Just a random thought but would not the way for pathfinder 2.0 to go be like the theory behind 5th edition ?
A modular system where paizo work out how to pull out certain components of the game and replace them with others without breaking the system.
So that it's always backwards compatible but if you want to try something new you can swap A for B and while it changes things it won't break the system.
Which is what they've already done with things like piecemeal armor and words of power.
You can use them along side the core rules and it still works.
That way you never alienate your core group but can offer alternatives which make the system different enough to be interesting to groups who are burning out on the traditional rules.
Vancian casting actually works pretty well for emulating fantasy. In most books and movies, you will not see a spellcaster using the same ability repeatedly. Whether it's because they need more bat guano or just because they, I guess, feel like casting something else, they tend to use each spell at most once scene, with the exception of a couple of trademark spells. Even if the rationale is different, D&D style Vancian casting works for those kinds of adventures because it works basically as expected.
What baffles me is how popular the Star Wars Saga Edition Force powers were. They were decidedly Vancian, and not even that great for representing The Force. 4e actually introduced Vancian casting -- er, Dailies! -- for fighters. But now suddenly Vancian casting is a problem. Now it's old and retro.
I think it actually works pretty well when Evard's Black Tentacles shows up exactly once in an adventure. The wizard in 3e/Pathfinder is a great class as a play experience because it forces variety. It adds a level of resource management that is not trivial. It's fun to pick out spells. Loading out for big battles is like James Bond visiting Q.
|
Actually, I am getting alienated by the multiplicity of discussions regarding unnecessary rule changes.
If Pathfinder does go to 2.0, then I'm going back to 3.5, where at least the rules are stable, and I don't have to be on-line 24/7 to keep up with FAQs that seldom have definite answers, but which are supposed to be "binding" on the game.
We want new content, not new rules. More modules and scenarios, please.
More creative writing and less game design, keep the rules changes to a minimum.
Vancian casting actually works pretty well for emulating fantasy. In most books and movies, you will not see a spellcaster using the same ability repeatedly. Whether it's because they need more bat guano or just because they, I guess, feel like casting something else, they tend to use each spell at most once scene, with the exception of a couple of trademark spells. Even if the rationale is different, D&D style Vancian casting works for those kinds of adventures because it works basically as expected.
What baffles me is how popular the Star Wars Saga Edition Force powers were. They were decidedly Vancian, and not even that great for representing The Force. 4e actually introduced Vancian casting -- er, Dailies! -- for fighters. But now suddenly Vancian casting is a problem. Now it's old and retro.
I think it actually works pretty well when Evard's Black Tentacles shows up exactly once in an adventure. The wizard in 3e/Pathfinder is a great class as a play experience because it forces variety. It adds a level of resource management that is not trivial. It's fun to pick out spells. Loading out for big battles is like James Bond visiting Q.
Force powers were optional (don't play a Jedi) and you could pick them up if you wanted via other classes. They were "magical" in nature so a soldier who was force sensitive throwing around force lightning made sense in the SW universe where the force does exist.
You also had 3.5 style multiclassing, feats, talents which were really choose your own class abilities and the game was fun. Also SW has had 6 RPGs for it IIRC so there is less expectation of what the RPG mechanics should be. If you buy D&D you expect D&D and 4th ed was different, PF was less different and the punters voted with their feet.
If the devs add minor or major changes people will still reject the system imo. Changing nothing is not going to get more sales because why would I buy the same marterial rehashed with better art. As well I would need a good reason to change. Backwards compitability is just not going to cut it for me or my group anymore. Sacred cows not interested anymore. I have 2e, 3E and PF if I want to play a game with scare cows.
The devs are free to do what they want with the rules. They should in absolutely in no way shape or form be held hostage by the fans. They can alter the game as they see fit. After all they are the ones that created the game. We just buy it. And no "because you spent X amount of dollars on material" is not a good reason. No one and I mean no one forced anyone to buy any rpg company material. So if the devs want to change the game completely I say the should go for it. Want to change nothing they should do that too. Except I will be sticking with PF 1E and or moving to another rpg.
Are the rulebooks the major seller/key aspect of the marketing strategy? No, or at least they weren't until recently. The AP's and setting material is what they built their business model around. Keeping any new edition back compatible with those products is fairly important, as otherwise they risk rendering a large chunk of their inventory obsolete.
OPTIONAL addons, subtractions and substitutions is probably the way they will go. Always optional so no one can ever complain they ruined the game for them.
Case in point Gunslingers, how many groups would have left PF if guns had been made a core part of the rules. But they didn't they made it purely optional take it or leave it and everyone stays happy, Simple ;)
OPTIONAL addons, subtractions and substitutions is probably the way they will go. Always optional so no one can ever complain they ruined the game for them.
Case in point Gunslingers, how many groups would have left PF if guns had been made a core part of the rules. But they didn't they made it purely optional take it or leave it and everyone stays happy, Simple ;)
Well up to the point the new material starts showing up in APs and modules and things. At that point the whole: "optional, take it or leave it", starts to lose some traction.
Right. Generally, everyone would be MAD in three stats in 4e.Str or CON
DEX or INT
WIS or CHA.4th ED's math works very well.
Very much have to disagree on that one. 4e rather mangled it up. There are some classes (and archetypes within classes) that rely on 4 stats or at least have players wanting 4 stats while others can fairly safely dump 3. Compare the Artful Dodger rogue vs the Brutal Scoundrel rogue. The Artful Dodger's powers are based on Dex and Charisma and he wants Con for more surges because he gets hit fairly often so he easily dumps Int, Wis, and Str. The Brutal Scoundrel wants those 3 stats as well (because he wants surges too) except his powers also need Strength. So he can't dump as much as the Artful Dodger can. Nor can most fighters, either (though wizards still can).
So, yeah, I don't like how 4e ended up implementing things. They'd have been better off either making sure all classes need three and exactly three or separating all defense from offense like I would suggest and now allow a stat to provide for both duties.
Honestly, the 4e groupings remove so much flavor they might as well have just renamed ability scores to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. I think this is a symptom of the goal of removing weaknesses. The skill system feels so vestigial, in part because they went out of their way to make sure you didn't need any particular skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen the light, and its name is Kirthfinder. That is the future my friends!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with keeping the current edition forever is
a.) eventually Paizo will either run out of new crunch to publish or they keep publishing new crunch and the rules bloat will be too much for most people to get into the hobby and
b.) major problems with the existing rules can't be solved without obsoleting the existing rulebooks, which the developers already have indicated that they won't do.
Actually, I am getting alienated by the multiplicity of discussions regarding unnecessary rule changes.
If Pathfinder does go to 2.0, then I'm going back to 3.5, where at least the rules are stable, and I don't have to be on-line 24/7 to keep up with FAQs that seldom have definite answers, but which are supposed to be "binding" on the game.
We want new content, not new rules. More modules and scenarios, please.
More creative writing and less game design, keep the rules changes to a minimum.
I agree :-)
|
The problem with keeping the current edition forever is
a.) eventually Paizo will either run out of new crunch to publish or they keep publishing new crunch and the rules bloat will be too much for most people to get into the hobby and
b.) major problems with the existing rules can't be solved without obsoleting the existing rulebooks, which the developers already have indicated that they won't do.
Agreed and seconded.
Eventually they are going to run out of new material to publish. Sure they could release another PF with no major changes then some of the fanbase would complain that the devs made a new edition with no changes and that they are going to have to buy the same material again. Or that their sales would not be as good because no changes is not going to make some of the fanbase want to buy the books again.
I think in the future they may have to take the decision to make a new edition without backwards compaitabilty imo. I just can't see how they will address certain issues of the rules or to streamline the rules without at least some major changes. As for rules bloat I don't think it's that big of a issue. Both DM and players have to sit down before starting a game and hash out what they allow or don't allow. As well while I like buying more books others don;t have to buy every single thing that Paizo produces either.
One thing that people forget about a edition with major changes. Is that at the end of the day no one is forcing anyone to buy let alone read the new edition. I bought the 2E reprints last week. As I'm going to buy Ultimate Campaign tommorow from lgs. I can choose to run or the other.
They will have to find a way in which they can fix the major problems without making the new edition not feel completely different from the prior editions. Fixing this or that class is comparatively easy when the major problems seem to that high level play is kinda broken in multiple ways and some of the base systems are still too complicated or work a bit poorly ( combat maneuvers for example, some god skills like Diplomacy and Perception for another instance ).
They will have to find a way in which they can fix the major problems without making the new edition not feel completely different from the prior editions.
I expect something along these lines. I don't see them entirely abandoning backward compatability, but I also don't see them treating backward compability as being completely sacred. I think they will fix what they think needs fixing, and not touch everything else, which wouldn't actually be that hard. A lot of the difficulties are surprisingly cosmetic: layout and presentation, precise details of how certain skills, feats, and combat maneuvers work, and similar details. Even the reworking of the classes is largely a task of time and testing, not reworking the entire underlying system. When it happens there will almost certainly be a handful of major changes, but I would expect their scope to as limited as Paizo can make them, so as not to entirely invalidate their past product.
Well up to the point the new material starts showing up in APs and modules and things. At that point the whole: "optional, take it or leave it", starts to lose some traction.OPTIONAL addons, subtractions and substitutions is probably the way they will go. Always optional so no one can ever complain they ruined the game for them.
Case in point Gunslingers, how many groups would have left PF if guns had been made a core part of the rules. But they didn't they made it purely optional take it or leave it and everyone stays happy, Simple ;)
Eventually, all new material becomes not entirely optional in all cases, otherwise they wouldn't give people a reason to buy that new material, but it rarely becomes core either. Their published material will acknowledge the existence of that material, but a lot of people don't use published modules/APs or figure on modifying them anyway, so while DMs will have to acknowledge that such material is out there, they still aren't being forced to use it directly themselves. I suspect 2.0 would refine those bits that do get a lot of use, such as traits and archetypes, and incorporate them at least partially into the core, but on the whole, I would expect to see them retain to a very large extent the "optional" tag both in this edition and the next.
|
|
To be honest, if the magic system is standardized, and the caster classes work within that system in their own way instead of what happened elsewhere, I have the feeling the vancian casting wouldn't be missed, or would be represented in a different way to satisfy the old guarde.
Basically, it hasn't been updated and revised, modernized or anything but polished since 1977.
|
|
What do we have now? Every caster class in PF has a counterpart that is the Spontaneous caster for that niche. The only thing is, except for one particular, every single one of them uses CHA as their base stat. (I'm beautiful so therefore I have power) Not that I don't want to play the hottie sorceress with a wink and a smile, but a little variety would be nice and going back to keeping track of which spells are memmed and which have been forgotten seems... silly.
It's not about beauty. It's about personality. They have strong personalities that are capable of bending reality to their will.
Yeah, Comliness didn't make the cut in 3.0, I was disappointed in that but not surprised. (A seventh stat wouldn't have been the end of the world) So CHA represents both beauty and personality. I never understood why one has to be pretty to be personable.