Well if the FAQs make it to errata they automatically end up in the My Downloads. Not sure if that's really the case but it beats the heck out of a new edition this close to launch. Personally I don't mind a new edition so long as a full decade has passed since it's predecessor appeared so that the cleanup has actually stood the test of time.
Ambiguities and contradictions need to be worked out at the table before or after a session as they pop up. It's a pipe dream to believe that a game with 100s of pages of written rules won't have a hiccup here and there. Well maybe not a dream, but such a rules system would be unprecedented in gaming.
...to not come out for 6 to 8 years.
...to not come out for 6 to 8 years.
From my mind to your keyboard, my friend.
Here's a question:
Is the content of FAQ posts on the messageboard considered OGL content?
That is, can someone outside of Paizo compile and publish/distribute an FAQ utilizing that content?
I'm not thinking of a printed or paid product, but something that might be semi-professionally put together into a free PDF or something.
While I don't disagree with the OP's statement, I think the prime purpose of a 2nd edition for now should be to wait until the 1e has had a nice long run (say 8-10 years).
I mean, c'mon, the core rulebook was 1st published a mere 18 mos. or so ago. WAAAAAY too early to talk about a 2e.
...to not come out for 6 to 8 years.
Agreed. BUT in that 6-8 years I expect the stealth and perception rules to have been fixed. Six to eight years (plus however long it was around before now, probably decades) is a LONG time for that problem to stew, and it comes up EVERY session.
In 2E Pathfinder, I want hard definitions of light levels (not "dim-light"/"shadowy"/"not-quite-as-bright-as-that-area") and I want to see those defined terms used where appropriate, such as in the Shadowdancer's HiPS description.
I want Stealth rules to have their own quick reference section or appendix that includes perception, concealment/cover, lighting, darkvision/low-light vision, and disguise notes so that it doesn't take 20 minutes of page flipping to figure it all out. At the very least, there could be a paperback book detailing stealth rules in conjunction with all of the other skills and conditions that run along side it, making it flow more easily...
I'm ranting... Sorry. Aside from these rules, I think everything's decent enough. Though I'd rather not wait til 2E for it to be fixed.
|
...to enable James Jacobs to purchase his third gold-plated yacht, which is powered by burning c-notes and has a cannon that fires emeralds at his enemies!
At which point I will declare war upon him.
As for Pathfinder 2E, I want:
1. For it not to come for a good long time. I think a decade of the current rules set would be just fine. That being said, when it does come around....
2. For it to be built from the ground up, not just a clarification of what we have now. Pathfinder 2E could be a chance to step away from some of the problems (real or perceived) of 3.X/d20.
3. Maybe make it a bit less rules-heavy. This would be somewhat of the exact opposite of what Foghammer is suggesting, with his hard definitions of degrees of light. I want a game that's keeps it simple. A game that makes it clear that there isn't a rule for everything, and that it is OK that there isn't a rule for everything. Pathfinder is currently my third favorite RPG. The two I like more? Extremely simple systems - Call of Cthulhu by Chaosium (simplified BRP system) and Swords & Wizardry: Complete (basically 0E, only organized in a coherent manner).
A PRIME PURPOSE OF A PATHFINDER 2ND EDITION SHOULD BE.....
Don't need a 2E, just update the pdf.
In general, we (my group and myself) don't like a lot of heavy rules; we like to be flexible in what's allowed by certain skills and such. The social interaction skills are excellent example of things that can blend die rolls with role play, I just don't like the way stealth is presented. I am not the only person who feels that the rules on stealth are messed up. They're just vague enough so as to cause all sorts of problems, but lettered out just enough that players will argue over RAW.
Think of a new group who picks up the game. With all the ninja and spec ops video games out there, someone is going to want to play a sneaky character. The fledgling DM turns to the skills section and find that he has to understand perception better, so he turns to that section. It talks about illumination and concealment in darkness, so he scrounges around for information about light levels while he holds the page for concealment.
That's if he cares enough to try. Otherwise, he'll just have the guy roll stealth checks and either pass or fail, and eventually they either decide that it makes little sense or is underpowered/broken. HiPS is one of the worst abilities in this game for it's side-ways take on perception.
I'd rather have a reference point where stealth is made usable by RAW. I respect that you are able to adjudicate such situations with descriptive narrative and even-handed DMing, but not all of us are so fortunate.
|
... to be postponed for at least 8 years!
That said, I would like to see the customization of classes that Star Wars SAGA had, due to the Talent Tree mechanic. It was introduced in D20 Modern, and since that is OGL as well, I see no liscencing problems. It has already been danced around, with alternate class options available in the APG.
While I don't disagree with the OP's statement, I think the prime purpose of a 2nd edition for now should be to wait until the 1e has had a nice long run (say 8-10 years).
I mean, c'mon, the core rulebook was 1st published a mere 18 mos. or so ago. WAAAAAY too early to talk about a 2e.
+1
There is no need for a "second edition" of Pathfinder. I think the 3.0 to 3.5 reprinting, while an improvement, tainted the industry with the notion that updates need to be complete reprints of the rules. An up to date FAQ and PDF, as mentioned, are all that is needed to improve upon the existing rules.
...2. For it to be built from the ground up, not just a clarification of what we have now. Pathfinder 2E could be a chance to step away from some of the problems (real or perceived) of 3.X/d20.
3. Maybe make it a bit less rules-heavy. This would be somewhat of the exact opposite of what Foghammer is suggesting, with his hard definitions of degrees of light. I want a game that's keeps it simple. A game that makes it clear that there isn't a rule for everything, and that it is OK that there isn't a rule for everything...
Those that do not learn from Fourth Edition are doomed to repeat it.
2E BAD! I think the current posting of FAQs works.
There are a number of problems with this.
Not the least of which being poor organization and a tendency to favor DM adjudication despite the fact there is a Pathfinder society.
Agreed. BUT in that 6-8 years I expect the stealth and perception rules to have been fixed. Six to eight years (plus however long it was around before now, probably decades) is a LONG time for that problem to stew, and it comes up EVERY session.
I've been running a game since beta, and we've NEVER had any trouble with the stealth rules. If your group has trouble, make some decisions and stick to them. Maybe I'm just old school, but the GM is there to make decisions. At the table, those decisions are always right.
Not that I'm saying I've never made a mistake. But if we have a rules question that the table can't collectively answer in a few minutes, I make a ruling and move on. We may double check afterwards so we know for future reference, but there hasn't been any actual in-game situation that we couldn't figure out using common sense.
When it comes to stealth, you ask the GM, "Can I hide here?" The GM can say one of three things:
1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Yes, but you have a +/-X modifier.
Case closed!
I've been running a game since beta, and we've NEVER had any trouble with the stealth rules. If your group has trouble, make some decisions and stick to them. Maybe I'm just old school, but the GM is there to make decisions. At the table, those decisions are always right.
If that works at your table, more power to you. It doesn't work for a lot of people, and the GM's interpretation really doesn't work in organized play.
That's why we have codified rules, and that's why a lot of people want an official ruling on some of them.
I've been running a game since beta, and we've NEVER had any trouble with the stealth rules. If your group has trouble, make some decisions and stick to them. Maybe I'm just old school, but the GM is there to make decisions. At the table, those decisions are always right.If that works at your table, more power to you. It doesn't work for a lot of people, and the GM's interpretation really doesn't work in organized play.
That's why we have codified rules, and that's why a lot of people want an official ruling on some of them.
This will be my last post on stealth because I don't want to de-rail the thread too much.
I really don't see what the big deal is. The rules are really quite simple: One character rolls stealth, the opponent rolls perception. Everything else is situational modifiers which are GM discretion. Organized play or not, there are some decisions that are simply in the hands of the GM. That's the way the game works. Otherwise, you wouldn't need a GM to run a PFS game.
Well, let's just assume that it will come when the stars are right. And that it will come, and be Pathfinder RPG 2e. Not Pathfinder RPG revised edition, not Some Other Paizo RPG.
For me, that means that it needs to be the same game. Things in it change, sure, but it needs to remain true to its soul. You need to recognise it. The game has to feel like Pathfinder.
Other companies have lost me as a customer because they disregarded this.
On the other hand, It should not just be an oversized errata or a mere revision, either. If things need to be fixed, PF2e should fix them, even if that breaks backward compatibility.
In other words: Changes of the correct size. Not too small so they fail at fixing the problem, but not too much to transform the game into something else, either.
But this won't happen for years yet, anyway, so all of this is just idle speculation.
I've been running a game since beta, and we've NEVER had any trouble with the stealth rules. If your group has trouble, make some decisions and stick to them. Maybe I'm just old school, but the GM is there to make decisions. At the table, those decisions are always right.If that works at your table, more power to you. It doesn't work for a lot of people, and the GM's interpretation really doesn't work in organized play.
That's why we have codified rules, and that's why a lot of people want an official ruling on some of them.
This will be my last post on stealth because I don't want to de-rail the thread too much.
I really don't see what the big deal is. The rules are really quite simple: One character rolls stealth, the opponent rolls perception. Everything else is situational modifiers which are GM discretion. Organized play or not, there are some decisions that are simply in the hands of the GM. That's the way the game works. Otherwise, you wouldn't need a GM to run a PFS game.
If it is that simple then go to all the stealth threads and break it down so that next time someone makes a stealth thread I can make a link to the answer and call it a day. I think the one about Jack B Nimble and the chicken is a good start.
One thing I would like to see is the conversion of the Arcane Armor Check penalty to a Concentration check DC. Then there can be some interesting new feats like Light Armored Casting, which lets you Take 10 on Concentration checks to cast in armor, and gives a bonus of +5 or something to make it a pretty much sure thing for most characters to succeed on their check.
I would also like to see some kind of non-class benefit for levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18. At all other levels, PCs get a non-class benefit of some kind, such as a regular feat or an ability score improvement. I think some racial traits would be good for these "dead" levels. They can be used for some iconic but over-powered for first level abilities that some races might have, like flight, spell resistance, racial spell-like or supernatural abilities, water breathing, natural armor increases, energy resistances, extra traits, new ways to use certain skills, feats, spells, or class features, etc. etc.
Wow, I'm sure there will be one eventually do we really need a 2ed yet? Besides I just switched over my 4th Ed game to PF (ok not really, our first game of it is this Friday...)
|
|
Wow, I'm sure there will be one eventually do we really need a 2ed yet? Besides I just switched over my 4th Ed game to PF (ok not really, our first game of it is this Friday...)
Don't panic!! James Jacobs has said before that they have no desire to jump on a 2nd edition of PF for quite some time. Sit back, have fun, and enjoy the latest incarnation of the world's longest running version of our favorite RPG (unlike that pretender version you are converting from)!
LOL!
To keep the feeling, to keep the amount of spotlight betweeen the classes balanced (please note that I don't say balanced against each other), to keep important mechanic bonuses dependent on level and items adding interesting options, to allow a good amount of options for character development to fit various themes from the start (at least the basic variety of fighting styles, magic schools, ...), to keep the Vancian system present as one of the options but to offer a reasonable alternative (as there are those who like it and those who don't, why not to please both), to keep the combat easy to run and yet interesting and complex, to make DMing less time consuming, to be a good system through another decade, just as it's predecessor.
Most important of all of course is TO BE FUN TO PLAY.
I'd like to see an edition after 5 years. (That's 3 1/2 years from now.)
Many people are suggesting ten years. If you look at the history of published RPG editions, including D&D, ten years is too long. The technology of RPGs advances faster than that. Before you ask for a ten-year run, ask yourself, what books will be published after the first five?
Not counting adventures we'll have all of these by the end of two years:
Pathfinder Core
Bestiary
GM Screen
Game Mastery Guide
Advanced Players Guide
Bestiary II
Ultimate Magic
Ultimate Combat
Get it right; if the new edition is due in 5 to ten years, there is ABSOLUTLY NO EXCUSE for errata to be published on the internet. NONE WHATSOEVER. The gaming hobby accepts unfinished products, because it is all the gaming industry has EVER and ALWAYS given us; and will keep right on giving us until we demand finished products on the market. It is conceivable in 10 years time that a rather sizable minority of RPG hobbyists will be in nursing homes, not all of which provide internet access. An 18 year old in 1978 is 51 this year.
Make whatever changes, cosmetic or substantial, you must, but first and foremost; bring a finished product to market.
Irv, I think you might be mistakenly referring to a perfect product when you say "finished". All the products that come out are finished. Some of them might need some rules tweaks and the like, but they have been completed.
Anyway, my main reason for posting was to agree with Kthulhu - less rules heavy is ok. I think to date (and I'm sure to cop flak for this statement) that the best d20 ruleset was the Star Wars Saga edition rules. It streamlined the rules, and skills and the ways they operated, and basically sped up gameplay. And let's face it - the main aim of a ruleset is to enable gameplay and to structure it but without interfering in the process of play (by which I mean having to pause mid combat to check things continually).
I'd like to see some similar paring down of the ruleset done in Pathfinder 2.0, just to make the game progress a little smoother.
|
|
Irv, I think you might be mistakenly referring to a perfect product when you say "finished". All the products that come out are finished. Some of them might need some rules tweaks and the like, but they have been completed.
Anyway, my main reason for posting was to agree with Kthulhu - less rules heavy is ok. I think to date (and I'm sure to cop flak for this statement) that the best d20 ruleset was the Star Wars Saga edition rules. It streamlined the rules, and skills and the ways they operated, and basically sped up gameplay. And let's face it - the main aim of a ruleset is to enable gameplay and to structure it but without interfering in the process of play (by which I mean having to pause mid combat to check things continually).
I'd like to see some similar paring down of the ruleset done in Pathfinder 2.0, just to make the game progress a little smoother.
+1
Irv, I think you might be mistakenly referring to a perfect product when you say "finished". All the products that come out are finished. Some of them might need some rules tweaks and the like, but they have been completed.
Anyway, my main reason for posting was to agree with Kthulhu - less rules heavy is ok. I think to date (and I'm sure to cop flak for this statement) that the best d20 ruleset was the Star Wars Saga edition rules. It streamlined the rules, and skills and the ways they operated, and basically sped up gameplay. And let's face it - the main aim of a ruleset is to enable gameplay and to structure it but without interfering in the process of play (by which I mean having to pause mid combat to check things continually).
I'd like to see some similar paring down of the ruleset done in Pathfinder 2.0, just to make the game progress a little smoother.
+1
Starwars Saga was outstanding. It was like D&D 3.9 in space. I was really hoping that D&D 4th edition would be a lot like it.
From what I could ascertain, Saga was a test of the system that worked a charm, was widely praised, and then completely thrown out in the creation of 4th, which feels bizarrely feels like playing the World of Warcraft MMO. Anyway, I'm not sure that Saga was OGL like the other stuff used to be, so they might be hard pressed to mine it for rule changes, etc.
As an aside (and not trying to start a different conversation) but I think if 4th ed D&D had gone down the path that Saga so effectively laid out, then it wouldn't have been such a disappointment to so many folks (myself included).
I'm happy with the current edition, to be honest. I think the inclusion of all the stuff we know and love, and the effort they put in to make it work effectively, makes it a great product.
I wouldn't mind a system that is virtually 100% compatible with the current edition, not like the proclaimed 3.5 compatibility that suffers from a few issues, asides from balance. Revamp critical rule systems, but in a way that they could still apply to earlier edition characters. Perhaps a tad unrealistic, but ultimately I'd like the original Pathfinder books to be more than things to look through for edition conversion ideas.
I know it isn't coming anytime soon, but I'd leap for joy if Pathfinder 2E came out tomorrow. I don't care at all about 3.5, Pathfinder was a way of rebooting the system and getting rid of all the bloat. Now though I want the system to get some major surgery done to it, I want it fixed, and I also want a massive and successful company shoving it onto the marketplace so that I can get dozens of players with the snap of my fingers.
I'm with you (both in wanting a new edition and in not expecting one for quite some time). PF's release marked the end of my 3.5 collection (not that I really understood 3.5 very well anyhow). Backwards compatibility is more a hindrance than a feature, from my perspective.
I think my perfect gamesystem has a certain limit in rules options - my preference would be for Paizo to produce more fluff and less crunch.
|
Star Wars Saga was outstanding. It was like D&D 3.9 in space. I was really hoping that D&D 4th edition would be a lot like it.Be thankful it wasn't! If it had, we wouldn't have Golarion to play in!
You really think Paizo wouldn't have published Golarion for 4E if the system had been what they wanted? You are a strange man.
|
|
You really think Paizo wouldn't have published Golarion for 4E if the system had been what they wanted? You are a strange man.
Pathfinder brought me back to the game table when WotC crafted the 4E system and burned down the FR I loved so much. Golarion and PFS Organized Play have made me stay and enjoy it, especially with people outside of my "comfort zone."
Could Paizo have created Golarion within a "3.75/D20/Saga frame work if WotC had gone that way for 4E? Yes.
Would they have gone the extra mile of PFS? That I don't know.
Either way, I am happy with the world content and the quality of product. And as they expand into other aspects of gaming support (such as the Game mastery line of products), the happier I become. All of this though HAD to happen, IMO, to help support the game system they created. If they were just dabbling around the edges of someone elses playground, I doubt they would have gone so far.
. . . to implement exactly what I, as the head designer hired by Paizo, think D&D should be.
I mean, what other purpose could it serve that would be so noble?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
While not everything was OGL, a lot of it was. Two systems that departed from Saga's standpoint are:
Fantasy Concepts - A guy went through other OGL to construct as much of a fantasy Saga as possible.
e20 - One of the developers of SW Saga has gone his own route to build a generic d20 system with OGL and his experience working on Saga.
Thanks for the heads up, I liked the art on Fantasy Concepts more, so I am sold to try it out.
While not everything was OGL, a lot of it was. Two systems that departed from Saga's standpoint are:Fantasy Concepts - A guy went through other OGL to construct as much of a fantasy Saga as possible.
e20 - One of the developers of SW Saga has gone his own route to build a generic d20 system with OGL and his experience working on Saga.
Thanks Mok! I was not aware of either of these. I'll definitely have a look. As I said previously, I love the Pathfinder system, but in keeping with the aim of this thread, I'd like to see a 2nd ed go kinda in the Saga direction. Thanks again!
Star Wars Saga was outstanding. It was like D&D 3.9 in space. I was really hoping that D&D 4th edition would be a lot like it.Be thankful it wasn't! If it had, we wouldn't have Golarion to play in!
Not true. We got Golarion to play in because wizards took back the licenses for Dragon and Dungeon because they felt they were far too good and made wizards look bad. (Or something like that. I forgot what exactly. The important part is that because of the loss of the magazines, Paizo went and made their own gaming world. With Blackjack! And hookers!)
We got Pathfinder RPG because 4e was the way it was. And also because the GSL was what it was (a joke).
Anyone else see the irony here?...
An up to date FAQ and PDF, as mentioned, are all that is needed to improve upon the existing rules....
Those that do not learn from Fourth Edition are doomed to repeat it.
I think I do.
I personally like FAQ and errata, and updated PDFs. But sooner or later, the changes to the print edition become so extensive that the book becomes too inaccurate to be useful.
Then it's New Book Time. And while I'm all for PDFs and PRDs, and use all of that extensively, it doesn't take away the need for a proper book.
I think my perfect gamesystem has a certain limit in rules options - my preference would be for Paizo to produce more fluff and less crunch.
Paizo produces lots and lots of fluff: The Campaign Setting (formerly Chronicles) stuff is mostly fluff. Even the Player Companions have plenty of fluff in them.
Modules and APs have a lot of rules content, but that's because they're modules. Can't do them without that stuff.
That only really leaves the RPG line as mostly crunch. And since it's the RPG line, the line for setting-neutral rules, it needs to be mostly crunch. And that line gets 3-4 books a year at most.
Getting rid of alignment.
Change it into allegiance points like Stormbringer's Law, Balance, Chaos allegiances. With bonuses after aquiring lots of them ;)
Oooh... gold plated yacht!
Nah you get shell-hull katamaran after 2nd edition. For gold-plated you have to go for 3rd and half edition. And after 5th edition you get diamond studs and silk sail.