|
How would the game give you your power back? It was you who gave it away. You let it be taken away. And only you can take it back.
You have to admit that as the system is written, there's very little for the GM to actually adjudicate. There are rules for just about every situation. And when the developers do answer questions with "It's up to your GM" here on the boards, a great many posters seem to regard that as a non-answer.
In my experience of playing the game, I can find a few things which the OP made me think of. There are a few things to consider, which are sometimes at odds with each other. Firstly, there is the interesting balance of how complicated rules should be. Having to spend time on something and learning it eventually can have a tremendous satisfaction effect. On the other hand making things unnecessarily complex is punishing. To take up the Mount&Blade vs Oblivion example, considering the combat gameplay: the first game is tremendously satisfying when you get the hang of it, while the latter quickly becomes boring because you realize there's nothing to learn, no unique enemies to fight... There is just no challenge in that game. Challenge is important, but challenge should not be slogging through a swamp of rules.
Secondly, there is the issue of how the stuff is presented. The book should be set up so that some casual thinking should give you a reasonable estimate of where in the book you should find stuff. Good example: Combat maneuvers, it's probably in the combat section. Bad example: wealth by level, it should be somewhere in character creation, oh wait that is not there. Bad example: Encumbrance, it should be close to Strength... oh no it isn't.
One of the things that has really started to annoy me about PF concerning the first point is having to calculate weight and cost when buying equipment. Every new character should have various stuff like backpacks, bedrolls, flint&steel. You spend too much time looking up the prices and weights if you want to do it properly. You could just wing it, but then why not overhaul the entire equipment thing? I'm redoing all that stuff so everything has either 1,2,5,10 (more in 5 increments) cost or weight, so you can reasonably estimate what an item will cost and weigh, especially if you have bought equipment a few times.
One of the things about the second concern was rules for cover and concealment when I was reading up on Porpentine's stealth revisit. Rules for perception were all over the place. Similarly for things like conditions, why are they in an appendix and not in 'combat' when these things come up? This was especially painful for the grapple rules, where there are things like "grappled" and "grappling" and the modifiers for that are found somewhere else from the grapple rules. We had to take some time to see what the concentration checks for casting were, and we missed that they couldn't cast somatic spells.
|
If they're doing it wrong, that enormous, loyal fanbase will evaporate faster than you can say "hype".What they need to do is do the stuff the fan base actually wants them to do.
I just meant that there is no need for backwards compatibility in PF 2.0
One of my players' characters (well, actually, his eidolon) was almost killed by wyvern poison last session. It was a close call, and if they hadn't dispatched the wyvern when they did, it would probably have been worse.
I am referring to poisons characters can buy and coat weapons in. The toughest DC is if i remember 17 and that poison is hella expensive. DC 12 becomes pretty much a non-issue past levels 4-6 unless the players roll a 1.
What's their power level?
Around PB 20. I had them roll 4d6 drop the lowest. Not the greatest scores, but they are capable. I pretty much cannot hit the fighter unless i roll a natural 20 since his AC is 31, but it is ok, because he is useless in combat unless he gets to bestow AC bonuses upon his allies and take damage in their stead. With his attack bonus as it is, he cannot hit the broad side of a barn. On the other hand, the paladin is the damage dealer, but low on hps. So they pretty much even out.
How would the game give you your power back? It was you who gave it away. You let it be taken away. And only you can take it back.
I pretty much do not get to rule on anything. Almost everything is defined by the rules. But maybe that is ok. Dunno.
Oh and P.S. I don't know if you saw that in a post from long ago, but my players use your character sheet. It is awesome.
You have to admit that as the system is written, there's very little for the GM to actually adjudicate. There are rules for just about every situation. And when the developers do answer questions with "It's up to your GM" here on the boards, a great many posters seem to regard that as a non-answer.
I actually feel the rules are not as detailed as they need to be. I have seen the issues of Stealth and Magic Item crafting come up way too many times on the forums. And those are the two I can think of off the top of my head.
I agree, the GM is the end all and be all on decisions. But the rules should never be written purposefully vague to give the GM something to rule. I would much rather the rules be more detailed and cover the basis on most situations and for those rare times (the rules don't cover) then the GM can adjudicate.
As KaeYoss said, the GM never lost his power. He has always been able to do what he wants. If he doesn't like how a rule is in the book, he can always change it to fit his liking. However, I know our group (GM included) would prefer the rules to not be vague where rulings are needed more often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just meant that there is no need for backwards compatibility in PF 2.0
What about the first four adventure paths?
Backwards compatibility is more than a gimmick to pick up wayward 3e fans. It was about continuing to support a successful content-based product that didn't need to change.
I think that a small number of systemic changes would be appropriate in a PF2e, but by and large it should still be "compatible". I should still be able to pick up Rise of the Runelords and run it with minimal conversion, as I do presently with PF1e.
Just because you don't require backward compatibility doesn't mean it isn't needed. Remember that Paizo's bread and butter is adventure content, not rules. And while adventure content is more sustainable than rules in the long run, they're not going to invalidate their library of like 100 adventures... I hope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?
As far as a rulebook with bad organization goes, the 1e DMG was king! That was one of the main fixes in 2e!
True, but the 1e DMG also had the mack daddy of all indexes in the back. The index was pages long, and had page references for everything you could think of, as well as references for both the DMG and the PHB. So while the DMG was poorly organized, it was fairly easy to find the information you needed.
A problem we don't have today due to PRDs and the ability to search.
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?
I am puzzled over this as well.
|
|
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?
No, i am not arguing against it. I am just saying it is not necessary. The rules are fine the way they are now. While clarity and easier access are important, i would rather have Paizo concentrate on stuff like APs and other things.
|
I have no problem with Pathfinder 2E having no backwards compatibility. Just like Ktulhu said, it has served it's purpose. Paizo has an enormous, loyal fanbase now, and there is no need for them not to do stuff they actualy want to do.
I think the backwards compatibility was a major selling point for Pathfinder and a key reason for its continued success. Loyal fanbases, as 4th edition and New Coke demonstrated, can be awfully fickle when you tamper with a formula.
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?No, i am not arguing against it. I am just saying it is not necessary. The rules are fine the way they are now. While clarity and easier access are important, i would rather have Paizo concentrate on stuff like APs and other things.
Hmmm, okay we're not that far off.
See, I am not pushing for a second edition now. But in the course of publishing, second editions happen. I think in a few more years, we'll know a lot about what could have been done to make the game easier to learn — not in terms of the rules themselves but their presentation.
It really is necessary, but it isn't a process that can or should be rushed.
The best way to collect data on how to improve the presentation is to... keep playing with the existing rules. So yes, the focus should be on adventure content like APs and the like.
The Beginner Box is also a very good thing. I would not mind seeing the Beginner Box expanded into a complete organized ruleset over time, identical to the CRB but presented more cleanly. That would sidestep a lot of the flak that you're bound to see over a new edition, while serving the people who need it most directly — and leaving those of us who don't need it with our trusty-but-obtuse CRBs.
You have to admit that as the system is written, there's very little for the GM to actually adjudicate. There are rules for just about every situation.
So? This isn't play pretend on the elementary school's playground. Of course all the basics are covered in the rules. That's actually a good thing. As a GM, I don't want a half-done system.
Doesn't mean everything is covered. It never is. The book would need infinite pages for that.
And adjudication isn't about making up rules. It's about applying them, especially if it's an interplay between rules.
Fact is, a rule system that already covers a lot of ground isn't taking away GM power. GM power is never about making up rules.
And when the developers do answer questions with "It's up to your GM" here on the boards, a great many posters seem to regard that as a non-answer.
Ah, and you think anything in the book could change that? Because there's already something about "In the end, the GM decides what the rules are" and that doesn't stop people. It will never stop people.
The GM saying "I have the last word about rules, all the rules!" will stop people.
Of course, a good GM will say "We can talk about everything, but in the end, I have the last word about rules, all the rules!"
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?No, i am not arguing against it. I am just saying it is not necessary. The rules are fine the way they are now. While clarity and easier access are important, i would rather have Paizo concentrate on stuff like APs and other things.
Although you are arguing against it in saying it is not necessary. Where some of us do feel it is a worthwhile endeavor.
|
|
I just meant that there is no need for backwards compatibility in PF 2.0What about the first four adventure paths?
Well, considering that I'm talking about PFRPG 2E not even bothering to be compatible with PFRPG 1E, then I'd say that I'm even less concerned with it being compatible with 3.5.
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?
While I wouldn't really argue against that, I also wouldn't consider it a new edition. If they're going to call something Pathfinder 2E, then it should actually be a new edition.
I'm think that if they were to put out Pathfinder Revised, they'd find a lot of people unsubscribing from the RPG line, and see non-subscriber sales drop signinicantly as well. After all, this would be content that we already have, just organized differently. If such a thing were to come out, I MIGHT get the PDFs, but there's little chance I would purchase the actual book.
As far as a rulebook with bad organization goes, the 1e DMG was king! That was one of the main fixes in 2e!
I see your 1E DMG, and raise you the original three volume set of Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. You need to look through those to appreciate just how far 1E advanced in terms of readability.
I am referring to poisons characters can buy and coat weapons in. The toughest DC is if i remember 17 and that poison is hella expensive. DC 12 becomes pretty much a non-issue past levels 4-6 unless the players roll a 1.
So at level 7, your characters tend to have fort saves of +16? And that includes wizards, rogues and the like?
Pretty impressive. Considering their class bonus is something like +2 (never more than +6, and that's level 18+) and you get no more than +5 or so from magic items. At those levels, I think +2 to saves is as far as you get.
So the typical level 7 wizard 32 con in your game?
Trying to get fighters and the like with poison isn't very smart. That's playing to their strengths. That is supposed to fail most of the time.
I pretty much do not get to rule on anything. Almost everything is defined by the rules. But maybe that is ok. Dunno.
If you don't like rules, you can change them.
And I don't know about you, but in our games, those situations where adjudication is requires come up often enough. Of course, my players are smart, imaginative guys who won't tie themselves to what the rules say you can do.
Still, as I said before, there is a lot more to GM power than making up rules.
If you really want that sort of power, throw away your rulebooks and make your own RPG. (With blackjack! And hookers!)
Oh and P.S. I don't know if you saw that in a post from long ago, but my players use your character sheet. It is awesome.
Thanks!
I'm think that if they were to put out Pathfinder Revised, they'd find a lot of people unsubscribing from the RPG line, and see non-subscriber sales drop signinicantly as well. After all, this would be content that we already have, just organized differently. If such a thing were to come out, I MIGHT get the PDFs, but there's little chance I would purchase the actual book.
We aren’t talking so much about a revised set of rules than clarification of the existing rules. Very similar to what WotC did with the Rules Compendium. I don’t see people all of a sudden dropping their PF subscription line because Paizo gives more substance to the existing rules.
There may be some that don’t feel clarifled rules are needed (like yourself), but I also feel a lot would appreciate the clearer rules, as well.
Well, i always thought that the first four adventure paths should be converted to pf anyway.
Won't be done. Not by Paizo. Too much work for too little profit. They don't have too many people sitting on their hands they could make do it.
Someone would have to go through the whole thing and update stat blocks. After that, the design people would have to adjust the design.
And the articles would have to be updated, too, since there's often some rules content there.
Not the same as a whole new AP, but still not trivial. And someone has to do that work. Which would probably mean that some stuff would not be done, or done later.
And then you have to sell it. A lot of the people who bought them in the first place will not buy them again.
All in all, the customer base for those would be less than for current APs. Which would mean print costs per book would rise.
So all in all, probably not something they could afford.
If you can't use Pathfinder 2e to run Pathfinder #1-24, then it ain't Pathfinder.
I will probably not get around to running Kingmaker until Pathfinder 2e happens, and I fully expect that to be 5 years or more. If PF2e obsoletes Kingmaker, I will stay with PF1e.
|
|
If you can't use Pathfinder 2e to run Pathfinder #1-24, then it ain't Pathfinder.
I will probably not get around to running Kingmaker until Pathfinder 2e happens, and I fully expect that to be 5 years or more. If PF2e obsoletes Kingmaker, I will stay with PF1e.
So you use Pathfinder 1E to run it. People today still play every edition of D&D, all the way from 0E to 4E. Some people even play (gasp) other roleplaying games. (Some people even play Pathfinder APs using different systems, I've seen threads discussing playing them with True20, Savage Worlds, various D&D retro-clones, etc.) Is it really such a difficult concept to think of playing Kingmaker under Pathfinder 1E, and then after you finish that playing a different AP under Pathfinder 2E? Hell, you might even follow that with a switch back to Pathfinder 1e to play Carrion Crown.
|
|
Although you are arguing against it in saying it is not necessary. Where some of us do feel it is a worthwhile endeavor.What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?No, i am not arguing against it. I am just saying it is not necessary. The rules are fine the way they are now. While clarity and easier access are important, i would rather have Paizo concentrate on stuff like APs and other things.
No, i am not. I am just saying that it is not necessary, however important or worthwile. There are other, more important things to do first. If paizo does that, i will not be raging and whining about unnecessary stuff, i will be delighted. But i have no problem with reading rules as they are. So i do not see the need to streamline the presentation.
So at level 7, your characters tend to have fort saves of +16? And that includes wizards, rogues and the like?Pretty impressive. Considering their class bonus is something like +2 (never more than +6, and that's level 18+) and you get no more than +5 or so from magic items. At those levels, I think +2 to saves is as far as you get.
So the typical level 7 wizard 32 con in your game?
Trying to get fighters and the like with poison isn't very smart. That's playing to their strengths. That is supposed to fail most of the time.
No, good fort characters have it around 7-9 and weak around 3-5. I see your point.
So you use Pathfinder 1E to run it. People today still play every edition of D&D, all the way from 0E to 4E. Some people even play (gasp) other roleplaying games. (Some people even play Pathfinder APs using different systems, I've seen threads discussing playing them with True20, Savage Worlds, various D&D retro-clones, etc.) Is it really such a difficult concept to think of playing Kingmaker under Pathfinder 1E, and then after you finish that playing a different AP under Pathfinder 2E? Hell, you might even follow that with a switch back to Pathfinder 1e to play Carrion Crown.
It's a matter of preference.
If you are so unhappy with the current Pathfinder that you want it to change drastically, what makes you think that you will enjoy a drastically different 2e?
Incidentally, I play lots of different games and editions. That doesn't change my preference to have the entire body of Pathfinder adventures operating under a similar system.
If you can't use Pathfinder 2e to run Pathfinder #1-24, then it ain't Pathfinder.
I will probably not get around to running Kingmaker until Pathfinder 2e happens, and I fully expect that to be 5 years or more. If PF2e obsoletes Kingmaker, I will stay with PF1e.
I am sure Pathfinder will change eventually. It isn’t going to always be “D&D 3.75”. Paizo is going to make a future edition where it most likely won’t be compatible with earlier editions in any form, I am guessing it will happen with 2e. It will basically be a new role-playing game.
Will you be able to play AP’s that were made for 1e? Probably not, unless you do your own transferring of characters/information in the old APs.
I love how the system works now for Pathfinder, but it will eventually have all new rules and will be it’s own beast. Just like TSR/WotC changed editions of D&D. It’s bound to happen eventually.
I am sure Pathfinder will change eventually. It isn’t going to always be “D&D 3.75”. Paizo is going to make a future edition where it most likely won’t be compatible with earlier editions in any form, I am guessing it will happen with 2e. It will basically be a new role-playing game.Will you be able to play AP’s that were made for 1e? Probably not, unless you do your own transferring of characters/information in the old APs.
I love how the system works now for Pathfinder, but it will eventually have all new rules and will be it’s own beast. Just like TSR/WotC changed editions of D&D. It’s bound to happen eventually.
Why? What indication have you seen that they would do this? I certainly haven't seen any. Paizo, by all accounts, really likes Pathfinder as it is, which is basically 3.5.
I expect a second edition would be about the same level of change from PF1e as PF1e was from 3.5. That is to say, not very much. And I'm glad for that, because there is a huge backlog of adventures that I would like to run with that system, even though I think the presentation could be cleaned up and certain rules (like archetypes) should be included in the main rulebook for ease of use.
I haven’t seen any indication. I am sure Paizo will stay with 1e for awhile yet, especially from what they have said.
However, you can’t expect a game to continue to remain the same from edition to edition. It just doesn’t bode well for future sales of books or modules (APs). Eventually everything will be already done.
It will get to a point where the players are not buying the new books because they don’t want them anymore or don’t need them. I’ve even heard people on the forums already say Ultimate Magic is my last splat book. Splat books are where the money is. That is a sign to let Paizo know we need to go to a new edition, where they can start the process all over again.
You may say “Paizo won’t do that and abandon 1e.” And they probably won’t, sometimes they might still release the occasional module. But they need to sell books, and the only way to do that is make a new edition and start the design process all over again. A new ‘combat book’, new ‘magic book’, new ‘advanced book’, etc.
Who knows, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Pathfinder 2e and beyond will all be compatible. But just from history, I don’t see that being the case.
To the best of my knowledge, a desire to not abandon the existing adventure content is the main reason Pathfinder RPG exists at all. I have a hard time imagining that this policy would suddenly change for a second edition.
To the best of my knowledge, a desire to not abandon the existing adventure content is the main reason Pathfinder RPG exists at all. I have a hard time imagining that this policy would suddenly change for a second edition.
Though I do not disagree that a break with backward compatibility seems unlikely, I think the main reason Pathfinder exists is that 3.5 was going out of print. Backward compatibility was certainly a design goal, but that's hardly the same thing.
Dear posters advocating for a new Pathfinder edition: please stop before the developers hear you. I haven't finished buying books for the current edition yet!
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?While I wouldn't really argue against that, I also wouldn't consider it a new edition. If they're going to call something Pathfinder 2E, then it should actually be a new edition.
I think coming from RPG-land, or even D&D-land, you have a different view of new editions than I do. For example, text books often change only very little from edition to edition. So little, that when I'm choosing a new textbook, I usually get annoyed that the publishers put out a new edition.
For an RPG example, Champions/The HERO System has changed very little from 1e to 6e, as far as game play goes. (Character creation has changed, but even then you can use an already created character pretty much as-is from earlier editions.)
A "new edition" doesn't need to mean a new game.
|
What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?While I wouldn't really argue against that, I also wouldn't consider it a new edition. If they're going to call something Pathfinder 2E, then it should actually be a new edition.I think coming from RPG-land, or even D&D-land, you have a different view of new editions than I do. For example, text books often change only very little from edition to edition. So little, that when I'm choosing a new textbook, I usually get annoyed that the publishers put out a new edition.
For an RPG example, Champions/The HERO System has changed very little from 1e to 6e, as far as game play goes. (Character creation has changed, but even then you can use an already created character pretty much as-is from earlier editions.)
A "new edition" doesn't need to mean a new game.
Call of Cthulhu RPG is another example. Heck, you can use 1e material with the current edition, and at worst you will have to rename two skills and swap out one spell.
I agree 100% with the original poster. I would add that the beginner box is excellent idea, but that doesn't change the need for a re-write of the Core Rulebook for ease of use. They could release it as the 3 year anniversary edition!
Archiving this post for the day when TOZ buys Book of Warfare: Tome of Seven Blades, by Paizo Publishing LLC.Dear posters advocating for a new Pathfinder edition: please stop before the developers hear you. I haven't finished buying books for the current edition yet!I have! :D
Will it have an option allowing Monks with reasonable stats the use of Greater Trip, finally?
Because after UM, I lost my hope.
It's a matter of preference.If you are so unhappy with the current Pathfinder that you want it to change drastically, what makes you think that you will enjoy a drastically different 2e?
I think that they could change 2e in a way that will make it hard to run the 1e modules and APs with it, but still not be drastically different.
Just enough that some things work different now.
I think we'll have to see how much it will change.
I am sure Pathfinder will change eventually. It isn’t going to always be “D&D 3.75”. Paizo is going to make a future edition where it most likely won’t be compatible with earlier editions in any form, I am guessing it will happen with 2e. It will basically be a new role-playing game.
No way in hell. Or abbadon. Or the abyss.
The new RPG thing is what kept lots and lots of people away from 4e. And those people become PFRPG fans. That means a lot of people are into PFRPG because it does exactly not what you're suggesting.
I love how the system works now for Pathfinder, but it will eventually have all new rules and will be it’s own beast. Just like TSR/WotC changed editions of D&D. It’s bound to happen eventually.
Before 4e, they made new editions. Sometimes, there were big changes, but it never turned into a new game.
Who knows, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Pathfinder 2e and beyond will all be compatible. But just from history, I don’t see that being the case.
History doesn't apply. Paizo is the kind of company that learns from history, instead of having to repeat it.
Dear posters advocating for a new Pathfinder edition: please stop before the developers hear you. I haven't finished buying books for the current edition yet!
Deer Sheep. Don't worry. They hear them just fine. Doesn't mean they'll jump ahead and do whatever someone scribbles on this here bathroom door.
|
|
Archiving this post for the day when TOZ buys Book of Warfare: Tome of Seven Blades, by Paizo Publishing LLC.Dear posters advocating for a new Pathfinder edition: please stop before the developers hear you. I haven't finished buying books for the current edition yet!I have! :DWill it have an option allowing Monks with reasonable stats the use of Greater Trip, finally?
Because after UM, I lost my hope.
Captain Ice Cream Croissant to the rescue!
Just rule that for Combat Expertise and follow-up feats, monks can use wis in place of int!
You are right, is the case of just start to houserule heavily.
(mine was an ironic pointing it out - just reread the Qinjong monk. Great chance to add GT with ki ALONG WITH OTHER MANEUVERS just.. ignored. WHY?)
Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. See, I consider each edition of D&D a 'new game'. Because each one is different enough where it isn't all that compatible with one another.
That is what I meant by newer editions of Pathfinder, where I feel they could make changes to it where it makes it pretty difficult to run PF 1e.
I mean, if you don't see large revisions of some sort, then it would just be PF 1.5.
But besides that, I truly do enjoy Pathfinder (1e). As KaeYoss said, it is the similarity to what is already established in 3.5 on why people like it. I look forward to many more years of it yet.
|
|
Dear posters advocating for a new Pathfinder edition: please stop before the developers hear you. I haven't finished buying books for the current edition yet!
Don't get me wrong, I want Pathfinder 1E to have a good long life cycle. I'm hoping for the better part of a decade minimum. But they will eventually put out a Pathfinder 2E, it's inevitable.
Before 4e, they made new editions. Sometimes, there were big changes, but it never turned into a new game.
If the 4E change was enough for you to consider a new game, then I have to ask why you don't consider 3E a different game from the editions prior to it, as it changed just as much about the system as the 3E => 4E transition did.
Dear posters advocating for a new Pathfinder edition: please stop before the developers hear you. I haven't finished buying books for the current edition yet!Deer Sheep. Don't worry. They hear them just fine. Doesn't mean they'll jump ahead and do whatever someone scribbles on this here bathroom door.
Yeah Pazio is not WotC.
A word about backward compatability. I have a very old character that started in 1st edition...the conversion between 1st and 2nd for the character was pretty easy(actualy I don't understand how anyone would said 1st and 2nd ed are not compatible...).
Than came the change from 2nd to 3rd....not only could I convert the character the character actualy became more defined in what the character concept was. As all my 2nd ed character that I converted from 2nd ed to 3rd ed became actualy better defined concept wise. Not only did I find it compatible I find it to be a huge improvement.
Than 4th ed came out...and that came to a screeching halt....not only did the character bared little resembalance to the concept it felt very different in play. Alot of my concepts did not seem possible in 4th ed....not even a little bit. I am sure some of them are now...but it is a little late for that now. It felt like a very different game...probably was all those sacred cows they gleefuly slaughtered...
Than came Pathfinder....and I was back playing the same game with some improvements.
If Pathfinder 2nd ed is a different game than they will loose me and probably most of my group as customers. Sure that might make very little difference to them...or heck even to us...but just saying compatability is not important when creating a new edition of the game is very short sighted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dear posters advocating for a new Pathfinder edition: please stop before the developers hear you. I haven't finished buying books for the current edition yet!Don't get me wrong, I want Pathfinder 1E to have a good long life cycle. I'm hoping for the better part of a decade minimum. But they will eventually put out a Pathfinder 2E, it's inevitable.
Before 4e, they made new editions. Sometimes, there were big changes, but it never turned into a new game.If the 4E change was enough for you to consider a new game, then I have to ask why you don't consider 3E a different game from the editions prior to it, as it changed just as much about the system as the 3E => 4E transition did.
The way it was done, and, of course, Flavour Incompatibility.
If the 4E change was enough for you to consider a new game, then I have to ask why you don't consider 3E a different game from the editions prior to it, as it changed just as much about the system as the 3E => 4E transition did.
Yeah, I have no ill-will toward 4e at all, and would play it if somebody ran it for me, and yet I do consider it to be a different game from the earlier editions.
Here's the main reason: Magic.
Magic is a completely pervasive part of the game, and 4e changes it fundamentally.
I am sorry that I didn't see this thread and get in on the discussion early on.
I just wanted to post my support for, and agreement with, the OP.
My gaming group is full of very sharp folks. I, in particular (at the risk of sounding absurdly self-aggrandizing), am very good at keeping the rules straight. Failing that, I am the one who knows where to look, and I always volunteer to find a rule and read it to the group to ensure clarity.
I tell you: they are horribly organized. Like the OP and many others, it didn't bother me much at first as it was all very familiar. However, as time goes on, I find myself wishing for a simpler system and the cause of that is the inaccessibility of the rulebook. Not really the rules themselves. The system has many flaws but, much like the democratic system of the United States, one is hard pressed to find a superior one over all. At least not one that offers a better balance of freedom and fun.
-Cheers
|
|
History doesn't apply. Paizo is the kind of company that learns from history, instead of having to repeat it.Who knows, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Pathfinder 2e and beyond will all be compatible. But just from history, I don’t see that being the case.
Like the fact that in 2000, 3.X became the biggest success for the game since 1E when they basically threw the entire existing system away and made a new one from scratch?