despite the fact that it changed damn near everything.
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) basedThat game already exists -- it's called GURPS.
+1
Original, 1E, B/X, BECMI, 2E, and RC all were variations on the same system, much like 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
what is B/X, BECMI and RC?
3e did not "throw all of that away". As LT wrote, they did some things differently. For instance, multiclassing now stacks classes instead of gestalting.
Gestalting? What does that mean in terms of AD&D 1e multiclassing? Never heard that before.
what is B/X, BECMI and RC?
Original, 1E, B/X, BECMI, 2E, and RC all were variations on the same system, much like 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
B/X = Basic (red box) / eXpert (blue box)
BECMI = Basic Expert Companion Master Immortal rulesRC = Rules Cyclopedia
All variations of TSR's 1e non-AD&D line.
|
I think Paizo might surprise us all with the changes in a 2E version of the rules. Simply because you will not have the same factors you had for 1E. A fanbaase unhappy with a new edition in so short a time. Some of the fanbase unhappy with what they did with 4E. A fanbase with a lot fo 3.5 books. Out of the three in the list the last maybe a factor yet I cannot see them publishing a 3.5 version of a second edition because if it's too similar to 1E chances are less people will buy it.I see no reason to purchase the same set of rules again. In the ned they will do what they have to do to make a profit. Don't kid yourselves on that. If a new edition means more money chances are they will publish it. Now if they release a set of sourcebooks with updates as optional material I could see that working much better than a 2E.
As to what I want to see changed. Take the Vancian magic system out back shoot it then place it into a one way rocket to the nearest black hole. While I am not asking for equality in the classes I do want fighters to do more at high levels. Build high level play into the game from the start. I want to to be able to take my character from 1st to epic level with the core set. Their are other issues yet these for the moment bother me the most.
Gestalting? What does that mean in terms of AD&D 1e multiclassing? Never heard that before.
3e did not "throw all of that away". As LT wrote, they did some things differently. For instance, multiclassing now stacks classes instead of gestalting.
Heh. In 2e, if you played a demihuman, you had a hard cap on the highest level you could attain with the classes allowed by your race. To overcome this 'restriction,' you could play special combinations of 2 or 3 classes simultaneously, sort of like the super-ridiculous 'Gestalt' optional rule in 3e.
BTW, humans could multiclass sort of like how they do in 3e/Pathfinder, but once you leave a class, you can never take levels in it again. And, initially, you forfeit any XP towards your new class if you use any special abilities or gear proficiencies from your previous class.Yes, 3e was a huge jump from 2e. Not as big a jump as 4e was from 3e, but they still rewrote much of the game. If it was as close as people claim, we wouldn't have so many 1e/2e holdouts rolling their eyes at 3e/PF.
What Arcane_Guyver said.
And yes of course (absolutely) 3e was a big change from 2e; I did not mean to imply that it wasn't. But they were starting (almost) from the ground up, with the goal of including all the same stuff, just with better, clearer, more consistent systems. With 4E the goal was explicitly to break with the past and get a new fan base.....?!?!?!?!
I think Paizo might surprise us all with the changes in a 2E version of the rules. Simply because you will not have the same factors you had for 1E. A fanbaase unhappy with a new edition in so short a time. Some of the fanbase unhappy with what they did with 4E. A fanbase with a lot fo 3.5 books. Out of the three in the list the last maybe a factor yet I cannot see them publishing a 3.5 version of a second edition because if it's too similar to 1E chances are less people will buy it.I see no reason to purchase the same set of rules again. In the ned they will do what they have to do to make a profit. Don't kid yourselves on that. If a new edition means more money chances are they will publish it. Now if they release a set of sourcebooks with updates as optional material I could see that working much better than a 2E.
Sooner or later, you figure they will have to try a new edition or a new RPG all together. Either that or just plain stop releasing books and concentrate fully on adventure paths. Since Paizo is just as big as WotC when it comes to fantasy RPGs right now, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see another edition in the next 5-10 years or so.
Pathfinder RPG 2.0 - What do you want?
I want cookies! :)
There are Races (do I smell a bit tamed Savage Species?) and Bestiary 3 scheduled already, see the RPG line - it already got a second page.
And I'd like to KEEP the vancian system. At least as an options. It's still fun to have.
It could be turned to per encounter powers with lesser number of slots for example, it could be a ton of other things, but I like my spell slots.
Another thing I'd like to keep are the classes. They could be more modular, but I still like them. If there could be the change to them, then it could be basing the access to abilities on character level, not class level (perhaps limiting very poweful things with ability chains). If there is a thing we could borrow from 4E it would be some basic rules, like the attacker rolls vs. fixed nr., which are honestly pretty intuitive.
I want it to be a long way away because making 800 page bestiaries is damned exhausting.
Magic item system that doesn't require you to keep seeling a load of +1 trinkets to buy the magic items you really want. Basically not loosing so much time on calculating the prices of the magic items you looted and selling them.
Also fewer and more powerful magic items at higher levels.
Fewer hit points to avoid the hp bloat of the system.
I could include more stuff but these would be the major changes.
Sooner or later, you figure they will have to try a new edition or a new RPG all together. Either that or just plain stop releasing books and concentrate fully on adventure paths.They might not really have a problem with this. I wouldn't. I really don't want to see them go the way of WOTC which essentially stopped making modules and essentially put themselves in the buisness of making monthly servings of crunch.
IF Paizo essentially stopped making rulebooks after Ultimate Combat, (and I get the sense that at the very least they intend a long pause.) I'd consider it a good thing.
I wouldn't have a problem with this. Much better than cranking out garbage books. I don't see Paizo hurting their brand in that way.
However, I would be surprised to not see "everyone" on here screaming for a new edition or a new game 10 years down the road. We are talking 2021 here.
sort of like the super-ridiculous 'Gestalt' optional rule in 3e.
Im not familiar with this rule, is it in the PHB?
Im not familiar with this rule, is it in the PHB?sort of like the super-ridiculous 'Gestalt' optional rule in 3e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So long as Lilith is a part of the Paizo team, there will always be cookies.Pathfinder RPG 2.0 - What do you want?
I want cookies! :)
Word.
Pathfinder 2.0 would be even more ridiculous. Pathfinder's already a beautifully published and polished set of well-made housrules-- if they published a set of houserules for their houserules, I dunno. I'd find it a little absurd.
On top of that, it means we'd have to go for at least 4 more books of content. Why even re-release it at this point? I feel like it's fine.
In ten years, maybe after we see Ultimate Gnomish Battle Ladders published, I'll consider Pathfinder 2e... but like right now, it feels pointless.
I so can not wait for Ultimate Gnomish Battle Ladders to hit the press!!!
Pathfinder 2.0 would be even more ridiculous. Pathfinder's already a beautifully published and polished set of well-made housrules-- if they published a set of houserules for their houserules, I dunno. I'd find it a little absurd.
On top of that, it means we'd have to go for at least 4 more books of content. Why even re-release it at this point? I feel like it's fine.
In ten years, maybe after we see Ultimate Gnomish Battle Ladders published, I'll consider Pathfinder 2e... but like right now, it feels pointless.
The original idea of this thread was to just imagine that the time for a new edition had come and Paizo wanted to drop d20 and design their own brand new system from the ground up.
Take the Vancian magic system out back shoot it then place it into a one way rocket to the nearest black hole.
There will almost certainly be a PF2e. The only way around this, business-wise, is if cranking out APs is profitable enough that they don't have to. I don't know if that's the case or not, and likely they don't either, or won't in 5-10 years. But a 2e is almost certainly in our future.
That said, a rules reboot is not necessarily a bad thing. As someone said, with PF1e, they can only add, they can't subtract or change. It's not like WoW where they can just patch the game any way they want. 2e would be an opportunity to do things like make the APG, UM, UC, etc part of the core game. It would also be an opportunity to reassess where the game is in 5-10 years in terms of whether 3.5 compatibility is still the #1 goal. It's also the ONLY opportunity to make changes. The game must evolve or die, like anything else.
I dearly hope they ditch Vancian magic once and for all. Find a way to make mana/spell points work in an intuitive and easy way (unlike all the options I've seen). This would quite likely make the sorcerer obsolete, but that's a sacrifice to the Vancian god I'm willing to make. She hasn't been around that long anyway, and her bloodlines can continue after she's passed.
Get rid of fluff that confuses mechanics. Arcane/divine, positive/negative energy, can go. Magic won't be what it used to be anyway.
Spells in general ought to be hit hard with the red pen. I would like more spells that scale, rather than ranks of the same spell you have to learn anyway. Less details would be nice too. More spells like prestidigitation and image, where your imagination defines what the spell does, rather than the spell description imposing limits on the imagination.
Put some more thought into the low levels, particularly level 1. I want every class to feel like that class immediately. I want druids with pets at level 1, and monks with ki. Why do I have to wait? Yeah, I know, math. But math works for you, not the other way around.
I would like more structure and purpose to crafting. It doesn't feel like I'm doing anything except saving money. What a character does as a craft or profession should inform who or what they are, at least as much as a race does.
I could go on, but those are my main gripes.
Can't recommend this point enough. You shouldn't have to wait until around 5th level to feel like a 'proper' member of your character class.
The other side of that is you can't expect to be Gandalf (sub other high level game / literary character as needed) at 1st level. Flavor is fine, incredible powers / abilities come later...
Take the Vancian magic system out back shoot it then place it into a one way rocket to the nearest black hole.
I dearly hope they ditch Vancian magic once and for all.
I wouldn't be heart-broken to see Vancian magic put to pastier. I'd actually like to see something that feels more realistic. Preferably a system that allows you to try to cast any spell that your class can cast but make the odds of pulling off a spell you're not ready for low. Wizards can mess up when they cast a spell. It's not really a given that even simple spells won't fail if you get sloppy. The cool thing would be that in moments of desperation, you might be able to pull off something that's beyond your experience and save the day.
Take the Vancian magic system out back shoot it then place it into a one way rocket to the nearest black hole.I dearly hope they ditch Vancian magic once and for all.I wouldn't be heart-broken to see Vancian magic put to pastier. I'd actually like to see something that feels more realistic. Preferably a system that allows you to try to cast any spell that your class can cast but make the odds of pulling off a spell you're not ready for low. Wizards can mess up when they cast a spell. It's not really a given that even simple spells won't fail if you get sloppy. The cool thing would be that in moments of desperation, you might be able to pull off something that's beyond your experience and save the day.
I agree that spells should be harder to cast (or easier to disrupt). However, I'm not a big fan of the "you know all spells from your class" concept, and I always prefered memorized spells over the painfully repetitive casting of the sorcerer. In other words, I prefer a spellcasting class with a wide choice of spells that needs to manage is resources carefuly over a spellcaster who's always spamming the same few spells.
You mean like the old dude in FFIV who casts Meteo (or Meteor?) when he's not supposed to have enough mp to cast it, and then dies
afterward?
Something like that but that's an extreme case. Even the guy that tries to cast fireball and has it blow up in his face would count too. Magic should be powerful, yet unpredictable. That's how it is in the novels. Wizards often times try to cast beyond their means to dire effect. And sometimes, they actually pull it off heroically.
Actually this concept where you get certain iconic features later is fine if you tweak your world a little.
Set a level where a character becomes full adult and let the lower levels to be the apprentice years where you learn the ropes of your class, just like the Jedi in Star Wars Saga, where you can't make a lightsaber and become a full knight before lvl 7. Level 5 sounds just fine, whith wizards able to spam fireballs, paladins riding their horses and so on. Commoner lvl 3 would be older children for example nd so on. The problem would start with what to do with the WBL however, but that's the overal problem of the game - impossible economics.