|
Paizo's hardback releases are moving forward in slow motion, 4 releases a year. The game has yet to release a hardback magic or setting book (which will come in the second year of publication instead of the first). Off the top of my head, I'd say that the line can probably support about 30 hardbacks before needing a refresh. That gives this edition about a eight year life expectancy, though possibly they could push it to ten and forty books.
Paizo is laying the groundwork for that new edition now. APG, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat all offer or will offer rules divergent from the 3.x core. Once you've been playing with these divergent systems for a couple years it's going to get harder to remember what is 3.x and what is Paizo and really most folks aren't going to care. By 2018 you'll be more worried about backwards compatibility with your Paizo library than with 3.x.
For the next several years Paizo is going to have it's eyes squarely on the current challenges to its business: navigating a changing print and pdf marketplace; dealing with the rise of e-readers; price deflation and a poor economy; finding the correct balance of release schedules and staffing; and coming up with products that people want to buy. There's a long time before a new edition and a lot can happen between now and then.
+1!
|
|
Thing is with Paizo, their meat & drink is in selling the adventures, not the rules. If you drastically change the rules, all the old adventures become non-sales.
Hence I predict that Paizo will either produce another backward compatible edition with a lot of small changes the but the core system unchanged, or else they will lose their customer base extensively before doing a big overhaul.
I have no problem with the game evolving, but I don't want to see a version released that isn't backward compatible with the old to at least some degree - that was the big thing for me with 4e. Many 2nd editions did not contain total rules overhauls, nor do they need to. Just take the distilled houserules and comments about Pathfinder after many years of play and incorporate them into the new and improved ruleset.
Unless you provide free conversions ^_^
I have no problem with the game evolving, but I don't want to see a version released that isn't backward compatible with the old to at least some degree - that was the big thing for me with 4e. Many 2nd editions did not contain total rules overhauls, nor do they need to. Just take the distilled houserules and comments about Pathfinder after many years of play and incorporate them into the new and improved ruleset.Unless you provide free conversions ^_^
If you can convert, and your character does what it did and has the same kind of options, it's backward compatible.
Haveng a framework talk aout new editions isn't bad IMHO. The designers can pick thoughts and perhaps even steer curent product toward desired directions and take steps to correct what we perceive as wrong at the moment and shelving more radical suggestions for later consideration.
I, for example, wouldn't mind not just having the combat maneuvers using the same mechanic, but being summarized into one thing, like the Dirty Trick combat maneuver. The fighters, monks and other manever specialists could get additional goodies for them in the form of talents.
Something along the line of fighter can perform a maneuver without provoking AoO from level X on, gets a bonus on level Y and may perform the maneuvers as a move action on level Z. As a talent he could chose to perform a free attack after the maneuver A, Perform a maneuver with a penalty o hit an additional target,...
Fighter-like classes could be more focused on wide range of targets and battlefield control, Monk-likes could have a set of powers oriented toward thrashing single target and piling debilitating conditions upon him, and the other non-spellcasters getting combinatins supporting their traditional combat roles and tools
|
Eliminate alignment.
Maybe simply combat a bit. Hell, just eliminating AoO can vastly speed up combat.
Bring back the deadly! 3rd edition eliminated save or die, for the most part. Bring it back. I want poisons that are actually deadly, not just inconvenient.
Speaking of poisons, they're freaking POISONS! Even if you make your save, they should still screw you up somewhat. Hell, you might even consider making a static savings throw for poisons. Drinking a bottle of bleach is deadly no matter how many orcs you've killed.
Here's a sample poison.
Death's Chill
Type: Contact
Fort DC: 32
Onset: -
Frequency: 1/rd. for 12 rds.
Initial Effect: Death / 2d6 Con if save is made
Secondary: 2d6 Con
Cure: 3 saves
Cost: 12,000 gp
Yeah, it pretty much kills whoever it touches, since it requires 3 back-to-back successes at a very high DC. But you know why it's so deadly? BECAUSE IT'S POISON!!!
|
|
Games are supposed to be fun.
Drinking bleach is not fun.
Ergo, making poison as fun as drinking bleach is not good game design. :-P
Ah, but tricking your opponent into drinking bleach IS fun.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Great Old One when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Games are supposed to be fun.
Drinking bleach is not fun.
Ergo, making poison as fun as drinking bleach is not good game design. :-P
Ah, but tricking your opponent into drinking bleach IS fun.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Great Old One when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Whatever you can do to another, they can do to you. The worst RPG game is the one where you take an hour to make a character, and then find out you are dead after five minutes, and nothing you can do about it. This is wrongbadfun.
|
|
I would love to see a moderate update to the core system in 2-3 years that is largely compatible with the current version. I love what Pathfinder did with 3.5 but there are still plenty of issues and some new ones Pathfinder introduced. A 'second edition' that was compatible but improved is much higher on my list than an epic book or any number of supplemental books.
Whatever you can do to another, they can do to you. The worst RPG game is the one where you take an hour to make a character, and then find out you are dead after five minutes, and nothing you can do about it. This is wrongbadfun.
Gotta say, this has happened to me on occasion and I've enjoyed it. So it can be fun. Occasionally
Whatever you can do to another, they can do to you. The worst RPG game is the one where you take an hour to make a character, and then find out you are dead after five minutes, and nothing you can do about it. This is wrongbadfun.Gotta say, this has happened to me on occasion and I've enjoyed it. So it can be fun. OccasionallyA friend of mine made the character and it died before he could even roll a dice.
He was a wizard, during the 2 minutes character introduction he attacked his teacher (to steal his spellbook I presume). Obviously the teacher destroyed him using lightning bolt.
Ah, self-inflicted, then.
Games are supposed to be fun.
Drinking bleach is not fun.
Ergo, making poison as fun as drinking bleach is not good game design. :-P
A reformulation:
Roleplaying games are reward mechanisms for particular chosen play styles. How fun a roleplaying game is depends on how well its mechanical rewards reinforce the play style of its theme. Pathfinder does this very well. In Pathfinder, characters solve most problems by killing them.
More efficient ways to kill things directly translates into greater success in solving problems.
Making characters too efficient at killing things removes most of the fun of the game, though it theoretically opens up different play styles for exploration.
Unfortunately, those play styles really don't mesh well with what Pathfinder does.
(It's a sad thing when your party of adventurers, at a royal banquet, are going "OK, yeah, I think we could kill the King, the Queen, the Prince, and all the nobility here by the end of round 3. Do we want to run a kingdom?")
Whatever you can do to another, they can do to you. The worst RPG game is the one where you take an hour to make a character, and then find out you are dead after five minutes, and nothing you can do about it. This is wrongbadfun.Games are supposed to be fun.
Drinking bleach is not fun.
Ergo, making poison as fun as drinking bleach is not good game design. :-P
Ah, but tricking your opponent into drinking bleach IS fun.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Great Old One when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
+1..this is not Traveller..Oh gods the number of characters I lost in term 4
I've had so many people sing the praises of Traveller char-gen to me for SF RPG products...
|
I hope that a new edition of Pathfinder is many years off. I'd much rather the game evolves through errata, when necessary. They've already changed how the paladin's smite evil works, for example, and that didn't require a new edition to accomplish.
A new edition would likely make a slew of older books that don't quite work right without conversion, which would be kind of annoying, especially if the new edition weren't truly needed.
|
|
To me an new edition should throw out the whole game system and rewrite it. A new edition should constantly be being written as errata, and once there is a certain amount of it that it becomes impractical to keep it as a seperate document compile it all together and release it as a new edition.
Actually, I like the fact that Paizo has been adding the errata fixes into each new printing of the Core Rulebook. I just bought myself two copies of the third printing, and gave my copies of the first printing to the two guys in my gaming group that didn't have their own copies.
Unless there are truly significant changes to how the system works, however, I don't see the need for a new edition.
|
|
So I just found out that not only have they been errating stuff, but they have been quietly updating the rules in the newer printings of the books. I really wish they wouldn't do this as it gets too confusing if my book says this, and your books says that, and if my book had said what your book says I would have made a completely different choice two months ago, or whatever. I much prefer the idea of keep the core book exactly the same until the errata becomes unpractical to carry around as a separate item (I don't know, 1/20th, 1/10th of the core book in size?) and then just replace ALL the outdated rules with their errated replacements and print that as a new edition, clearly labeled so that I know the books are different and I no longer need to carry my errata binder.
I prefer the way they're doing it. They have an errata .pdf file that updates the first printing to the latest (third printing), and one that updates the second to the third printing. If you have an older printing, and the correct errata file, you're golden.
But hasn't that been the source of power for them since their addition back in 3? Back then it was just in the fluff though, and now it's in the rules* but with more options then just dragons. Out of curiosity, how do you house rule it? I can see saying something like "some people are just born with it" instead of having it be hereditary (in which case it's still genetics but just mutation this time), but then how do you deal with what the source of power is?
Go and watch "Highlander" again if you can. Some things are just right without a clear explanation. How could Iuz be a 16th level assassin when the level cap was 15? How could Elminster have 96 hp in 1E AD&D when Wizards had +2 hp con bonus max.?
Back on topic, I'll give my opinion on the subject.
I don't feel the need for 2nd edition PF, but I would really, really love to see a "Pathfinder lite", kind of Holmes basic to AD&D. Some minimal system with just a page or two of combat rules, where you can roll a character in 10 minutes. Perfect to introduce new gamers, and yet very easy to add detail and make a full PF character.
Speaking of edition change, they did a wonderful job with Hero System 5th edition. Completely retrocompatible, to the point you could use the same blank character sheet as 4th. They added pages over pages of explanations, further added detail and examples on powers etc. They just added clarity and fixed a few weak mechanics. That's what I call a good revision. (they did something major with 6th but I haven't played it yet). Hell, that's what Paizo already did with D&D after all!
|
|
So I just found out that not only have they been errating stuff, but they have been quietly updating the rules in the newer printings of the books. I really wish they wouldn't do this
Unfortunately this is one topic that you won't get a unanmious decision on either way. For me, not updating new printings with known errata is terrible, and means I will never use the errata as I refuse to printout some scruffy pages and carry them around, referring to it constantly in case a correction was made.
This is one area where WotC really lets down 4e IMHO (that and the fact that they don't split out true errata and rules updates). So for me Paizo are doing it right.
This is especially the case when you have PDF products and you can give each person who bought the original PDF an updated version free of charge.
|
|
So I just found out that not only have they been errating stuff, but they have been quietly updating the rules in the newer printings of the books. I really wish they wouldn't do this as it gets too confusing if my book says this, and your books says that, and if my book had said what your book says I would have made a completely different choice two months ago, or whatever. I much prefer the idea of keep the core book exactly the same until the errata becomes unpractical to carry around as a separate item (I don't know, 1/20th, 1/10th of the core book in size?) and then just replace ALL the outdated rules with their errated replacements and print that as a new edition, clearly labeled so that I know the books are different and I no longer need to carry my errata binder.Download the errata.
Read it.
Take a pen.
Write the changes in your book.
(dirty but effective)
That's fine for errata. The change to the paladin's Smite Evil went beyond errata, and was a blatant rule CHANGE. That type of thing should have been saved for Pathfinder 2E, in my less-than-humble opinion.
That's fine for errata. The change to the paladin's Smite Evil went beyond errata, and was a blatant rule CHANGE. That type of thing should have been saved for Pathfinder 2E, in my less-than-humble opinion.
Forgive my ignorance, but what change to smite evil? And where do I find this change?
DogBone
I, for one, -hate- the emphasis on sorcerers as getting their powers through genetics.In the beginning, the whole "blood of dragons" thing was a tall tale told by kobald sorcerers to explain their powers. Allegedly, no one really knew where sorcerers got their powers - or, at least, those who knew weren't saying.
Then, some people with reading comprehension issues started treating that tall tale like it was the gospel truth. Of course, to make it work, Charisma had to be redefined. It could no longer be about making friends and influencing people, it had to mean the ability to exert one's will upon the world (which is, at the same time, separately measured by character level). Of course, having multiple ways to measure the same thing was a problem which sorcerers now had all through their game mechanics (racial inheritance could be reflected in race (such as half-elves), feats, bloodlines, etc.) - far from simple. What exactly is the difference, genetically speaking, between a dragon born, sorcerer with dragon bloodline, and kobald?As for myself, I prefer the following origin for sorcerers. For whatever reason, sorcerers attract the attention of supernatural beings; perhaps the supernatural beings are the spirits of an ancient, now dead, civilization, or perhaps a fairy court, or perhaps some unknown being from beyond dreams and stars. These beings teach the sorcerer magic and constant exposure. to the magic of these beings alters the sorcerer - makes him less and less human as he gains levels. Of course, it'd raise fear and confusion among thepopulace if sorcerers were upfront about the source of their powers; afterall, can these beings be trusted? So, sorcerers create stories about how they get their powers - including bloodlines.
Actually if you read the bloodlines, both are there already. Destiny bloodline is effectively when fate just makes you a sorcerer, period. Bloodlines don't have to be literal bloodlines, they can just be a way of defining a group of abilities - at least that's how I treat them.
Sorcerer is a grab-bag class for anyone who has magic and no real explanation for it. Use your own fluff-text, basically.
My statement was that I hate the emphasis on Sorcerers gaining their power through genetics. If you don't think the word "bloodline" emphasizes genetics, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I was merely pointing out where the term 'bloodline' appears to me to not have genetic connotations. I will agree that in most contexts for the sorcerer it does.
|
|
Looks at amount of rule changes in PF during a 1-year period: 1
Looks at amount of rule changes in 4ed during a 2-year period: zoinks
Hey, is that 65.73ed what WotC is producing already ?
Wotc "Rules Updates" are pretty extensive which is a real pain, especially as they don't differentiate errata from a revision of the way the rules work (when the original rule worked and was okay, if not the best).
The biggest example of this is changing the way Magic Missile worked just to make it more like its previous incarnations (i.e. an auto hit). That annoyed me no end, especially as if I don't want to take that rule update I can no longer update my character builder.
The word "bloodline" means "direct line of descent, pedigree" (American Heritage Dictionary) or "a sequence of direct ancestors, especially in a pedigree" (Merriem Webster). As I said, if you don't think the word "bloodline" emphasizes genetics, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Hmmm (looks up at what I wrote):
I will agree that in most contexts for the sorcerer it does.
I was responding to your statement that, to you, the term, 'bloodline' has no genetic connotation. I was pointing out that while, to you, it may not have one, to Merriem-Webster and American Heritage, that connotation seems quite strong.The word "bloodline" means "direct line of descent, pedigree" (American Heritage Dictionary) or "a sequence of direct ancestors, especially in a pedigree" (Merriem Webster). As I said, if you don't think the word "bloodline" emphasizes genetics, we'll have to agree to disagree.g
Hmmm (looks up at what I wrote):
I will agree that in most contexts for the sorcerer it does.
And I am agreeing with you. However, I am also aware that 'bloodline' with respect to the sorcerer character class takes on a slightly different connotation: it is also a collection of class features under a heading.
What my comment was intended initially to highlight was to illustrate this small but important difference between the dictionary definition of 'bloodline' and the character class definition of 'bloodline'. In the case of, for example, Draconic Bloodline, these overlap. In the case of others like the Celestial Bloodline, they do not have to overlap. In a few, like the Destiny 'Bloodline' they do not overlap at all. It is still called a Bloodline because of the second definition of a group of class features under a heading. They are still called 'bloodlines' because the majority of them are envisaged as having hereditary connotations. However, this is not mandatory for any specific character of any specific bloodline in any specific game.
That's fine for errata. The change to the paladin's Smite Evil went beyond errata, and was a blatant rule CHANGE. That type of thing should have been saved for Pathfinder 2E, in my less-than-humble opinion.Forgive my ignorance, but what change to smite evil? And where do I find this change?
DogBone
You can find it either in the errata for the book (just above the preview video) or in the PRD. Basically the change is that the bonus against vil dragons, undead, ... the double damage bonus is only for the first attack that hits, instead of all of them.
Then our point of confusion comes from the fact that you responded to my comment with a non sequitors. I was talking about the way that Pathfinder emphasizes genetics as the source of a sorcerer's magic. Whether or not a player/GM chooses to break away from that emphasis isn't relevant to my point.
I apologise if I failed to make my point clear, but I think it is very relevant to point out that the dictionary definition of 'bloodline' does not introduce a straight-jacket on how it has to be in the sorcerer-definition of 'bloodline'. I think it is entirely relevant that you are free to take or leave the 'fluff' element as you wish - it's not even a house rule, it's just flavouring. It requires no mechanical changes at all to state that 'bloodline' in your name is now 'arcane style' or some such and is not hereditary. It's like arguing that 'Weapon Training' should be called 'Combat Style' for all the difference it actually makes to any given game.
|
|
Games are supposed to be fun.
Drinking bleach is not fun.
Ergo, making poison as fun as drinking bleach is not good game design. :-P
How do you know that drinking bleach is not fun? Have you ever tried it?
I can think of quite a few games that make me want to drink bleach. I believe that there is a direct relationship between the quality of the game design and the amount of enjoyment that I derive from drinking bleach after a session.
By that logic, we can say that "swim" doesn't actually mean "to prople one's self through water", rather it means "to craft a thermonuclear device" - therefore, to describe an NPC as able to cross a still body of water by saying he's got a high rank in swim is wrong.
There's hyperbole, and then there's just being silly.
'Swim' as a skill description and 'Swim' as a dictionary definition are close enough that there is no ambiguity, unless you can cite me examples of Swim as a skill being used for something other than propelling oneself safely through water?
The instant you take a rule book written in English and claim the words -aren't- English, rather, they have arbitrary meanings, you've managed to write a rule in a language nobody can be certain of.
Look up the dictionary definition of 'feat'.
Feat
–noun
1.
a noteworthy or extraordinary act or achievement, usually displaying boldness, skill, etc.: Arranging the treaty was a diplomatic feat.
2.
Obsolete . a specialized skill; profession.
Now look up the rules definition of 'feat'.
"feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character’s race and class. Many of them alter or enhance class abilities or soften class restrictions, while others might apply bonuses to your statistics or grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you." - Pathfinder Core Rulebook, p112
Lo, they are not the same. This is done all the time in RPG rulebooks, and has been done for the last thirty-odd years. It's also done in science texts (charm, for example, has meaning as a kind of magic in D&D/Pathfinder, a dictionary definition in everyday language and is also the name of a subatomic particle - and most crucially, the latter has nothing to do with either of the former). There need not be any more special significance attached to the use of the term 'Bloodline' outside of it's in-game definition of a group of associated class features than you choose to give it.
|
|
Maybe "bloodlines" refers to the ley lines that course through a sorcerer's blood. There, happy?
I'm going to make an attempt to railroad this discussion somewhat back on course. What I'd like to see even more than Pathfinder 2E is Pathfinder Lite or Pathfinder Basic...a simplified system. Kind of the Paizo equivalent of the Basic D&D set.
Here's my suggestions for how it could work:
Races are Human, Elf, and Dwarf.
Classes are Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Thief.
Skills ranks assignments and feats become set class features.
Skill list is further reduced to bare essentials: Climb, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Heal, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Survival
Combat is simplified: Most maneuvers and attacks of oportunity eliminated.
|
I'm going to make an attempt to railroad this discussion somewhat back on course. What I'd like to see even more than Pathfinder 2E is Pathfinder Lite or Pathfinder Basic...a simplified system. Kind of the Paizo equivalent of the Basic D&D set.
Here's my suggestions for how it could work:
Races are Human, Elf, and Dwarf.
Classes are Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Thief.
Skills ranks assignments and feats become set class features.
Skill list is further reduced to bare essentials: Climb, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Heal, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Survival
Combat is simplified: Most maneuvers and attacks of oportunity eliminated.
I would keep all the races (but simplified, less racials), limited classes to Fighter, Oracle, Sorcerer, Rogue (Sorc and Orac because spontaneous casters are easier to manage then prepared ones), include a limited amount of feats (20 or so).
I think that PF Basic should be reduced PF Core, not altered. This way when you progress to the full thing you don't have to re-learn things, you just add more options.