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.
I agree with this statement. Also, making movements simply because a competitor is making movements also displays a lack of confidence in one's own product. You should keep a watchful eye, sure, however, you don't need to release a whole new version just because they do.
I don't think even a 1.5 is needed. At most another printing incorporating all the erratas, faqs, etc. I would like to see an option for items that scale with the character, similar too paladins, etc. This could make a fun, low magic, Conan-esque campaign.
But, really, there is still too much material to build on, and not enough game
changing 'stuff' for a version 2, yet.
I do not see the need for ANY change.
I can think of a few things that need to be changed (Fighters and Rogues, iterative attacks, and full attacks.), but I don't think a whole new edition is necessary to do that.
I do not see the need for ANY change.I can think of a few things that need to be changed (Fighters and Rogues, iterative attacks, and full attacks.), but I don't think a whole new edition is necessary to do that.
Yes those are big enough changes to be called a new edition.
The only thing I think Paizo needs to do is make their rules more organized.
Maybe they should expand the beginner box.
In no way would I support a Pathfinder 2nd edition. I would happily keep my Pathfinder book and switch from running AD&D with Pathfinder and Alternity.
the last news I want to hear is another edition of a game I enjoy. That happened twice. 1st ed to second ed I enjoyed. 2nd ed to 3rd ed I surprisingly liked.
3rd ed to 4e gave me a very sour taste of edition changes, so much that I don't want them.
At worst I would like 2nd edition Pathfinder to be like a 2nd edition chemistry book. All the old stuff is in it, and we updated some minor bit.
Please no 2nd edition Pathfinder.
No thank you.
I would love a revised reprint with updated Stealth rules and some better organization. But that's it.
This. Clean up the organization and language to make things clearer, but don't make the hundreds I've spent on my favorite game anywhere close to obsolete.
If there's something about PF that you just don't find playable, houserule it. You won't find summoners or gunslingers in any game I run. The game plays fine without them.
This is the iteration I like best, and I'll happily play it until I can't roll dice anymore.
|
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?
UMMMS NO!!! UC, UM added new rules but these where NOT new editions, or updates are the same just like some of the things that add in AP's or in corrections.
I think PF 2nd edition is a great idea. Buying yet another set of "new books" just might be the push I need to get out of the RPG community I need.
It would be hard to overstate how much I dont want to see a new version of pathfinder yet. Thankfully paizo staff has repeatedly said that discussions about 2.0 arent even on the table yet. Heres hoping htey stay away for a long while.
|
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.I agree with this statement. Also, making movements simply because a competitor is making movements also displays a lack of confidence in one's own product. You should keep a watchful eye, sure, however, you don't need to release a whole new version just because they do.
Ok, so you've read the replies but not my OP? That seems odd...
Anyway, no breaking of compatibility is required. Just because D&D has broken compatibility at every edition mark doesn't imply that Pathfinder needs to. I've outlined several ways that could be approached and still add value. I'd love to see some responses to what I actually wrote if it's all the same...
|
|
It would be hard to overstate how much I dont want to see a new version of pathfinder yet. Thankfully paizo staff has repeatedly said that discussions about 2.0 arent even on the table yet. Heres hoping htey stay away for a long while.
Why does a version number scare you? I'd probably buy an updated Core and maybe the APG, but that's about it. I'd keep the vast majority of the books I already have, and continue to subscribe to whatever's new.
Pathfinder simply cannot produce an incompatible edition at this point. The nature of the Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Society is just too cumulative and their community is built too strongly on the resentment of an entire shelfload of books being invalidated by WotC.
However, that has nothing to do with producing a new edition of the rules, only with their compatibility.
APG introduced lots of rules updates and no one seemed to get upset.
How much could you improve on Pathfinder without invalidating the existing rules?
Yes those are big enough changes to be called a new edition.You need a new edition to make Pounce a feat? :P
Rewriting two classes and how both iterative attacks, and full attacks work is a bit more then making a feat.
UMMMS NO!!! UC, UM added new rules but these where NOT new editions, or updates are the same just like some of the things that add in AP's or in corrections.
Adding new rules to the core book or as you put it "Updating an edition" is pretty much what 3.5 was :)
|
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.
Ever heard the expression: "Don't try to fix what's not broken." That pretty much sums up how I feel. There is no need to change anything just because Wizards decides to come out with a new D&D. That would actually make Paizo seem like they aren't very confident in Pathfinder. All Paizo needs to do is keep coming out with great products and great customer service and they will have nothing to worry about.
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 think what that would do is give D&D 5th Edition a huge break.
The rapid release of 5th edition suggests how badly Hasbro dropped the ball (or pass the ball to Pathfinder). They made a new game simply to make a new game to sell more books - it was not a better game. It was a game to productize more mats, cards, figures and of course, books.
Now Paizo has also produced a number of these products, but they've done so to meet market demand, rather than trying to convince the market it needs a lot of stuff that it really doesn't need.
The variable "level of detail" style game discussed for 5th edition so far in regards to 5th edition sounds exactly like what it is - the attempt to recapture customers who have already moved on to something else. No longer are they trying to capture the new generation of MMO players but acknowledge that the paying market are the oldsters.
Any good edition can be given a full decade. In a decade, you can come up with refinements to almost every part of the game, and test each one to ensure that its really an improvement or not.
Adding new rules to the core book or as you put it "Updating an edition" is pretty much what 3.5 was :)
No, actually it wasn't. 3.5 was a paraphrase of 3.0 because 3.0 was so poorly written that no one could understand half the rules (AoO anyone?) and most who thought they were playing it right, weren't. It was eliminating inconsistencies that made the game seem stupid (e.g. creatures with facing when there are no rules for facing). It was Skip Williams getting sick and tired of answering the same rule questions over and over and over in Sage Advice that it was easier to just FAQ up the rules; you didn't even need the 3.5 rulebooks - you could play with the 3.0 rulebooks and the (free) 3.5 SRD.
By your excessively broad definition of "edition", PF is already at PF 27¼.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give it a few years until Paizo is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas (Ultimate Encumbrance! Advanced Ooze Handbook!).
I'd actually quite like a "Slimes Revisited" book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DnD changing editions too quickly is a downfall of theirs, not a strength. Paizo doesn't need to copy that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would only want to see a Pathfinder 2e if it were because Paizo contacted Wizards of the Coast and told them "the best thing you can do is just sell the entire Dungeons & Dragons franchise <with all it's content and copyrights, etc.> to us now for a bargain rate" and WotC said yes.
Otherwise, I would hope for a much longer cycle as many others have said between editions.
This is the time for just collecting ideas and corrections. Maybe 6-8 years down the road the release of new edition or a .5 could be called for. Adventure Paths and campaign supplements should be the bread makers for some time.
It's obvious D&D is increasing the cycle between edition releases to 3.5-5 years. Sad, since the first few editions had easily twice the life span.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to see a new version... but would love to see the current version cleaned up a bit though. Essentially taking what they did with the beginner's box and extending it to the entire rules set. Address some of the black holes in the rules and outright contradictions but no other changes.
I'm just getting some of my people talked out of 3.5 into Pathfinder. No new edition wanted or needed! Jeez!
|
|
Careful, that's practically a summoning spell to summon Cardigan.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 think what that would do is give D&D 5th Edition a huge break.
The rapid release of 5th edition suggests how badly Hasbro dropped the ball (or pass the ball to Pathfinder). They made a new game simply to make a new game to sell more books - it was not a better game. It was a game to productize more mats, cards, figures and of course, books.
Now Paizo has also produced a number of these products, but they've done so to meet market demand, rather than trying to convince the market it needs a lot of stuff that it really doesn't need.
The variable "level of detail" style game discussed for 5th edition so far in regards to 5th edition sounds exactly like what it is - the attempt to recapture customers who have already moved on to something else. No longer are they trying to capture the new generation of MMO players but acknowledge that the paying market are the oldsters.
Any good edition can be given a full decade. In a decade, you can come up with refinements to almost every part of the game, and test each one to ensure that its really an improvement or not.
Nah, this one spell was apparently removed in errata a few months ago. ;-)
|
Just because D&D has broken compatibility at every edition mark doesn't imply that Pathfinder needs to.
But D&D hasn't done that. Everything pre-d20 was fairly compatible, and 3.0 and 3.5 are very compatible. So really you're only looking at broken compatibility in the 2E -> 3.0 and 3.5 -> 4E transitions.
And frankly, if they put much emphasis on keeping compatibility, then Pathfinder 2E will have the vast majority of the problems that Pathfinder 1E has...in my opinion most of them are simply inherent to the d20 system.
The rapid release of 5th edition suggests how badly Hasbro dropped the ball (or pass the ball to Pathfinder). They made a new game simply to make a new game to sell more books - it was not a better game. It was a game to productize more mats, cards, figures and of course, books.
I'm pretty sure that the release of 4E was due to the fact that a lot of us felt there were serious problems with 3.5E, the 'money grab' claim is pure BS.
The same could be said of Paizo's release of Pathfinder- the alpha playtest began before 4E was even out. "Oh noes! Paizo is releasing their own game so they can take all my money with APs! Money Grab!!"
That being said, it doesn't mean 4E is what we were hoping for... for many it was, for many Pathfinder was more what they hoped the new game would be. I like some of each, but neither is really what I hoped. I'll be happy to play 5E, and I'd be happy to play Pathfinder 2, as well.
When it does happen, and it will that is buisness, I want it to be completly different from the ground up. I don't even care if it is remotely like it's 3.5 roots.
There is a strong team at Piazo they have proven themselves very capable. They can come up with something new and existing, yes it should probably have the same things that the designers of 5E have said would stay the same six ability scores, h.p, levels, and A.C.
Now what I do think would be a good idea is do what WOTC did and test all these new ideas in a game not Pathfinder, mix it up and do Starfinder a new and inovative sci-fi game. That way you get a long test of the new rules without pissing off the fantasy core.
When it does happen, and it will that is buisness, I want it to be completly different from the ground up. I don't even care if it is remotely like it's 3.5 roots.
There is a strong team at Piazo they have proven themselves very capable. They can come up with something new and existing, yes it should probably have the same things that the designers of 5E have said would stay the same six ability scores, h.p, levels, and A.C.
Now what I do think would be a good idea is do what WOTC did and test all these new ideas in a game not Pathfinder, mix it up and do Starfinder a new and inovative sci-fi game. That way you get a long test of the new rules without pissing off the fantasy core.
I would second that idea. Only if 5E meets its stated goal of reunifying the player base would Paizo have any reason to revisit the core concepts of Pathfinder -- until then, there is plenty to do with the current system. One hole that WotC left is in the modern/future genre -- d20 Modern was never updated to 3.5 standards, and Star Wars was too narrowly focused for more generic use (and also was not OGC). If Paizo ever runs out of things to do with standard fantasy Pathfinder (and even if they don't), then this would be a logical area to develop next.
PF 2e is a stupid idea now. In fact, PF 2e will probably be a stupid idea if it ever happens, unless it's just an updated version with some rules explained better.
Since my "No." leads the count with 13 favorites, I think we can all sleep safe knowing that the silent majority hasn't fallen asleep yet. :)
Soon to be 14 :)
Oh ... and NO.
Edit: My guess is that Pathfinder 2 would accomplish one major thing: it would cause a great exodus of subscribers.
Heck, people cancel their adventure path subscription when they don't like the plot ... there's no way they're going to deep six their subscriber base by changing the rules.
When it does happen, and it will that is buisness, I want it to be completly different from the ground up.
Sincere question: If you mean this, why are you playing Pathfinder today?
I'm playing it because I LIKE the rules. I LIKE that I can easily pull from or use other OGL material in my PF game.
The RPG line has been phenomenal. The addition of Archetypes alone has been a game changer in expanding character options. My kids got the Beginner's Box for Christmas b/c my oldest wants to run a Pathfinder game for dear old dad.
I'm a subscriber to the AP line, the RPG line, the Companion line, and now the Modules line. Why would I want to invalidate all of that material with something incompatible? Just to scratch the "new shiny" rules itch? That doesn't even cover the $$ invested in Hero Lab -- and you'll pry that great application out of my grubby GM hand when every Demon in the Abyss switches alignment to LG!
No thanks.
Pathfinder, as a RPG, is a little over 2 years old. That's right - 2, not 10!
Now, if Paizo wants to do a bigger Printing/errata clean-up "edition" in a few years that incorporates things like corrected Stealth rules, some of the AP subsystems, and tweaks -- I'm on board with that.
However, I have no desire to see, learn, or (most importantly) buy a whole new ruleset at this stage of the game. I truly don't get the "new shiny" syndrome of those clamoring for PF2.
Why would they reinvent the wheel? Unless business is drying up and its required, it would be idiotic to do so. Given that 2011 was Paizo's best year and the PF RPG is at the height of its popularity --but not peak ;) -- I fervently hope that the cries for PF 2e are treated by Paizo as nothing more than a warm breeze blowing through the forum and is quickly forgotten.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to go back to the days when a game system could be expected to go 10-12+ years before people even start to think about a new edition. This "New edition" craze is tiresome, and irritating. Games do not need to be constantly replaced. Not when the Adventure model is more sustainable and kinder to fans wallets.
I'd like to go back to the days when a game system could be expected to go 10-12+ years before people even start to think about a new edition. This "New edition" craze is tiresome, and irritating. Games do not need to be constantly replaced. Not when the Adventure model is more sustainable and kinder to fans wallets.
I criticized this on the WOTC boards after 4e was released and the next day the "What do you want with 5e threads" popped up. It just seemed ridiculous that the new shiny was given and already the ADD internet culture needed the NEXT shiny.
I'd like to go back to the days when a game system could be expected to go 10-12+ years before people even start to think about a new edition. This "New edition" craze is tiresome, and irritating. Games do not need to be constantly replaced. Not when the Adventure model is more sustainable and kinder to fans wallets.I criticized this on the WOTC boards after 4e was released and the next day the "What do you want with 5e threads" popped up. It just seemed ridiculous that the new shiny was given and already the ADD internet culture needed the NEXT shiny.
The thing about forums and internet culture is that they distort time. When you're on a web-forum, posting every day there's an over-saturation coupled with overexposure to issues that (while they are not non-problems to begin with) makes them seem much worse/prevalent/immediate than they actually are. It's the same issue that crops up when system experts apply the issues that have come up with hardcore otpmizers sit down and try to break something to casual gamers. Case and point: I have been gaming with a regular tabletop group for 2-3 years. Not once has the issue of spellcaster supremacy, alignment arguments, or underpowered fighters come up. The reason for this is that none of us have delved so deep and far into the system as to run into these issues. Does this mean they don't exist? Of course not, but it does mean that they are not as widespread, urgent, or universal as hanging out on a messageboard for awhile can make them seem.
The same sort of issues happen with Editions. Play a game, talk about it constantly and listen to the same complaints over and over (at least once a day) and the over-exposure to problems that don't even necessarily always come up in every group makes them seem dire, the material stale (you can only go over the same set of rules so much) and awakens the hunger for something new. Thus, a game that is only two years old starts to seem aged and dated, when it's still in its relative infancy.
Perspective is important. The information age accelerates everything.
|
|
I'm firmly in the "no 2nd edition pf"-camp.
I know it would alienate me at this point.
I think it would alienate a lot of other pf-customers.
So what would paizo gain? What would the fans gain?
I honestly can't see a reason for a 2nd ed. Not from either perspective...
以不变应万变
we should cope with changes by remaining unchanged
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just so I am on the record,
Master Arminas
Odd, I disagree with almost everything you said.
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.
.4) Create a richer system of specialization for skillsProvided 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...
I agree pathfinder has petty much run WoTC/TSR model.
Red box = Beginer Box, APG = Player hand book II, Ultimate Comabat = Coplete Warrior, Ultimate Magic = Complete Arcane/Complete Divine.Think about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I criticized this on the WOTC boards after 4e was released and the next day the "What do you want with 5e threads" popped up. It just seemed ridiculous that the new shiny was given and already the ADD internet culture needed the NEXT shiny.
Matt Smith had barely been announced as the Eleventh Doctor and had not even begun filming in the role before people were already speculating who the Twelfth Doctor should be.
The people who are chanting "No 2nd edition...EVER!!" amuse me. Pathfinder is a slight improvement over 3.5, but does anyone out there really believe that it simply can NOT be improved upon?