A Prime Purpose of a Pathfinder 2nd Edition should be...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

KaeYoss wrote:
MooNinja wrote:


I'd rather paizo kept the system fresh with regular revisions
Among the PFRPG fan base, you're a minority with that. If Paizo started releasing a new core rulebook every couple of years, they'd probably haemorrhage customers.

I stated a timeline of every 5 years or so. I think everyone could agree that 5 rules sets in a decade would be pretty ridiculous.


Kthulhu wrote:
I'd say keep iterative attacks, but ONLY for fighters. But eliminate Attacks of Opportunity. They're a decent idea, but they're eat up far more time than they're worth, in my less-than-humble opinion.

Eh, they were never a problem for us.


MooNinja wrote:


I stated a timeline of every 5 years or so. I think everyone could agree that 5 rules sets in a decade would be pretty ridiculous.

Five years is way too short. Try each decade, bare minimum.


Kthulhu wrote:
I'd say keep iterative attacks, but ONLY for fighters.

Nah. If we do it, we do it right. "Clunky, time consuming game mechanic" should not be a class feature if it can be avoided, and since the reason to do away with them is mainly that, I guess they should go altogether or not at all.

Kthulhu wrote:


But eliminate Attacks of Opportunity. They're a decent idea, but they're eat up far more time than they're worth, in my less-than-humble opinion.

If they find a better mechanic that will accomplish the same thing, I'm all for it.


MooNinja wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
MooNinja wrote:


I'd rather paizo kept the system fresh with regular revisions
Among the PFRPG fan base, you're a minority with that. If Paizo started releasing a new core rulebook every couple of years, they'd probably haemorrhage customers.
I stated a timeline of every 5 years or so. I think everyone could agree that 5 rules sets in a decade would be pretty ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking literally when I said "couple of years". More like "more than one but less than many".

5 years is too little time.


What about incorporating actual roleplaying mechanics? Or is that beyond the scope of what Pathfinder/3.X should try to accomplish?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
I'd say keep iterative attacks, but ONLY for fighters. But eliminate Attacks of Opportunity. They're a decent idea, but they're eat up far more time than they're worth, in my less-than-humble opinion.

Give fighters iterative attacks.

Give skill monkeys iterative actions.
Give spell users iterative casting.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I'd say keep iterative attacks, but ONLY for fighters. But eliminate Attacks of Opportunity. They're a decent idea, but they're eat up far more time than they're worth, in my less-than-humble opinion.

Give fighters iterative attacks.

Give skill monkeys iterative actions.
Give spell users iterative casting.

I would actually go the other way. Less rolls per turn speeds things up. I'd give martial characters something like vital strike for free. Spells get more potent as you level up, why shouldn't the fighter's attacks?

I know, that's sort of the way 4E went, but I don't think that was 4E's mistake.


How about this...instead of a new edition people just make house rules.

It is simple...keeps the game flexable for more people to enjoy.

Like iterative attacks...don't use them. That simple, you can even say at levels 6..11..16 fullBAB classes get vityal strike, imp vital strike, and greater vital strike as class abilities.

and follow a similiar pattern with the 3/4 BAB and the 1/2 BAB.

For those who hate ability damage...have con damage just be HP lost...or stat damage give a condition.

For those who hate 'save or loose' effects...simple Don't use them...Don't allow them.

Hate Alignment....get rid of them. The game still works with the removal of certain things anf changes(IE Paladin Smite works vs undead...evil outsiders...etc.)

I will never understand why people just don't houserule their games. I understand at a certain point you can have soo many house rules that it becomes pointless...but at the point maybe you should look into other options...there is litary a ton of RPGs out there.

But that is just a quick thing off the top of my head. They would not be edition wars...if companies did not change editions.

Really why do people seemingly forget Rule 0 of all RPGs? Why do people play games they hate instead of adjusting them? What are people afraid of house rules?

Also...the constantly changing evolution of gaming? Really....sorry but I don't buy it...or did I miss all the editions of games like chess? or checkers? etc somehow.


Kalyth wrote:
The one thing I would like to see in 2nd Edition would be the removal of Acid and the damage type for elemental earth.

I like acid damage, but I'd like to see more physical bashing options done with earth magic.

Each element could easily have 2-3 attack types associated:
Fire Element: fire, heat
Water Element: suffocation, grappling
Earth Element: acid, bashing, grappling/tripping
Air Element: electricity, wind


Drejk wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah I understand what Paizo are doing. My point (though I'm no doubt in a pretty serious minority) was that I don't want the system to grow at a rate of 3-4 books per year. I was saying that I'd personally be very happy if they stopped the line as it is and increased the resources they devote to the setting.
However, from the Paizo point of view it would not be reasonable. As it is clear from many posts on the forum lots of people playing Pathfinder do not use Golarion setting at all - limiting development to setting only would alienate many of them.

I'm definitely in that camp. I've bought, and will probably continue to buy, every rule book. I've never purchased a setting book for any game system, and I never intend to.


John Kretzer wrote:
How about this...instead of a new edition people just make house rules.

For some groups, and some GMs, that's a great idea. It's not good for a group with changing membership, however, like those hosted by game stores or at conventions. It's also not helpful for new players, either new to a particular game, or new to roleplaying entirely.

Even more importantly, there's no business model in not making new and better products to sell. By all means, if you are happy with D&D 1st edition rules with a bunch of house rules, go ahead and play that way! Just don't expect TSR to gather a following of new, young, players by using the same old . . . wait, TSR doesn't exist. Turns out they couldn't sell enough books.

John Kretzer wrote:
Also...the constantly changing evolution of gaming? Really....sorry but I don't buy it...or did I miss all the editions of games like chess? or checkers? etc somehow.

Chess had hundreds of versions over approximately 900 years before settling on it's current form, and plenty of rudimentary analogs long before that.

If we count Braunstein in 1967 as the invention of the the modern role playing game, we should have the perfect (or at least excellent) role playing game developed around the year 2867 AD.


Blueluck wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Also...the constantly changing evolution of gaming? Really....sorry but I don't buy it...or did I miss all the editions of games like chess? or checkers? etc somehow.

Chess had hundreds of versions over approximately 900 years before settling on it's current form, and plenty of rudimentary analogs long before that.

If we count Braunstein in 1967 as the invention of the the modern role playing game, we should have the perfect (or at least excellent) role playing game developed around the year 2867 AD.

Mm....so how many different edition of Monpoly are there...aso they are varients...but the orginal still exists and outsells all the other varients...and any RPG you care to mention.

As for Houserules...organized play makes up such a small part of the gaming community it is not even funny...

As for house rules and new players...never had a issue with not getting new players and getting them to understand the reasons and the role of house rule in a RPG.

Also all I have seen a very minor issues that are easily fixed with house rules...anybody got a problem with Pathfinder that can't be fixed in a sentence?


John Kretzer wrote:
How about this...instead of a new edition people just make house rules.

Naw. House rules are great and will always be part of the game, but the reason I don't make my own game is because I'm too lazy to. I want someone else to work his ass off making a game for me, to device it and test it and adjust it and everything. I'll gladly pay that person some money.

I will adjust it to get closer to my idea of perfection, but the adjustments must not get out of hand. That's too much work, again.

John Kretzer wrote:


Like iterative attacks...don't use them. That simple, you can even say at levels 6..11..16 fullBAB classes get vityal strike, imp vital strike, and greater vital strike as class abilities.

This idea is bad. It might sound good at first, but when putting more thought into it, one can't help but realise that those extra dice cannot even begin to make up for the extra attacks with all the bonuses you got when you hit.

So to really get rid of the extra attacks, one has to put more thought into it to properly compensate for the lost attacks.

I actually put a bit of thought into it only to realise that this would be too big to easily pull off.

The other things you mentioned might be easier to just change oneself, but they're not the sum of things that could be improved, and there are things that require more thorough changes. There are some problems that stayed in Pathfinder, or were lessened instead of eliminated, because Pathfinder is a revision, not a new edition.

If they were easy to houserule, they would have been easy to change, and Pathfinder would already have those changes. Or at least some/most of them.

John Kretzer wrote:
I understand at a certain point you can have soo many house rules that it becomes pointless...but at the point maybe you should look into other options...there is litary a ton of RPGs out there.

Well, here's the thing: Pathfinder is the game that is closest to what I'd call my ideal game. And I really, really like it. A lot. But still, there are some things the game could handle better.

And I think that these are things that bother a lot of players to some degree, players that share my opinion about Pathfinder being the best game out there.

So going WoD or L5R or 4e or PP&P or HOL isn't really an option. We want to stick to Pathfinder. And we want Pathfinder to become even better.

Again, for many of us it's not about things that can be easily fixed with a house rule. Just because some people complain about trivial matters it doesn't mean that there are only trivial complaints.

John Kretzer wrote:


But that is just a quick thing off the top of my head. They would not be edition wars...if companies did not change editions.

"Never change anything, people could complain" seems a really unhealthy attitude.

John Kretzer wrote:


Also...the constantly changing evolution of gaming? Really....sorry but I don't buy it...or did I miss all the editions of games like chess? or checkers? etc somehow.

You do. Did you never play the edition where pawns couldn't be promoted, or move two squares forwards at the beginning? Or the version where bishops could move no more than two squares?

Not to mention things like threefold repetition or the touch-move rule, which weren't always in the game.

I grant you that chess is a slowly evolving game.

Checkers didn't seem to go through changes like that (or they were less documented), but there are some variant rules around.

And chess is a highly codified board game. The basics are deceptively easy. You can summarise the rules themselves on a sheet of paper or two. The real complexity stems from the tactical possibilities in all the possible combinations of moves.

Roleplaying games often are infinitely more complex in their basic setup. Plus, they're a lot less codified, since they're not board games, but tools for storytelling and tactical simulation.

Chess is chess. It's a game. No story behind it. If Knight takes Rook, that means that Knight takes Rook. No ambiguities about it. The rules don't try to tell a story, and don't need any special considerations.

In a role playing game, Knight takes Rook can mean so many different things. Who is that knight? What is that knight? Weak, inexperienced fighter? Epic paladin? High-level cavalier on a celestial mount? What sort of tower is being assaulted? A glorified pile of plywood? A legendary magical tower of the Infinite Mageking? Is it adamantine? Stone? How thick? Magically reinforced? Up hill? Will the Knight use charge? Is his weapon made of adamantine? Is it a magic weapon? Should he be able to topple that tower? Can he break down the door? Will he just tire himself while accomplishing nothing worthwhile?


@KaeYoss: The problem is what you consider what makes a 'perfect' game is diffrent from mine. But we both really like Pathfinder...sure I don't think it is 100% perfect...but it lends itself well to my style of play. I really don't see a need to officialy changes things to impose my point of view what 'perfect' is.

But atleast to me is the game system is perfect in a way. It makes us both want to change it instead of just moving on. It is flexable that attracts very different kinds of gamers. So why do we want to throw this out? I mean really I play many diffrent kinds of games...with many kind of different people with differenting play styles...and I can enjoy them all. I loose intrest in game not when it does not cater to me...I loose interest in game when it caters to other more than me. This is exactly why I loath 4th ed.

Also the game has been out for what...less than two years and people are already starting edition wars on editions that don't already exist? Just sit back enjoy the game...change things that you think needs to be changed in your game...I don't see a need to rush into edition changes willy nilly.

And when they do make a edition change all I want is a game system that is flexable enough to support and encourage all playing styles with a miminal of daption.

Liberty's Edge


    * Combat rules that work seamlessly with and without miniature use.

    * REDUCTION of core classes, and the re-introduction of the SUB-CLASS for core class variations.

All else I'm sort of happy with really.


You should just try to play GURPS 4ed, and all youre problems are solved. Its easy to run and you dont have to flip through 576 pages of outdated rules...

Liberty's Edge

Argyele Blackmoor wrote:
You should just try to play GURPS 4ed, and all youre problems are solved. Its easy to run and you dont have to flip through 576 pages of outdated rules...

<ha ha ha ha ha ha ha>. You are joking right?! :)

Dark Archive

The idea of discussing a Second Edition of Pathfinder so soon after the release of the Core Rules (a little over a year and a half) agitates me. Some of you are saying that 2.0 should be clarification of some first edition rules and concepts. Keep in mind this is what brought about 3.5 in the first place. And we all know that WofC was already planning 4.0 before 3.5 was released. Please Paizo. Don't fall into line with "The Mages of the Pond". We DO NOT NEED a new Pathfinder edition anytime soon. I know that a 2nd edition is inevitable, but I hope Paizo can hold that off as long as possible. At least 10 years or so.

Liberty's Edge

Evil Genius Prime wrote:
but I hope Paizo can hold that off as long as possible. At least 10 years or so.

I think this is likely. Paizo have something that WotC failed to have - good adventure/campaign writers. Seems the focus was more on rulebook production without giving people something interesting to do with them. Paizo's adventure paths and now whole developed setting I imagine keeps them in beer & pretzels without the need to spit out another edition for revenue purposes. In fact another edition would possibly hurt Paizo's bottom line.

Well I hope at least,
S.

Dark Archive

Stefan Hill wrote:
Evil Genius Prime wrote:
but I hope Paizo can hold that off as long as possible. At least 10 years or so.

I think this is likely. Paizo have something that WotC failed to have - good adventure/campaign writers. Seems the focus was more on rulebook production without giving people something interesting to do with them. Paizo's adventure paths and now whole developed setting I imagine keeps them in beer & pretzels without the need to spit out another edition for revenue purposes. In fact another edition would possibly hurt Paizo's bottom line.

Well I hope at least,
S.

I agree with this. WotC lacked heavily in the adventure/campaign department.


I'd like to see them get rid of full attacks and implement a list of martial maneuvers that can be easily organized like the spells we have now.

I don't really have anything too drastic to add beyond that, I quite like things as they are.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Stefan Hill wrote:
Evil Genius Prime wrote:
but I hope Paizo can hold that off as long as possible. At least 10 years or so.

I think this is likely. Paizo have something that WotC failed to have - good adventure/campaign writers. Seems the focus was more on rulebook production without giving people something interesting to do with them. Paizo's adventure paths and now whole developed setting I imagine keeps them in beer & pretzels without the need to spit out another edition for revenue purposes. In fact another edition would possibly hurt Paizo's bottom line.

Well I hope at least,
S.

You are ignoring the real reason for a new PathfinderRPG edition ... James Jacob's Gold Plated Yacht.


John Kretzer wrote:

As for Houserules...organized play makes up such a small part of the gaming community it is not even funny...

Yes, but it's an important part:

- Organized play is a crucible that reveals problems with the game that normal games typically don't, and helps suggest ways forward.

- Organized play players, on average, are by definition more invested in the game -- they're more likely to buy new products (from a business perspective) and evangelize the game (from a marketing perspective):

- Getting involved in the administration and writing of organized play campaigns is an established proving ground for new RPG industry talent. Without the era of 3.X organized play I'm not sure if you'd have a Pathfinder RPG; if you did, it would look a lot different and probably not have been written by Jason Bulmahn.

John Kretzer wrote:


anybody got a problem with Pathfinder that can't be fixed in a sentence?

Read the rules and advice forums for a day and get back to me on that. Short version: whether or not you do, the answer to does anybody is yes.


Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
2E BAD! I think the current posting of FAQs works.

+1


I don't know why People are saying this is a new system; it's 3.5 with a handful of really nice changes. This system is aging, I don't want to wait 10 years, and I doubt Paizo will want to wait 10 years to refresh the system with their vision and direction on it. Right now, Pathfinder is known as the D&D "Successor", I'm sure Paizo will want to go a direction that distinguishes their own mark on the product as well.

Sovereign Court

Bring back THAC0!!

/ducks


Dire Mongoose wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

As for Houserules...organized play makes up such a small part of the gaming community it is not even funny...

Yes, but it's an important part:

- Organized play is a crucible that reveals problems with the game that normal games typically don't, and helps suggest ways forward.

- Organized play players, on average, are by definition more invested in the game -- they're more likely to buy new products (from a business perspective) and evangelize the game (from a marketing perspective):

- Getting involved in the administration and writing of organized play campaigns is an established proving ground for new RPG industry talent. Without the era of 3.X organized play I'm not sure if you'd have a Pathfinder RPG; if you did, it would look a lot different and probably not have been written by Jason Bulmahn.

John Kretzer wrote:


anybody got a problem with Pathfinder that can't be fixed in a sentence?
Read the rules and advice forums for a day and get back to me on that. Short version: whether or not you do, the answer to does anybody is yes.

1) Really? Because WotC playtested 4th ed though their organized play and look how well it was recieved by the general RPing community. Organized play would be better if it was less organized.

2) Again not in my experience. I see it turn more people off because of how it has to be played. Because how it is set up it feels like a MMO...very linear adventures, your actions don't have any real effect on the world...etc.

3) That point I agree with...but I am not saying kill organized play here...I am just saying in general it does not reflect your typical RPer.

I really think the organized play model needs to be serverly redesigned
in general but that is a topic for another time.

And yes I have looked at the advice column...most of it is lack of communication between the players and the GMs....which a new edition won't solve...or just bad players and/or bad GMs which a new edition won't solve. For those real problems than maybe they should try another system...it is silly to assume one thing is for everybody.


John Kretzer wrote:


1) Really? Because WotC playtested 4th ed though their organized play and look how well it was recieved by the general RPing community. Organized play would be better if it was less organized.

I don't know what you're talking about here, and honestly, I'm not convinced you do, either.

John Kretzer wrote:


2) Again not in my experience. I see it turn more people off because of how it has to be played. Because how it is set up it feels like a MMO...very linear adventures, your actions don't have any real effect on the world...etc.

And here I'm positive you don't know what you're talking about.

Organized play doesn't appeal to you; that's fine, but don't pretend you understand much about it.

Liberty's Edge

Lord Fyre wrote:


You are ignoring the real reason for a new PathfinderRPG edition ... James Jacob's Gold Plated Yacht.

That will be paid for out the revenue from the titles;

The Advanced Advanced Players Guide [2011]
The Advanced Advanced Advanced Players Guide [2011]
The Advanced Advanced Advanced Players Guide [2011]
The Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Players Guide [2011]
The Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Players Guide [2011]
The Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Players Guide [2012]

Rumor has it in the "Advanced Advanced Player Guide" that at LEAST 4 new classes will be introduced.

- The Accountant (low WIS as prime stat)

- The Human Resource Manager (low CHA and low INT as prime stats - yes you have to split your lowest stats)

- The Politician (like the current Bard class but without any real skills, and after using the ability "oration" listeners want to leave the country)

- The Figther (this is the misspelled Fighter, included due to promising 4 classes but running out of more sensible ideas for one).

That yacht is well in hand - fear not for Mr Jacob's.

S.

Sovereign Court

Stefan Hill wrote:


- The Accountant (low WIS as prime stat)

S.

I'd say you need the highest WIS stat possible for an Accountant class. After all, you need to stay awake and not fall asleep while wrtiting all these entries into these ledgers.

Oh, and that helps refraining from murdering your colleagues too...


Dire Mongoose wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


1) Really? Because WotC playtested 4th ed though their organized play and look how well it was recieved by the general RPing community. Organized play would be better if it was less organized.

I don't know what you're talking about here, and honestly, I'm not convinced you do, either.

John Kretzer wrote:


2) Again not in my experience. I see it turn more people off because of how it has to be played. Because how it is set up it feels like a MMO...very linear adventures, your actions don't have any real effect on the world...etc.

And here I'm positive you don't know what you're talking about.

Organized play doesn't appeal to you; that's fine, but don't pretend you understand much about it.

1) WotC designed 4th ed on the feedback of the RPGa...and used them as almost exclusively as play testers. Which is why alot people who aren't in the RPGa just rejects 4th ed. I don't know any non RPGA gamer who plays 4th ed.

2) I did say in my experience...which was a 10 years member in the RPGA...and my friend who is a owner of a gamig store asked me to run PFS event because he needs GMs. I don't hate organized play and I do understand the large amounts of different between home games and organized play. I do enjoy home games more.

So having introduced alot of people to the game...the people who are still playing either started in home games or move from home games to organized play. Most people who play in orgainzed game play maybe 3 years...then move on...they also tend to buy the minmal amount of books neccessary(some don't buy any)...while the people who play in home games buy multiple copies of books.

I'll bo honest this purely from my experience and knowing what myu friend does in sale...this is nowhere conclusive...but do you have any figures on who buys more or play longer between organized players and home game players?

The problem I see with organized play is mostly from what I see with the RPGA...I have not much experience with the PFS yet....and they are things I like that they are doing. But the issues remain that makes it less than a home game...


John Kretzer wrote:

1) WotC designed 4th ed on the feedback of the RPGa...and used them as almost exclusively as play testers.

The feedback given by the playtesters I know personally was categorically ignored.

And, really, that doesn't surprise me -- WotC had decided the hour was nigh for a new edition, and a bunch of grognards saying "This doesn't even feel like D&D" were probably ignored as just that.

John Kretzer wrote:


Most people who play in orgainzed game play maybe 3 years...then move on...they also tend to buy the minmal amount of books neccessary(some don't buy any)...while the people who play in home games buy multiple copies of books.

Those statistics sound, no offense intended, completely made up.

RPGA Organized Play rules used to be (probably still are, but I'm now not current on what they're doing) that you had to own a physical copy of every book that your character was using rules material from, be it a PClass, a single magic item, a single feat, a single spell, etc, and it had to be at the table with you. That sells a lot of books.

John Kretzer wrote:


But the issues remain that makes it less than a home game...

Less, and more. So, different. There are things you can do in the crappiest home game that you can't do in an organized play game, and there are (cool) things that have been done in organized play campaigns that the best home game GM in the world would be physically unable to equal. (Mostly because some of them involve over a hundred PCs doing interdependent things simultaneously.)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Stereofm wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


- The Accountant (low WIS as prime stat)

S.

I'd say you need the highest WIS stat possible for an Accountant class. After all, you need to stay awake and not fall asleep while wrtiting all these entries into these ledgers.

Oh, and that helps refraining from murdering your colleagues too...

Not true.

In fact, the small percentage chance of "going postal" is a class ability.


For those who have an issue with the ponderous nature of iterative attacks, who are also interested in potential house-rule solutions:

Spoiler:

The "Trailblazer" RPG pdf contains a few good ideas, and one of them is to "balance" iterative attacks, rather than skew them.

In their system, you only ever get two attacks (at +6 BAB), and when making a full attack your roll both attacks at -2 (like with TWF).

At BAB +11, you reduce the penalty by 1, and reduce it to zero at BAB 16.

This basically takes a little damage off of the high attack bonus attacks and shifts it back to the low attack bonus attacks. The net result: less rolling, but the average damage stays the same (except for outlying ACs).

I've introduced this as an "option" in my own campaign, and we have been very pleased with the results.

So, now that I've typed that up, I wouldn't mind if the far-flung future PFRPG2e used that rule for iterative attacks. It's pretty sweet.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

1) WotC designed 4th ed on the feedback of the RPGa...and used them as almost exclusively as play testers.

The feedback given by the playtesters I know personally was categorically ignored.

And, really, that doesn't surprise me -- WotC had decided the hour was nigh for a new edition, and a bunch of grognards saying "This doesn't even feel like D&D" were probably ignored as just that.

John Kretzer wrote:


Most people who play in orgainzed game play maybe 3 years...then move on...they also tend to buy the minmal amount of books neccessary(some don't buy any)...while the people who play in home games buy multiple copies of books.

Those statistics sound, no offense intended, completely made up.

RPGA Organized Play rules used to be (probably still are, but I'm now not current on what they're doing) that you had to own a physical copy of every book that your character was using rules material from, be it a PClass, a single magic item, a single feat, a single spell, etc, and it had to be at the table with you. That sells a lot of books.

John Kretzer wrote:


But the issues remain that makes it less than a home game...
Less, and more. So, different. There are things you can do in the crappiest home game that you can't do in an organized play game, and there are (cool) things that have been done in organized play campaigns that the best home game GM in the world would be physically unable to equal. (Mostly because some of them involve over a hundred PCs doing interdependent things simultaneously.)

Well

1) I did not present them as statistics. I presented them as experience. I even said as much...and asked if you had statical evidence that points other wise?

2) RPGA rules now is no you don't have to own any of the books...your character just has to be built on a the CB(I believe)...but usualy in any given RPGA somebody will have one of the books. Also...this does not really get people buying the lore(or as they are commonly called fluff) books. Does PFS have a rule that you must own the books? That does seem a little nebie unfriendly...

3) the 100 player doing thing simultaneously sounds awesome...but typicaly they are doing the exact same thing simultaneously...and tends to do exactly has the rails take them..or if the deviate...it won't be reflected in the actual world...as the most common goal is assumed...or the most popular is.

Actualy in my main groups home game(which number about 19 players) and people have different groups etc...it is a much better feel...because you can actualy get all 19 players together(we have) have them play one or two of their characters and actualy interact. That is fun....hundreds...no but i doubt those 100's are actualy interacting either which each other.

Sovereign Court

Dire Mongoose wrote:


Less, and more. So, different. There are things you can do in the crappiest home game that you can't do in an organized play game, and there are (cool) things that have been done in organized play campaigns that the best home game GM in the world would be physically unable to equal. (Mostly because some of them involve over a hundred PCs doing interdependent things simultaneously.)

Yeah, Battle Interactives are really cool, but you need a really large con to pull this off. Most organized play are played as one table game in the back of the shop


The greater the differences between 1 and 2 edition, the greater the number of years should be between the two. If there were to be a new edition in 5 or so years, the differences better be low and the degree of compatibility at least the same as between 3.5 and Pf, if not more.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Erick Wujick once said in his postscript to Amber Diceless Roleplaying System that if you truly mastered playing Amber, you'd finish by throwing away his rules.

I have never seen a game that caused more arguments and screaming matches than Amber, thx for bringing back the nightmare of listening to three people argue for 10 hours in the car all the way from Gen-Con...


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

On the point of using house rules- I do, but I prefer to keep them down to under 1 page long, or people tend to ignore or forget them. It would take far more than one page to handle what needs to be fixed in Pathfinder. (as I see it)

I was one of the people who truly thought it was time for 4e to be made, but I was disappointed by how it turned out. I like some things, but others annoy me as much as anything in Pathfinder/3.5. I had been hoping that Pathfinder would be a truly new edition, rather than D&D 3.5-Super Turbo Edition.

@ Evil Lincoln- I've got Trailblazer, and will think seriously about using some of their fixes once I have time to read it, but that doesn't really solve my problem with iterative attacks. It's not the number of roles that bothers me, but rather the way it screws up things like crossbows and firearms. Although maybe there's more to it that I haven't gotten yet- like I said, I haven't had time to read it.

Either way, though, I'm fine with things as they are for quite a while. It takes us about 2 years to get through an AP, so we're set for years yet.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

For those who have an issue with the ponderous nature of iterative attacks, who are also interested in potential house-rule solutions:

** spoiler omitted **

So, now that I've typed that up, I wouldn't mind if the far-flung future PFRPG2e used that rule for iterative attacks. It's pretty sweet.

That really does sound like a better way to do iterative attacks. I might give that a try in my next campaign. Thanks for the recommendation.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
I was one of the people who truly thought it was time for 4e to be made, but I was disappointed by how it turned out. I like some things, but others annoy me as much as anything in Pathfinder/3.5. . .

Me too. Having been extremely pleased with the changes between 2nd and 3rd edition, I was open to the idea of a 4th edition being made.

Also, since I was heavily involved in gaming at the time 4th edition was being developed, I read a lot of their early pre-publication material that said things that I really liked. For example:

  • Character race will have more impact on the game.
  • Standard party size will be 5 instead of 4.
  • Skill challenges for social and other non-combat 'encounters'.
  • Encounter design will include obstacles, multiple rooms, waves of enemies, and other variations.
  • Everyone, including mages, will have something they can do every round.
  • Non-magicians will get limited-use abilities that let them do amazing things in combat occasionally.
  • The standard combat encounter will be based on 5 enemies rather than 1.
  • The attacker rolls to effect the target with a spell, rather than the target rolling to resist.
I agreed with everything they wanted to do in theory. Sadly, while they implemented a few of those ideas well, they also changed a number of other things in ways I did not like. I think one of the reasons I'd like to see a Pathfinder v2 sooner than some other posters is that there are a lot of really good ideas hanging around out there, waiting to be incorporated!

Liberty's Edge

To be what the 1st Ed would have been if it had been freed from the constraint of 3.5-compatibility.


The black raven wrote:
To be what the 1st Ed would have been if it had been freed from the constraint of 3.5-compatibility.

See it's this, and similar comments above regarding backwards compatibility, that I have problems with. Shaking off the shackles of compatibility was what 4th edition did, and not doing so was one of the reasons people turned to Pathfinder in droves. The moment you say 'ok, we're going to abandon 30 years of game design and ensure that nothing in your rule / source / adventure collection can be used' is the moment you take a huuuuge risk that your new system (which would then be called Pathfinder 2e but bear no relation to Pathfinder 1e) is so awesome that people are willing to abandon everything they love about your old system and start afresh. And it's also the moment you risk some other company coming along and saying 'hey, you know what, we thought Pathfinder 1e was pretty awesome so we're going to continue supporting that.'

Surely the lessons of the past are there for all to see, and they're lessons that WOTC see every day written in their balance sheet.


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Foghammer wrote:

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

How on earth is Stealth an issue?

It's your Stealth vs "their" Perception (with modifier's allowed for by the GM).

It's really not that tricky, you add modifiers for the situation, add some realism. Where is the bad man looking? Is he distracted? Is the "sneaky" PC running over bubble-wrap or dropping thunderstones?

Your GM needs to step up - or you need to let him/her run the table.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
theneofish wrote:
The black raven wrote:
To be what the 1st Ed would have been if it had been freed from the constraint of 3.5-compatibility.

See it's this, and similar comments above regarding backwards compatibility, that I have problems with. Shaking off the shackles of compatibility was what 4th edition did, and not doing so was one of the reasons people turned to Pathfinder in droves. The moment you say 'ok, we're going to abandon 30 years of game design and ensure that nothing in your rule / source / adventure collection can be used' is the moment you take a huuuuge risk that your new system (which would then be called Pathfinder 2e but bear no relation to Pathfinder 1e) is so awesome that people are willing to abandon everything they love about your old system and start afresh. And it's also the moment you risk some other company coming along and saying 'hey, you know what, we thought Pathfinder 1e was pretty awesome so we're going to continue supporting that.'

Surely the lessons of the past are there for all to see, and they're lessons that WOTC see every day written in their balance sheet.

One person's compatible is sometimes another person's incompatible, tho. All in all, there are less differences from 2e to 3e than from 3e to 4e, but I still wouldn't call 2e and 3e 'compatible'. I'd call it 'maintaining tradition' instead. I want to see a Pathfinder 2 that doesn't worry about compatibility if some great new ideas require breaking it. That doesn't mean I want to see compatibility thrown out just for the sake of newness, either.

lastblacknight wrote:
How on earth is Stealth an issue?

I think the issue some people have is the way it interacts with special senses, etc.


To bring an RPG to the market that incorporates everything they learned from an at least five year run designing material. Design and playtest should not begin until after five years. Pathfinder 2.0 should not be beholden to any of the rules of 1st edition. Pathfinder is great, but it is ultimately a correction of a rule system that was not sufficiently designed and playtested before brought to market. No matter how you slice it, the current Pathfinder system is just a better bandage for the broken OGL d20 system. If, and when, a PF2e is being designed, it should not be based on a pre-existing flawed system.

Personally, I would love for the PF guys to go through archives of all the things WotC announced they were planning and designing for 4e. Before they started announcing the specifics, I thought it was gonna be the greatest RPG ever.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
theneofish wrote:
The black raven wrote:
To be what the 1st Ed would have been if it had been freed from the constraint of 3.5-compatibility.
Surely the lessons of the past are there for all to see, and they're lessons that WOTC see every day written in their balance sheet.

One person's compatible is sometimes another person's incompatible, tho. All in all, there are less differences from 2e to 3e than from 3e to 4e, but I still wouldn't call 2e and 3e 'compatible'. I'd call it 'maintaining tradition' instead. I want to see a Pathfinder 2 that doesn't worry about compatibility if some great new ideas require breaking it. That doesn't mean I want to see compatibility thrown out just for the sake of newness, either.

I agree with that, 'maintaining tradition' is a good description. To my mind, 4e broke with tradition. I would regard 2e to 3e as maintaining compatibility, but also not being afraid to be radically different where required. I seem to remember an interview (possibly with Monte Cook) from the early days of the 3e release in which he said that the design team had asked themselves how much they could discard and still refer to the game as D&D, and how much was untouchable. And how he wished they'd gone further with that, and not held anything as sacrosanct. For me, 4e took that second option. In many ways, it's a great system, simple and straightforward, but it's not D&D however you slice it(ymmv).

I think there's a degree of cross purposes here. I DO agree with the folks saying 'let's not be straightjacketed into maintaining compatibility and thus rule out what might be radical improvements', but there's a difference between feeling able to change, say 'Rule 1 or Rule 2 or Rule 3 or Rule 4 etc', and changing 'Rule 1 and Rule 2 and Rule 3 and Rule 4.' Again, option 2 leaves you with a game that bears no relation to its predecessor beyond name. I may be wrong, but I'll be astonished if and when P2 appears if that happens. Say we're up to AP250 by then - are Paizo seriously going to force us to junk everything that's gone before and start again?

I think it's far more likely that ANY mechanic / rule would be up for grabs, but not ALL mechanics and rules.


I want Paizo to give people enough time to give the words of power and any other alternate systems they come up with a good test drive. Many of the changes in 3rd edition were originally introduced as alternatives in 2nd edition, and I hope Pathfinder also follows that route. Release things like the words of power and their own Unearthed Arcana where ideas can be tossed around, tested, and adjusted before they are incorporated into the core ruleset. This is what 4E failed to do, and this is why many people don't see it as a DnD game. They changed everything without any kind of open play testing or concern for some kind of continuity in the mechanics. Even the mechanics that they retained, like the skills, work completely different in 4E than they did in 3.5. I agree that nothing should be considered sacrosanct, but at the same time, changing everything at once is an equally bad idea if you want to maintain a sense of continuity.


theneofish wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
theneofish wrote:
The black raven wrote:
To be what the 1st Ed would have been if it had been freed from the constraint of 3.5-compatibility.
Surely the lessons of the past are there for all to see, and they're lessons that WOTC see every day written in their balance sheet.

One person's compatible is sometimes another person's incompatible, tho. All in all, there are less differences from 2e to 3e than from 3e to 4e, but I still wouldn't call 2e and 3e 'compatible'. I'd call it 'maintaining tradition' instead. I want to see a Pathfinder 2 that doesn't worry about compatibility if some great new ideas require breaking it. That doesn't mean I want to see compatibility thrown out just for the sake of newness, either.

I agree with that, 'maintaining tradition' is a good description. To my mind, 4e broke with tradition. I would regard 2e to 3e as maintaining compatibility, but also not being afraid to be radically different where required. I seem to remember an interview (possibly with Monte Cook) from the early days of the 3e release in which he said that the design team had asked themselves how much they could discard and still refer to the game as D&D, and how much was untouchable. And how he wished they'd gone further with that, and not held anything as sacrosanct. For me, 4e took that second option. In many ways, it's a great system, simple and straightforward, but it's not D&D however you slice it(ymmv).

I think there's a degree of cross purposes here. I DO agree with the folks saying 'let's not be straightjacketed into maintaining compatibility and thus rule out what might be radical improvements', but there's a difference between feeling able to change, say 'Rule 1 or Rule 2 or Rule 3 or Rule 4 etc', and changing 'Rule 1 and Rule 2 and Rule 3 and Rule 4.' Again, option 2 leaves you with a game that bears no relation to its predecessor beyond name. I may be wrong, but I'll be astonished if and when P2 appears if that happens. Say...

I'm in the camp that wants to shed the burden of backward compatibility with D&D 3.5. However, I don't want the game to stop feeling and playing like D&D!

For example, Pathfinder got rid of XP costs for spells and magic item creation, and added the ability for non-casters to create magic items. It's not backward compatible (It leaves certain classes lying by the side of the road broken.) but it's an outstandingly good change!

I would be perfectly happy to see a new Pathfinder edition that changed things like the spell levels or schools of iconic spells, the way iterative attacks work, the entire crafting system, give out less feats but make each one more significant, make the caster roll 'saving throws' rather than the defender, integrate alternate class features into the core book, etc.

I agree that 4e went too far all in one step, farther than any previous edition change. I think the differences from 1st-2nd, 2nd-3rd, and 3rd-Pathfinder were all dramatic improvements, without losing any of the things that make D&D feel like D&D to me, and I trust that the Paizo crew could do that again!

1 to 50 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A Prime Purpose of a Pathfinder 2nd Edition should be... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.