Pathfinder revised edition in 2014?


Homebrew and House Rules


Pathfinder rulebook was released in 2009, so what about a revised edition in 2014??
Offering full compatibility with already existing products, I don't think there'll be a need for big changes but definitely some improvement would be useful.

IT MIGHT INCLUDE:
- a better balance between the classical races (10RP for all, no less no more);
- keeping only Good, Neutral and Evil for alignment (getting, officially, rid of Lawful and Chaotic);
- introducing synergy bonus for skills;
- redefining and adding a few more skills to replace the blurry Profession skill;
- development of craft and masterwork items (to "create" a broad category in between normal and magical items);
- rethinking the concept of exotic weapons (removing from that category, but not from rules, any weapon offering nothing significantly better than an existing martial weapon could);
- introducing a few new rules improvement like "the ultimatum" (as developed on Paizo forum);

- some new illustrations (in addition or instead of existing ones);
- a book also available as a leather bound collector edition,

Anything else??...


I always felt it was unfair to humans that they only got 9 RP worth of racial benefits. They need more if they're going to be able to keep up with the other core races.

Mathematically speaking, humans would be perfectly balanced if we gave them darkvision and light sensitivity in addition to their current traits.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wrong forum.

Liberty's Edge

This is the wrong forum, but I like the idea.

Not a new edition, just a new version. Fully compatible, cleaning up the rough edges and redesigning the core rulebook.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Angstspawn wrote:

Pathfinder rulebook was released in 2009, so what about a revised edition in 2014??

Might be a good idea! My rulebook is showing some signs of aging already so I might have to pick up a new around that time anyways!

About some of your suggestions:

Angstspawn wrote:

IT MIGHT INCLUDE:

- a better balance between the classical races (10RP for all, no less no more);

IMHO, people shouldn't try to balance everything with everything. In the end, playing a character who is at a disadvantage in some areas can be great fun! And also, if everything is balanced and there are only equally powerful options, choosing becomes somewhat irrevelant.

Angstspawn wrote:
- keeping only Good, Neutral and Evil for alignment (getting, officially, rid of Lawful and Chaotic);

Now why would you want to do that? It would take out possible tension between characters who share a general morale (good/evil) but disagree in a lot of different aspects (lawful/chaos).

Angstspawn wrote:

- introducing synergy bonus for skills;

I think the skills are already streamlined enough to work without synergies.

Angstspawn wrote:

- development of craft and masterwork items (to "create" a broad category in between normal and magical items);

Crafting needs a good overhaul in general, I agree with that.

Angstspawn wrote:

- some new illustrations (in addition or instead of existing ones);

- a book also available as a leather bound collector edition,

Uh yes, please!

Of course this only reflects my point of view, YMMV.

Two suggestions of my own:


  • a new and improved character sheet for each core class
  • flow charts of combat maneuvers


I certainly hope nothing drastic is done rule-wise to Pathfinder at any point. There is nothing wrong with the current races as is, I'm glad skill synergies are out as they were a pain and the 3x3 alignment system is still great for what it models. Alignment was already broken by Wizards with 4E.. Paizo doesn't need to take a crack at breaking it too.

I do agree that crafting needs to be overhauled. Everyone probably agrees with that. :)


on my wishlist:

-the balancing is ok, not prefect, but it works
-keep lawful and chaotic
-i hated synergy rules in 3.5, please
-clarifing craft skills and maybe profession skills, how they work
-the exotic weapon idea is great, make them "normal" and add mastery feats for them

-the harder you hit the more damage you make
-a working develop-your-own-spell-system
-an option to create your own character class
-killing weapon finesse
-make combat expertise, power attack and deadly aim a normal combat option
-killing HD, make fixed HP per level


I'd prefer a revision of the core rules where the book is more intuitive to use (I really like the Beginner Box format)
And maybe throw in a new craft system

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Roberta Yang wrote:

I always felt it was unfair to humans that they only got 9 RP worth of racial benefits. They need more if they're going to be able to keep up with the other core races.

Mathematically speaking, humans would be perfectly balanced if we gave them darkvision and light sensitivity in addition to their current traits.

Human ... weaker than other races ... doesn't compute.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Or we can just realize the pricing in the race guide wasn't perfect.

Nor do I think it could have been. Synergies are nearly impossible to price, and race balance is more art than science.

I do think enough time has passes to make the Core Rulebook due for an update. Let me be clear.

I DO NOT WANT A NEW EDITION.

But I do think with 5 years of "playtesting" of the changes, combined with lessons learned, mean that if Paizo now were doing the Core Rulebook, it would be different enough to warrent a new version.

If you can do a lessons learned re-release of RoTRL you can do the same with the core rulebook, with the following caveat.

The new book must be fully compatible with the published APs.


I don't really want a new edition. I'm pretty sure it would split up the community a lot.

Also, home rules home rules home rules.

The Exchange

Not a bad idea. Cleaned up errated, and included some of the optional rules like the new hiding rules, etc would be welcome.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Moved thread.


Marthian wrote:
I don't really want a new edition. I'm pretty sure it would split up the community a lot.

If you're giving Humans +2 bonus in two abilities and remove Linguistic, if you consider Kopesh sword a martial weapon (all this is just an example) I hardly believe it will split up the community.

Pathfinder rules are at least excellent but if we can improve some details that won't change the full compatibility I see no reason not to do it.

Marthian wrote:
Also, home rules home rules home rules.

I'd say the community first!

Maybe you, Marthian, have wonderful home rules. Maybe you were experiencing some limitations or blurry part you needed to clear. Why not then offering everyone to benefit from your experience?
Good ideas not changing the nature nor the compatibility of the game deserve to be officially inserted in the rules.

Concerning balancing races, it's not to give low-light vision to Humans (there are many other ways to balance races). Balancing races is like balancing classes, it improves everyone's pleasure.

Soon or later (I hope soon) Paizo will be out of stock of rulebooks, so why not taking advantage of it to print a slightly improved book?

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A rpg system that doesn't "update" every 5 years sounds better to me.

For revisions, very clearly defining what each and every spell does, the current system leaves things very unclear on some spells. Also removing bad feats and pre reqs.


Angstspawn wrote:
If you're giving Humans +2 bonus in two abilities and remove Linguistic,

why


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why care about balancing races? There are a lot of intangible benefits/penalties to being races, depending on region, the attitude of the GM, etc. I for one don't need it to be "mathematically sound", that sounds like we're moving into more clear-cut board/miniature game rule territory.

And I don't think that lawful/neutral/chaos should EVER be done away with. If anything I wish more people role-played better and the alignment system was even deeper (this will never happen), but it's the difference between a devil and a demon, good bards and clerics, and everything else. This would make no sense to get rid of.


I utterly disagree with removing Lawful and Chaotic. If ANY alignment were going out the window, it should be Good and Evil, but I'm too much in love with the designs for the outsiders in PF to ever get rid of them completely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Actually, get rid of neutral, especially CN.

I have seen so many PC's pick some other alignment and then continue to play making CN choices all over the place and act surprised when I start enforcing alignment shifts.


I'll leave arguing the finer points of game balance to others more suited to it, but I would like to see another overhaul on maneuvers. CMB/CMD was a step step forward and I want to see it move to the next level. As is, a player will rarely perform a manever without support from feats. I want them to become better options for characters other than fighters and monks.

Removing ability score requirements for the feats would help, even if it was only lifted from the Improved series of feats.

Creating a feat that gave a +4 to ac vs AoOs from performing a maneuver would make them more attractive


Anthony Adam wrote:

Actually, get rid of neutral, especially CN.

I have seen so many PC's pick some other alignment and then continue to play making CN choices all over the place and act surprised when I start enforcing alignment shifts.

But that would force every creature and character into LG, CG, LE, and CE, and still wouldn't solve the problem of players not roleplaying. If anything, that would make the problem worse.


Leave alignments be, ignore them if you wish in your own homebrew *we do somewhat, and it gets complicated because of it)

I say don't fix what isn't broken- there's plenty of errata already noted to tweak.

Humans- first of all boring in my humble opinion. Not a fan of man! The only advantage you humans have over the other races is adaptability, numbers, and divine support (at least, back when paladins were human only)

After the D&D 4.0 travesty (that got me into Pathfinder in the first place) I'm a little apprehensive of rewrites, if you'll excuse me for it!


As far as balancing the races is concerned, you might want to look at this.

BTW, I would want to keep Lawful and Chaotic. They make the shades of alignment more interesting and descriptive. Besides, doing otherwise would put the proteans and axiomites are on the same side, i.e. neutral.

Liberty's Edge

Angstspawn wrote:
Marthian wrote:
I don't really want a new edition. I'm pretty sure it would split up the community a lot.

If you're giving Humans +2 bonus in two abilities and remove Linguistic, if you consider Kopesh sword a martial weapon (all this is just an example) I hardly believe it will split up the community.

Pathfinder rules are at least excellent but if we can improve some details that won't change the full compatibility I see no reason not to do it.

Marthian wrote:
Also, home rules home rules home rules.

I'd say the community first!

Maybe you, Marthian, have wonderful home rules. Maybe you were experiencing some limitations or blurry part you needed to clear. Why not then offering everyone to benefit from your experience?
Good ideas not changing the nature nor the compatibility of the game deserve to be officially inserted in the rules.

Concerning balancing races, it's not to give low-light vision to Humans (there are many other ways to balance races). Balancing races is like balancing classes, it improves everyone's pleasure.

Soon or later (I hope soon) Paizo will be out of stock of rulebooks, so why not taking advantage of it to print a slightly improved book?

The Pathfinder Core Rules has already sold out many times - it's currently in, what .. it's 5th printing or something now?

Grand Lodge

I look forward to pathfinder 2.o but if this is gonna be .5 edition I'd rather see them just make an Ultimate Core which consolidates the important core changes that came from other books.

...

Or dey c'n mek dem big changes dat just piss people off an den i mek a new game called Awesome usin all deez rulz dat a'redy exist an you be play dat next year.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It still amuses me how people on this forum utterly ream WotC for releasing something like Essentials, but then turn around and actually request Pathfinder 1.5: The Cash Grab Edition.

Grand Lodge

Wutz 'essentials' who is 'WotC' an' why you face so ugly?


Kthulhu wrote:
It still amuses me how people on this forum utterly ream WotC for releasing something like Essentials, but then turn around and actually request Pathfinder 1.5: The Cash Grab Edition.

Maybe they're not the same people...

There'll be a change in 2014, D&D Next will be released and will confront Pathfinder. Maybe the new edition will be a "failure" like the 4th edition but Pathfinder would be well inspired to release something "new" at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, while they are over 10 years old I love the D&D3 rules but to use the experience of players and the skills of Paizo team to make, once again, a move forward is needed.
Those thinking classical RPG is not obsolete in front of MMORPG should understand there's a need to rethink (or at least redesign) a game every 5-7 years.
I'm not asking Paizo to remake everything (far from it) but to add a few new dishes on menu and refresh the walls.

Money?? The day we stop spending it, the day they stop earning it our cherished hobby will be over. Moreso RPG are much cheaper than what they were 25 years ago and at that time most of us were not working.

If you say better not to touch it than making it worse I totally agree with you, but I believe Paizo has the competence to make it better, so why not asking for it?


I'm a bigger fan of adding more extreme layers to the alignment system. A demon is evil in ways regular people really need to work hard to achieve. So levels called angelic, infernal would be good. I have trouble thinking about law/chaos in the same way though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh man! Where to start?

- Drop ability scores, just use modifiers

- Split WISDOM into AWARENESS and WILLPOWER

- Split DEXTERITY into DEXTERITY (hand-eye) and AGILITY (overall body)

- make attack rolls and AC depent on several abilities (STR+DEX /2, or something similar)

- make BAB a skill

- base AC of BAB

- base crits on attack roll vs. AC

- armor as DR

- armor does not reduce speed/max.DEX/ACP but encumbrance does

- medium/heavy load reduces your DEX (and therefore your AC)

- more realistic encumbrance thresholds

- Make feats actually mean something! (Feat: A specialized action the character can perform, not a simple bonus on a roll)

- Maybe a feat per level or a mechanic to acquire feats out of the line (pay EXP or something)

- drop spell slots use mana/fatigue/whatever

- Merge all spell lists

- Rebalance all schools (Healing -> Necromancy, Protective spells (mage armor, any wall, ...) -> Abjuration, Creation -> Transmutation, ...)

- More size categories, maybe even a size score instead

...

Haters gonna hate.


I'd like to see a new edition some time, so long as it really was a new edition, rather than a new game with the old brand. It's probably not time yet, but some time, hell yes.

I wouldn't want any huge changes of direction, but over time more and more parts of pathfinder are turning out to be flawed, as is inevitable with any game.

Here's what I hope will eventually come around:
[list]

  • A boost for the weakest classes and options while weakening anything that's a bit too good. Mostly the former.
  • Reorganising things so core is a bit slimmer and more manageable
  • Putting more variety in core. For example maybe not 2 wis based divine prepared full casters in the same book. Wizard and sorcerer in different books too, to make room for something like the magus, alchemist or witch.
  • Clarify problematic language and correct known inconsistencies and oversights in the rules
  • Better layout. Far from easy but proven possible
  • Fix skills that don't work. Right now steal and craft are ridiculous.
  • Freedom from 3.5 compatibility concerns. This was a serious limitation on Pathfinder when it was first released, but now it seems much less of a concern. Bigger departures from the parts of 3E D&D that didn't work so well are now possible. From here on the game need only stay true to itself.
  • Fix multiclass spellcasting. Remove prestige classes from the core book. Make anything you need them for possible using core base class options and put them in the APG equivalent. Once you don't need them just to multiclass, they're pretty much the definition of a nifty extra that's not a required part of the game.


  • I agree about the freedom from 3.5 compatability. At the time, it made sense and was a big selling point. Now though, the need to keep something for "legacy" reasons just isn't as much of a concern. I don't think we really need Paizo to be the 3.5 torchbearer anymore; or even 3.75.


    I agree.

    I think a new pathfinder would be good.

    but like the economy the devil is in the details.

    I mean.. lets consider a simple change like Armor as DR. I think thats great... but the entire armor system would then have to be revamped... not so difficult... except then you have to revamp the weapons and spell damage system to balance. oh... and not to mention feats, and abilities that takes a lot of thought and play testing.

    I can see a 1.5 version. if one were done the idea would be (in my eyes) a consolidation and revamping of the current system without consideration to 3.5 and taking into account the 5 years of feed back found on these boards. Not so much inventing new rules but a spell by spell, feat by feat skil by skill super eratta of everything. These boards are FULL of those issues and YES some things will be controversial as clear battle lines exist but I think it would make for a better game.

    some things just need to be clarified, some things have to be redefined, others brought into alignment with similar or opposed abilities and yes maybe some things chucked entirely.

    Silver Crusade

    I want to see how D&D 5 does before suggesting any changes.


    I think D&D 5 is going in a completely different direction.

    they are abandoning the more and more specific rules path and going back to the make it up as you go along more open ended rules of 1st and 2nd ed.

    I think pathfinder is justified in continuing the rule bassed game. not that its better but its a nich with a good following and works well. updating, clarifying and revamping those rules is just the nature of the beast.

    I dont think pathfinder need ever consider D&D in future operations again except purely as a competitor not for mechanical consideration.

    The Exchange

    I think going all out for a full new edition is a bit much. A nice neat revised, errataed book. That's all I ask. really. Maybe with clarification, tight examples, and years of experience with the material.


    DracoDruid wrote:

    Oh man! Where to start?

    - Drop ability scores, just use modifiers

    - Split WISDOM into AWARENESS and WILLPOWER

    - Split DEXTERITY into DEXTERITY (hand-eye) and AGILITY (overall body)

    - make attack rolls and AC depent on several abilities (STR+DEX /2, or something similar)

    - make BAB a skill

    - base AC of BAB

    - base crits on attack roll vs. AC

    - armor as DR

    - armor does not reduce speed/max.DEX/ACP but encumbrance does

    - medium/heavy load reduces your DEX (and therefore your AC)

    - more realistic encumbrance thresholds

    - Make feats actually mean something! (Feat: A specialized action the character can perform, not a simple bonus on a roll)

    - Maybe a feat per level or a mechanic to acquire feats out of the line (pay EXP or something)

    - drop spell slots use mana/fatigue/whatever

    - Merge all spell lists

    - Rebalance all schools (Healing -> Necromancy, Protective spells (mage armor, any wall, ...) -> Abjuration, Creation -> Transmutation, ...)

    - More size categories, maybe even a size score instead

    ...

    Haters gonna hate.

    Wow DracoDruid, I've agreed with you here and there on the boards. But I never would have imagined that we want almost the exact same bastard child perversion of the Pathfinder rules. :)


    :P

    I don't see it as a bastard child. It's simply evolution. As <EnterNameHere> already said: Backwards-Compatibility was certainly an issue for the first PF edition, to get as many 3.5 players as possible.

    But now, with a well established fan-base, I see no reason why NOT to change "core" things to make the game better.

    It's simple. Look at what's bugging people the most AND. CHANGE. IT.


    "What's bugging people most" is largely either very difficult to change, kinda small in the grand scheme of things or controversial. That's why it hasn't been fixed already.


    I'd like a better feat system:
    - Remove any Improved and Greater versions
    - Incorporate their benefits in the original feat
    - Make these benefits obtainable as the characters levels up and meets the appropriate prerequisites.

    If I would take TWF for instance, it would grant the usual benefits, but instead of having to take imp. TWF, the original TWF feat would become Imp. TWF as soon as I get Dex 17 and a BAB +6, and then become Greater TWF as son as I get Dex 19 and a BAB +11.

    I mean, let's face it, why WOULDN'T a player take the Improved and Greater feats once he's started with the orignal feat? Might as well remove that and have the feats becoming stronger according their users.

    Not all feats would be like that, but that would eliminate a lot of them.


    I don't really think a new edition is likely or even needed. As Mortuum pointed out, the stuff mentioned is either a major change that'd alter game play, a minor change that any reasonable DM ought to allow, or something that's going to cause drama (which most changes tend to do anyway).

    However, since I do like the bandwagon, I might as well jump on.

    -Separate Manual Dexterity from Bodily Agility. There's a difference between fine and gross motor skills, and this would allow a race (like Dwarves) to have bad Agility (they're not exactly graceful) but good manual finesse (for creating jewelry).

    -Create the Dweomer and Pistic abilities which serve as the basis for arcane and divine magic respectively (instead of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma).

    -Rename the Barbarian 'Berserker'

    -Rename the Paladin 'Divine Knight' and include variants for the nine alignments, probably with asides on why you shouldn't do a catch 22 every time a Good-aligned Divine Knight player tries to do something. ("Oh you didn't kill the evil creature because it's tied up? Fall from grace!" "Oh, you killed the evil creature while it was tied up? Fall from grace!")

    -Create a book of Classes, a book of Races, a book of Magic, and a book of Monster

    -In the book of Classes, include all the classes and add some more oriental ones like the Samurai and Ninja (though the latter could be a flavored Assassin). At the end there should be something to show how to create new classes.

    -In the book of Races include all creatures that could potentially work as a race, which means including Goblinoids, Orcs, Centaurs, Lizardfolk and so on. At the end there should be a section on creating new races that's more comprehensive than the current race creator guide. Among races based on real life legends/myths/tales there could be a side note of where they come from originally and how they're seen in that culture.

    -In the book of Spells would be all spells currently, as well as a section on making new spells at the end. Alternative schools of magic and domains would probably also be here.

    -In the book of Monsters would be all things that can't be a race for whatever reasons. At the end would be a monster creator. Among creatures based on real life legends/myths/tales there could be a side note of where they come from originally and how they're seen in that culture.

    -Craft ranging from mundane to magical. In most tales, magic items can be made by knowing the right materials rather than using spells, though spells would probably play some part.


    The problem is, we're seeing the same arguements over the same stuff over and over and over again with no resolution and people getting more and more up-in-arms about it. We're starting to hit a point we're doing nothing is going to have a higher cost than making a change. The drama's already here and it's not getting better by keeping things as they are.

    To people who have been following PF since day 1 it might not seem so bad but to many new players PF looks like a mess.

    Silver Crusade

    Angstspawn wrote:

    Pathfinder rulebook was released in 2009, so what about a revised edition in 2014??

    Offering full compatibility with already existing products, I don't think there'll be a need for big changes but definitely some improvement would be useful.

    One thing about change. It's inevitable.

    I can suggest one change right now. Streamline the rules.

    Another change: remove the paladin from the core rules. No one has a point of reference to play this class any more. That's why people are worried about being caught in a catch 22. Instead of redefining alignment, remove the Paladin class from the core rules and put him in a supplement. :)

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Pathfinder revised edition in 2014? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules