Pathfinder: 2nd ed


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Now that you-know-who is preparing for a marketing blitz around 5th edition, I think it's time for Pathfinder 2nd ed. Mostly, I think this would be a good way to capitalize on a larger marketing budget, but I could see some real value coming out of it.

Some things I think would be required:

1) Everything is backward compatible: Pathfinder has too much source material to just invalidate it all.

2) Focus on extracting common elements. For example, unify all the Wis casters into a single class with existing variations like Oracle being specific builds of the generic base.

3) Generic treasure rules are key. Make magic items a sort of character that you can build from a set of basic attributes modified by additional features.

4) Create a richer system of specialization for skills

5) Bring psionics and firearms into the core (maybe coordinate with an Adventure Path that does the same for Golarion?)

6) Demote what doesn't work well from the core, out into a new APG and move what works best from the existing APG into core.

7) Make a "as Characters" book as part of the basic set of rules books which collects all of the playable races.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think stability is the key, honestly.

Revised layout, errata and FAQ'ed to hell, I'm down for, but major version change? I think it's really early. Better to onboard all the disenfranchised players first.

Skimming your list of ideas, the skeptic in me summarized it like this:

Keep it backward compatible, but change core classes, magic items, skills, add psionics and firearms, remove core rules (an expectation in almost all supplemental material, especially AP's, modules, and scenarios)

You know what you have in mind, and maybe the changes are more subtle than I'm understanding, but... how do you propose all that without disturbing the existing materials?

Liberty's Edge

40 people marked this as a favorite.

So you think the best time to alienate customers by requiring them to purchase a whole new set of expensive books is when your biggest competitor is alienating theirs as well? Bad, bad idea.


PF is only a couple of years old at this point. Give it at least 5 more years before planning the next edition.

As for your points, I disagree with pretty much all of them. If they make a new edition, I hope it has its own creative vision in what it wants to do rather than just simplifying things.

Some things I would like to see:

- no "+1" feats or magical items
- utility spells increased in level, damage spells decreased
- more choices within classes
- skills being more dependable than magic
- more movement in combat
- allow for more variation in weapons and armor (which ties in with..)
- single to-hit/damage roll mechanic
- better rules for non-infantry combat (mounted combat, flying combat, vehicle combat, etc)
- more mechanical impact from different races and sizes of creatures

Of course, many of these are a bit "anti-MMO" which is probably a bad marketing decision today. It's just my wish list.

Silver Crusade

33 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No.


Quote:
Now that you-know-who is preparing for a marketing blitz around 5th edition, I think it's time for Pathfinder 2nd ed. Mostly, I think this would be a good way to capitalize on a larger marketing budget, but I could see some real value coming out of it.

Huh? You know it's not cheap to develop a new edition. . . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel it is a few years to early, I think once PF has been out about 5 years it would be a good time to really start working on 2e.

Now what do I want to see? I want real fixes, a overhaul of the system.

1: Do not worry about backward compatible, You can not fix real issues if you have to keep the game more or less just like the current version.

2:Less classes but more choices within classes. We do not need 5 full caster or 4 classes that are fighters variants when one robust class will do.

3: No more magic xmas tree. I want magic items to be cool but NOT needed. You should not need boost items to function.

4: I want a more robust skill system, heal that really heals and skills to have a real impact.

5:I want magic fixed, some spells need massively rebalanced. A 15th level wizard should not be 10 times more effective and have more options then the non magic classes. I do not mean fighters should fly but they should have effective options.

6: Extra attacks from BAB I want gone. Make an attack a standard action which you can take 2 per round if you want and use feats like rapid strike to allow two attacks with a standard action at a -2

7: System mastery should not be required to make an effective PC

8: A feat should be a feat, they should be roughly the same in power and not have trap options.

9: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

10:More combat options. I hit it should not be the only valid tactic, trip, push, pin, bull rush or whatever. You should have options that are not worse then "I hit it"

11: I don't want skills limited to class. You should not need a rogue to have skills or use a specific skill ( Trap finding!)

I have more but those are the ones off the top of my head.

Sovereign Court

@ 5) : never!


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I feel it is a few years to early, I think once PF has been out about 5 years it would be a good time to really start working on 2e.

Now what do I want to see? I want real fixes, a overhaul of the system.

1: Do not worry about backward compatible, You can not fix real issues if you have to keep the game more or less just like the current version.

2:Less classes but more choices within classes. We do not need 5 full caster or 4 classes that are fighters variants when one robust class will do.

3: No more magic xmas tree. I want magic items to be cool but NOT needed. You should not need boost items to function.

4: I want a more robust skill system, heal that really heals and skills to have a real impact.

5:I want magic fixed, some spells need massively rebalanced. A 15th level wizard should not be 10 times more effective and have more options then the non magic classes. I do not mean fighters should fly but they should have effective options.

6: Extra attacks from BAB I want gone. Make an attack a standard action which you can take 2 per round if you want and use feats like rapid strike to allow two attacks with a standard action at a -2

7: System mastery should not be required to make an effective PC

8: A feat should be a feat, they should be roughly the same in power and not have trap options.

9: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

10:More combat options. I hit it should not be the only valid tactic, trip, push, pin, bull rush or whatever. You should have options that are not worse then "I hit it"

11: I don't want skills limited to class. You should not need a rogue to have skills or use a specific skill ( Trap finding!)

I have more but those are the ones off the top of my head.

I don't mean this negative in any way, but why do you not simply play D&D 4th Edition? At least half of that stuff is in that game. If you don't like 4e, then how do you propose those changes are made without turning it into 4e?


Odd, I disagree with almost everything you said.

ajs wrote:
Now that you-know-who is preparing for a marketing blitz around 5th edition, I think it's time for Pathfinder 2nd ed. Mostly, I think this would be a good way to capitalize on a larger marketing budget, but I could see some real value coming out of it.

Shadowcatx already took care of this for me. I'll add, though, that just because a competitor is doing something is no reason for Paizo to do so as well. If anything, the history of TSR/Hasbro-WotC demonstrates that their business practice is the way to NOT do things.

Quote:

Some things I think would be required:

1) Everything is backward compatible: Pathfinder has too much source material to just invalidate it all.

A new edition that's backward-compatible doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since it would hardly be "new". That would be a repackaging of existing content, and I for one refuse to spend the money to re-purchase something I already own.

Quote:
2) Focus on extracting common elements. For example, unify all the Wis casters into a single class with existing variations like Oracle being specific builds of the generic base.

Uhm, what? Oracle is a CHA-caster.

WIS-casters: cleric, druid, ranger. I don't see any way these classes could be unified given how drastically different their core class mechanics function.

Quote:
3) Generic treasure rules are key. Make magic items a sort of character that you can build from a set of basic attributes modified by additional features.

If you're looking for a system less reliant on "mundane" magical items (+1 longsword, +2 Chainmail, etc) where magical items have magical effects, I guess I could see that.

Quote:
4) Create a richer system of specialization for skills

Provided I'm interpreting what you're saying here correctly, this is exactly the opposite of what Pathfinder did from D&D 3.5. Search, spot, listen were rolled into Perception - and thank God for that! How often did you take Use Rope?

Quote:
5) Bring psionics and firearms into the core (maybe coordinate with an Adventure Path that does the same for Golarion?)

You're going to have to expand on this. Firearms were given coverage in UC, which I would consider "core". Psionics, though, isn't even on the horizon at this point - which is just fine with me.

Quote:
6) Demote what doesn't work well from the core, out into a new APG and move what works best from the existing APG into core.

You're going to have to explain (again) what you mean by "core", here.

Also, many of the things that do work well in the APG are part of the "Advanced" that really don't need to be in the CRB. I don't need my newb players getting confused by archtypes or building eidolans when they can barely make a CRB character.

Quote:
7) Make a "as Characters" book as part of the basic set of rules books which collects all of the playable races.

So, a Player's Handbook where the GM stuff is removed in favor of the Advanced Races Guide?


Trikk wrote:
I don't mean this negative in any way, but why do you not simply play D&D 4th Edition? At least half of that stuff is in that game. If you don't like 4e, then...

4e is not the only game to do half or more of that and You can do it without it being 4e. You could do most or all of that and it still look like PF.

What screams 4e to you? Good chance some other system did it first.


Alderac Entertainment's Spycraft had rules that allowed you to have a critical success with a skill check and the feats that give a +2 to several skills all increased the skill threat range (as well as a few other feats). I think critical successes for skills and revised crafting rules based on the actual time and effort it takes to turn raw materials into processed goods are the two things pathfinder should have that it does not.


Macharius wrote:

what you mean by "core", here.

Core in every single game system means the book you need to run the game. Not spates but the minimum book you need. In d&D it is 3 books, pathfinder is 2. Almost every other game its just the main book.


rat_ bastard wrote:
Alderac Entertainment's Spycraft had rules that allowed you to have a critical success with a skill check and the feats that give a +2 to several skills all increased the skill threat range (as well as a few other feats). I think critical successes for skills and revised crafting rules based on the actual time and effort it takes to turn raw materials into processed goods are the two things pathfinder should have that it does not.

Spycraft is made by crafty games. Take a gander at Fantasycraft if you get time. I think you might like it.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
rat_ bastard wrote:
Alderac Entertainment's Spycraft had rules that allowed you to have a critical success with a skill check and the feats that give a +2 to several skills all increased the skill threat range (as well as a few other feats). I think critical successes for skills and revised crafting rules based on the actual time and effort it takes to turn raw materials into processed goods are the two things pathfinder should have that it does not.
Spycraft is made by crafty games. Take a gander at Fantasycraft if you get time. I think you might like it.

Crafty games which is a breakaway company of Alderac that made the spycraft I was referring too. I have taken a good look at fantasy craft and it is far too rules bloated for me. Alderac writes incredibly well thought out d20 rules but it writes far too many of them.

That said the Critical successes for skills was elegant and simple and would make rogues and other skill monkeys more effective without diminishing other classes.


To anyone who thinks a new edition of Pathfinder should come out any sooner than when Paizo feels like they've fully complemented this version:

Krusty says...


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

4e is not the only game to do half or more of that and You can do it without it being 4e. You could do most or all of that and it still look like PF.

What screams 4e to you? Good chance some other system did it first.

Of course other games have done it, but 4e did those changes from 3.x which Pathfinder is based on. I don't see how you can do the same changes as 3.x->4e with PF->PF2 without failing as badly as 4e did.

These are the changes that feel distinctly 4e:

Spoiler:
1: Do not worry about backward compatible, You can not fix real issues if you have to keep the game more or less just like the current version.

5:I want magic fixed, some spells need massively rebalanced. A 15th level wizard should not be 10 times more effective and have more options then the non magic classes. I do not mean fighters should fly but they should have effective options.

6: Extra attacks from BAB I want gone. Make an attack a standard action which you can take 2 per round if you want and use feats like rapid strike to allow two attacks with a standard action at a -2

7: System mastery should not be required to make an effective PC

8: A feat should be a feat, they should be roughly the same in power and not have trap options.

9: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

10:More combat options. I hit it should not be the only valid tactic, trip, push, pin, bull rush or whatever. You should have options that are not worse then "I hit it"

11: I don't want skills limited to class. You should not need a rogue to have skills or use a specific skill ( Trap finding!)

They are changes that both play up the game part of role playing game, while at the same time making it less interesting to play it since you don't have to consider your options or how you build your character.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

No

Don't fix what is not broken.

Just no.


PF 2E...

...Feats that improve as one advances in level, rather than having to pursue a feat tree to do the same thing.

...attacks that function as they do in Star Wars Saga; everyone gets a single attack, but when take the opportunity to attack multiple times in the same round ALL attacks are decreased in accuracy depending on the number of attacks - two attacks, both attacks at -5; three attacks, all three attacks at -10; 4 attacks, all attacks at -15.

...AC and attribute limits. Right now they get pretty ridiculous. Say 40 for AC and somewhere in the 20s for attributes.

...Eliminate prestige classes and rather go for prestige abilities that can be taken in place of a feat if prerequisites are met.

...Two combat systems, one where combats can be run more cinematic and fluid with little crunch and one that is as complex crunchy and as tactical as it is now...it'd be nice to run a combat with a group facing multiple foes that didn't take the whole frigging session and have maybe a minute of time to have passed

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the OP: good god no!

Let WotC release 5ed and wait until the dust settles to review the battlefield. Paizo are in great shape at the moment with the release of the Beginners Box.

Hopefully, 2nd ed. for Pathfinder will be a clarification of the rules, perhaps using the presentation of the Beginners Box, and a chance to use some of the modifications to the rules that they would have like to have in Pathfinder but could not because of compatibility.

My opinion is that Pathfinder 2ed should not be compatible with Pathfinder, but should be convertible, so that all of the old APs can be used with simple updates done according to a free PDF.


Just wanted to point out that the arguments on this thread are exactly why WOTC is trying to make the next edition the "end all" edition. Their approach of modular rules that cater to any "school" of RPGamer and (somewhat) open playtesting are their answer to the "no one can ever agree on how the rules should be laid out" problem.

Note to Paizo: Don't change what you're doing. Sure you may lose a few customers to the New and Exciting Modular edition, but if there's one thing I've learned from RPGames it's that you can't ever do everything perfectly. Sometimes stoic and unflinching movement in the same direction is what will keep you strong, and separate you from those that want to try and cater to every possible opinion. Opinions, after all, are like butts, everybody's got one, and they usually stink.


Trikk wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

4e is not the only game to do half or more of that and You can do it without it being 4e. You could do most or all of that and it still look like PF.

What screams 4e to you? Good chance some other system did it first.

Of course other games have done it, but 4e did those changes from 3.x which Pathfinder is based on. I don't see how you can do the same changes as 3.x->4e with PF->PF2 without failing as badly as 4e did.

These are the changes that feel distinctly 4e:

** spoiler omitted **

They are changes that both play up the game part of role playing game, while at the same time making it less interesting to play it since you don't have to consider your options or how you build your character.

Let me addressees these.

1: This is how new editions often work, they can be BC but do not need to be. If the system has flaws that need addressed ( and it does) then worry about making it BC does not fix those. BC is an extra not a mandate.

5: Many, many systems do this. A simple rebalanced of the spells handles with without effecting much at all. You do not need to kill vancan(sp) casting even, just fix the spells. Which are all over the place in power scale.

6: This is one of the most common adjustments to the d20 system. Changing this really effects very little, except melee classes hit more often and get more options.

7: I am not sure how this is a bad thing? You could still optimize but you should not have to just to be effective.

8: Also not sure how this is bad? Why should you feel like you wasted a feat? How is not knowing how x feat will effect you in 10 levels a 4e thing or not having sucktastic feats only new folks who know no better take them a good thing?

9: Been done by more then one person for 3e, Saga did it, which kinda went to 4e, but monte cook did it as well. Having hp divided into Vitality/wounds ( which even paizo has done) and allowing the first to be recovered with healing or rest at a fast rate is not a 4e thing.

10: Been played with by many, many games. Even paizo has played around with it as combat maneuvers. Not sure how having combat option is bad or 4e.

11: Also not sure how this is bad or 4e like. You should not have to have a rogue to find traps when you have 11 ranks in it but can't find something you should be able to because you are not a set class.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want a new edition. It is not necessary.


Quite possibly the worst idea I've heard in a long time. The only reason Wizards is creating 5e is because 4e is bombing so hard; they have to or they'll have no business. Paizo is doing well; they're still coming up with new quality content.


I agree, making a new edition just because someone else is, well that is a bad idea. But once Pathfinder is out about 5 years or so.....


Is 5ed already that close? I thought its just a rumor until now.


Gorbacz wrote:
No.

YES!!


Don't really see the need for an overhaul to Pathfinder. It generally works, people can play with it, and I think customers are pretty happy with it. There are times when a rule here or there could be better, but those can be updated in supplemental books without a rules overhaul.

Just because something can be changed doesn't mean it should be changed. Updates for the sake of updates, because "it's been out long enough" aren't a good idea. Updates should occur when there's either a very strong demand for an update or a very strong necessity for an update. Pathfinder has neither condition.

I'd much rather have Pathfinder continue in its current version with gradual updates to the system through the ongoing Pathfinder Roleplaying Game product line, until eventually there is necessity of consolidating those updates with the Core Rules into a new Rules Compendium or Revised Core Rules. It's a more organic process than rolling over a new edition.

Dark Archive

Icyshadow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
No.
YES!!

NO!


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, I would love to see a new version of Pathfinder. There are a few issues in the ruleset that can really only be fixed with a new edition. For example: the focus on standing still and doing iterative attacks needs to be removed and feats need to be restructured so some characters don't get 'taxed' just for wanting to do something a little different from the norm (I'm looking at you weapon finesse). Sure, we can live with these issues, but why live with them if they can be fixed?

However, I do think it is still a bit too early. Maybe in 2 or 3 more years...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

if(is_number_an_integer(todays_date) == true){
post_new_thread("Time for 2e Pathfinder!");
}

:P

(PS: Hey, Postmonster! How am I s'posed to make pseudocode jokes with no [code] tags?!)

Lantern Lodge

The game is just fine how it is. I do not want to go down the same road as d&d did have you not seen what happens?? if you feel like some changes should me made just do them your self. "home brew"


What a horrible idea. I would describe how but I can't do it without vast amounts of profanity.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No thank you.

I would love a revised reprint with updated Stealth rules and some better organization. But that's it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Leave the game alone. Just play it. I'm not buying any more "new editions" of games I already enjoy. The adventures are the point, remember?


Absolutely not! Houserule what you want, don't use what doesn't make sense to you, but leave the baseline alone. The one thing Paizo has done well has kept it awesome and fun, and in everybook they say use these rules this way if you want. Paizo is awesome because they love their players. Don't ever screw this game up by making another edition. Print updated books now 20% more awesome, but put down your torches that are raised in an effort to find fault and lift your mugs of ale to the amazing awesome game that is Pathfinder RPG, and to quote my mother "go out and play."
FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME MAN!


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think Paizo should take a "wait and see" position, at least until D&D 5E has been released and its effect on the RPG market can be evaluated. The only reason to take action would be if the new game does well, it has a licensing system that is sufficiently open for Paizo to take advantage of, and it offers some goodies that Paizo would have reason to incorporate directly into the Pathfinder game. If any of these three conditions are not met, then the best thing for Paizo to do is continue developing what they have.

Liberty's Edge

That's a horrible idea. Why would Paizo want to give people more reason to switch to D&D 5th Edition? If they even feel the need to release a new edition, they should do it right in the middle of D&D 5's life cycle. That way people's options will be to stick with original Pathfinder, switch to Pathfinder v2, or switch to D&D v5 which will be revised fairly soon.

That said, I don't see any need for a second edition of Pathfinder right now. Paizo has a nice income stream with the APs and such and there's still a lot of building out they can do with Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

NO WAY to a new edition.

I think that PF is a great revision of what was a great system in 3.x DND. The additions they made were stellar. I do not want to just reset things and begin power creep all overagain, have to invest in a new set of books (which now further makes the hundreds of dollars worth of 3.x books further obsolete). PF for me worked because it in my view was the option dedicated rpg folks wanted to play as an alternative to the direction that 4e DND took.

What I do want. Content, quality content build on what exists in a meaningful way the rules exist and they are very good at most things. A new campaign world, low magic options, modern campaign world all of these would be far more welcomed by me than a new edition.

I would welcome the existing rules reorganized so that new ideas that are used often from extraneous scources are married into the core.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

NO!!!
1) WotC's DnD department is the measure of what NOT to do by this point. Paizo is doing a beyond awesome job and honestly this is the first time I've ever heard of WotC DnD doing playtesting, likely because they see it's working so well for Paizo.

2) It's FAR too soon. When Pathfinder has been out about 8 years then we can look and see if we need an overhaul.


ajs wrote:


1) Everything is backward compatible . . .

2) . . .unify all the Wis casters into a single class with existing variations like Oracle being specific builds of the generic base.

3) Generic treasure rules are key. Make magic items a sort of character that you can build from a set of basic attributes modified by additional features.

4) Create a richer system of specialization for skills

5) Bring psionics and firearms into the core . . .

6) Demote what doesn't work well from the core . . .

7) Make a "as Characters" book as part of the basic set of rules books which collects all of the playable races.

I disagree with six of your seven goals.

I don't understand what you wrote in #3.

Shadow Lodge

Oh, is it time for this argument again? Already?


Give it a few years until Paizo is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas (Ultimate Encumbrance! Advanced Ooze Handbook!).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ajs wrote:

Now that you-know-who is preparing for a marketing blitz around 5th edition, I think it's time for Pathfinder 2nd ed. Mostly, I think this would be a good way to capitalize on a larger marketing budget, but I could see some real value coming out of it.

I see Paizo taking a very long look at what's happened to WOTC and saying to themselves.

"Do we really want to fracture our player base the way they did?"

"Are we better off leaving the minority grumbling about a 2nd edition, then spawning our own set of Edition Wars?"

Quite frankly, I don't see a point of a 2nd edition that's mechanically different from the first.

Maybe clarify and repackage the existing ruleset.. But we don't need a 2nd edition... ever.


Sleet Storm wrote:
Is 5ed already that close? I thought its just a rumor until now.

Nope. It's been confirmed.

Sovereign Court

IF Paizo decides to release 2.0 in the next 2 or 3 years even... I won't buy any more. It is time to say Enough is enough. let WoTC hang themselves and leave PF alone. OK to add some new rules or update editions but NO NEW Editions! I will boycott as will many others.


IceniQueen wrote:
OK to add some new rules or update editions but NO NEW Editions!

Umm what? You do understand both things you listed would count as new editions correct?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
IceniQueen wrote:
IF Paizo decides to release 2.0 in the next 2 or 3 years even... I won't buy any more. It is time to say Enough is enough. let WoTC hang themselves and leave PF alone. OK to add some new rules or update editions but NO NEW Editions! I will boycott as will many others.

I second this. We dont need another edition. The reason PFRPG exists is because the constant edition evolution hurt the other guys REALLY BAD, give it a rest already!

Maybe some sort of rules/faq compilation perhaps 4+ years down the line. But I personally prefer the FAQ format online on the paizo website.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do not see the need for ANY change.


TOZ wrote:
Oh, is it time for this argument again? Already?

That's what I said, but I said it nerdier. :P

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder: 2nd ed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.