| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off yes, I admit it. I'm the kind of guy who don't like change.
I gotta say every time TSR/WotC brought out a new version of D&D I was annoyed at first. given time though I did think 3.0 was a great improvement over AD&D. It was quite revolutionary, I think most will agree.
When they came out with 3.5 though it was a slightly different story. Yes it was better overall, but it was too similar to be worth it imo. I really felt cheated having to rebuy all books again. Yes I know I can still play 3.0 or any other system for that matter, but that's not how it works. There is always the unexplainable need to stay current.
When WotC announced 4.0 I had had it. That was why me and all my friends changed to Pathfinder as soon as we heard about it. Although in theory 3.5 and Pathfinder was supposed to be compatible, we don't mix them anymore even if this was our reason for choosing Pathfinder. Still we're happy with going for Pathfinder since it is just so awesome.
Now WotC is going to do D&D 5.0 wich in my eyes shows they've lost and know it.
Yes Pathfinder 2.0 could fix some problems. It could also change some things for the worse in the eys of many of it's fans. Regardless, none of the changes/improvements/fixes I've ever seen anyone ever suggest in any forum post I've read would make a new edition of the game justified.
This is why I hope and pray that Paizo will never need to release Pathfinder 2.0 in order to meet profit goals. And I do really mean NEVER! For many reasons. You can never make a perfect system. The current one has problems, but it is completely workable. No new system will ever be flawless anyway. My hope is that Paizo will keep being different and keep bringing out awesome books of all their awesome ranges. I already subscribe to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game range, and the Adventure Paths. I'm considering also Campaign Setting and Player Companion, and I think all these ranges of books have a lot of potantial for the future. The Only range I can see being a problem to keep going indefinately is the actual Pathfinder Roleplaying Game range of books. I have to admit I have recieved two dissapppinting shipments in that range (Beginner Box and Advanced Race Guide), but I much prefer the odd disappointment to having to rebuy absolutely everything.
Anyone interested in discussing this? At the very least I wanted to make this post as a contradiction to all the post I've seen calling for Pathfinder 2.0 throwing my 2 cents in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with you- but only to a degree.
It took a long time for AD&D to be superseded by 2E and I didn't really feel like we got much out of it other than some stuff that didn't necessarily need to be part of a whole new edition (like Planescape, for instance). When we "gained" THAC0 and lost devils, demons, and daemons, I felt gypped. C'est le vie, I said.
Years later, though not as long as it took to go from AD&D to 2E, 3.0 happened. This time, I was pretty irritated. "I have to buy a bunch of books again?!?!" It didn't take me long to get over that. I remember, once I got warmed up to the many innovations that WotC put into my favorite (again, at that point, after a few year White Wolf stint) RPG system, I speculated aloud to many of my friends that 3E (there was no ".0," yet) was so significantly better than 2E and that whenever 4E came out it could be equally better. Holy moly!
3.5 came out. WTF? Yeah, it's better, but... you couldn't just wait it out and produce a whole new edition in five or ten more years? Still, it was better, so I slowly replaced my 3.0 books with their 3.5 updates.
Than there was 4E. I tried to get on board but never even bought a book; it just wasn't for me. But....
PFRPG filled the gap. I would have to buy all new books...again, but at least it carried with it the promise that, in addition to improving on the already improved 3E, it would continue to release products. Yay!
Now, I don't want PFRPG2E any time soon. Not by a long shot. Are there issues that could be ironed out? Sure. Will a new edition fix them? Maybe. At least until the new wrinkles surface. So, in summary and redundance, I do want PFRPG2E sometime, I just don't want it any time soon.
Abyssian
I disagree with you- but only to a degree.
It took a long time for AD&D to be superseded by 2E and I didn't really feel like we got much out of it other than some stuff that didn't necessarily need to be part of a whole new edition (like Planescape, for instance). When we "gained" THAC0 and lost devils, demons, and daemons, I felt gypped. C'est le vie, I said.
Years later, though not as long as it took to go from AD&D to 2E, 3.0 happened. This time, I was pretty irritated. "I have to buy a bunch of books again?!?!" It didn't take me long to get over that. I remember, once I got warmed up to the many innovations that WotC put into my favorite (again, at that point, after a few year White Wolf stint) RPG system, I speculated aloud to many of my friends that 3E (there was no ".0," yet) was so significantly better than 2E and that whenever 4E came out it could be equally better. Holy moly!
3.5 came out. WTF? Yeah, it's better, but... you couldn't just wait it out and produce a whole new edition in five or ten more years? Still, it was better, so I slowly replaced my 3.0 books with their 3.5 updates.
Than there was 4E. I tried to get on board but never even bought a book; it just wasn't for me. But....
PFRPG filled the gap. I would have to buy all new books...again, but at least it carried with it the promise that, in addition to improving on the already improved 3E, it would continue to release products. Yay!
Now, I don't want PFRPG2E any time soon. Not by a long shot. Are there issues that could be ironed out? Sure. Will a new edition fix them? Maybe. At least until the new wrinkles surface. So, in summary and redundance, I do want PFRPG2E sometime, I just don't want it any time soon.
Abyssian
I can relate to everything you say, but I guess the reason we disagree is I'm slightly more pessimistic than you. As I said I think there will be too many problems with any new system to make it worth replacing a completely workable one.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I hope and pray that Paizo will never need to release Pathfinder 2.0 in order to meet profit goals
I agree with this specific sentiment.
However, I am all for Paizo devising a new or revised RPG system when they feel that's where their creative juices are flowing and feel they can deliver a great, fun product that can accomplish things they want to accomplish in a way they felt they could not do as easily with the current ruleset.
If Pathfinder 2.0 (or whatever) does come out and I don't like it, I will accept that the system is not for me, but certainly wish anyone who does like the new game well. And unless Paizo golem-ninjas break down my door and steal my old Pathfinder books, those Pathfinder books will remain on my shelf for me to use and play with as I see fit for as long as the print remains readable on the page (or the .pdf accessible on a digital device), instead of or along with any other new system Paizo should publish.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The printing of 3.5 was one of the best decisions that WoTC made, second to the OGL.
3.0 was the most major revision the AD&D rules had at the time. There was alot of errata and people figured out what worked and what didn't. Rather than publish everything via errata online, it was all condensed and reworked, and new books published.
This is a good thing because it makes life easier for everyone to keep track of the changes. There were only two other options were to 1) publish errata online and force people to cross reference or 2) ignore the feedback and pretend its fine how it is.
Pathfinder is to 3.5 what 3.5 is to 3.0. Pathfinder is what D&D 4 should have been. PF is the best iteration of the 3x ruleset to date and you can still use the books you bought a decade ago with it. This is why it is so popular.
I don't have a problem with PF 1.5 at some point. I'd rather buy a new rulebook in a few years than print out 100 pages of errata and clarifications to have to cross reference and look up.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer for them to incrementally add 'new ideas' as they go along, and then, when there are just too many of them, they reprint the rulebooks with the errata/"new stuff" added-in, (but still call it Pathfinder!) If they want to call it PF2.0 then fine, but I think thats a tough thing to handle properly (suddenly you've spawned an 'edition war').
This was how it was done from AD&D to 2e. 2e was culmination of all the errata, 'new stuff' from splats, and articles in Dragon over the years, that were put into the core rulebooks. I would call it more of an update then a new edition. 3e was truly a new edition, as was 4e. 3.5 was just another update, and was handled poorly, IMHO. They should have just posted all the 'errata' online (which they did), and then 'updated' the rulebooks to include the errata with the next printing. Calling it a different edition sent them down a spiral they haven't pulled out of yet.
Companies have to eventually do new editions, but I'd rather see PF do a 'soft' crossover (like 1e/2e or 3e/3.5/PF) where most of the fanbase isn't ready to grab their torches and pitchforks. Will we eventually see a completely different set of rules? Probably... but it should take several of these 'incremental' baby-steps to get there. Things go down easier when folks take 'little bites'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had the benefit of only buying into D&D with 3.5 and so never had the issue with the 3.0 to 3.5 upgrade - though I must admit I very rarely buy 3.0 material as I like 100% compatibility.
Ironically, although initially hesitant about 4e, I have got into it mainly because it offers me something different. I have read the core books and bought many more supplements and had a DDI account for quite a while.
Pathfinder on the other hand does nothing for me, it just isn't enough of a change for me - like you with 3.0 to 3.5 I think "why bother with PF?" I still haven't read the core rulebook (but picked up enough to run PFS) and bought a couple of supplements, but if it wasn't for PFS Organised Play I would never bother with PF, instead sticking with 3.5 (yes I play and buy for both 3.5 and 4e because they are different enough for me to want to play both).
So if Paizo released a PF2e, I ma not too bothered - if PF2e was a fundamental change I may get excited about it and play it instead of or as well as 3.5, 4e and Next. If its a small change I may still get it to continue PFS but again not bother reading just try to absorb the changes from the forums, conversion notes and referencing the core book.
Personally I think PF could do with a decent revision and simplification of some rules - for every good thing Paizo changed from 3.5 they seemed to introduce extra complexity and / or vagueness :(
While you all make sense to me (except DigitalMage), not surprisingly I have not been convinced Pathfinder 2.0 would ever be a good idea.
I can't stay and reply any more today. I'm off to go GM my Jade Regent campaign.
I'd be delighted to hear more views on this though, so please keep the posts coming :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "I don't want to have to buy new books" is really a valid complaint against developers making a new system. Even despite this nebulous compulsion to keep up with the most current edition, there's literally nothing stopping you from continuing to play the same game you already are.
I do, however, definitely agree that making a new edition for the sake of having a new edition is not a sound plan. That's just rude and insulting to a company's customers.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the OP has considered that if majority of 3.5 players adopted the "we never want another revision of our favorite ruleset" mindset, Pathfinder would never come into being or would die a quick death.
Pathfinder flourishes because enough 3.5 fans thought buying 3.75 is a good idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as there is some level of compatibility, on par with the 3.5/PF comparison, I'd probably be okay with a second PF edition. I'd likely just end up hybridizing it with the older versions, exactly as I do with 3.5 and PF now.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started table-top RPG with D&D 4e.
While many will consider 4e bad from the start, I find it actually quite enjoyable... at first. I even got to the point of GMing some games and the simplicity of the system makes it easy for me to switch from player to GM.
However, as time goes on, what made me drop it was how add-ons and additions to the system was implemented. Making a character starts getting very confusing due to the large number of powers from many different sources. Making use of a character build became a must.
And towards the end, I find that don't "feel" like I am playing a fantasy character anymore. Just a mashing of a formula with added flavor form class skills/powers.
I picked up PF, after realizing just how deep a character can be using the 3e+ system. More so with the introduction of Archetypes! (The best addition to the system.)
No longer do I have to think how should I "flavor" a character build and instead it is character ideal first and then how to build a character to fit the ideal.
However, even for a robust system like Pathfinder there are some... flaws....
Namely, it is very confusing and hard for TOTALLY NEW players to understand.
The Core Rule Book for instance in clearly written by those that have played D&D from the very start. :) This shows in the current layout. It can be very confusing for a new player to find out what to do. From how to make a new character to what happens when I level? What body slots are there? What is concentration?...etc
What I would like to see in a "Pathfinder 2.0" would be a more user friendly version of the current Pathfinder. NOT a new system, the current one works fine, but a more easy to UNDERSTAND version of Pathfinder. (Specifically the CRB.)
One more like... the Beginner Box set's layout. Something that I can pass to a friend (With no RPG experience) for a week and he can pop up at the table with a character that work.
PF 2.0 could be a simple "updated" look for PF. Like a updated version of a software. It can still do all the things an older version can. But it does not become a new program altogether.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One good thing about paizo is that they focus on adventures and campaign material as a company, everything else, the rulebooks included are to SUPPORT that, not the other way around (like WOtC does with rulebooks). That is a FAR more sustainable model then a rules focused business plan is. Lets face it, there will ALWAYS be room for more adventures, if you run published stuff (or mine it for your own home game) then you will always want new ones.
The whole reason PFRPG exists is they wanted an In Print edition of the rules to write adventures for. If they could have kept 3.5 in print they might very well have stuck with that. Eventually there is a hard cap on the number of rulebooks that any group of people will buy. The amount of fantasy books sold every year tells me that people will never tire of new stories to tell. I think you can rest easy Morain, at the very least it will be a long long time before a pathfinder 2.0.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm different than the majority of the board in that I hope that when Pathfinder 2e does inevitably appear, I would rather it be a substantial chance than a simple refinement. Hell, I'd love for them to dump the d20 system altogether.
However, due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the fanbase does essentially want Pathfinder 1.5, I expect that's exactly what it will be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to see in a "Pathfinder 2.0" would be a more user friendly version of the current Pathfinder. NOT a new system, the current one works fine, but a more easy to UNDERSTAND version of Pathfinder. (Specifically the CRB.)
One more like... the Beginner Box set's layout. Something that I can pass to a friend (With no RPG experience) for a week and he can pop up at the table with a character that work.PF 2.0 could be a simple "updated" look for PF. Like a updated version of a software. It can still do all the things an older version can. But it does not become a new program altogether.
This really wouldnt be a pathfinder 2.0. And having taught a few new people the game recently, I have to say i'd like something similar. Lets face it the Core rulebook is really only a good reference for people who already know where everything is in the book. Its atrocious for teaching people the game. I dont even have them read the thing, bring them a character sheet and explain everything they need to know is on that sheet, the rest will work itself out (which is mostly true, if you can understand and act on everything on your character sheet you can play the game).
But assuming no actual rule changes (except the inclusion of errata perhaps) and just a presentation change, I'd LOVE to see a begginerbox layout core rulebook. I'd still have my handy reference in the original core rulebook, and I'd have something I can actually give to new or inexperienced players and say read this. It would certainly make my life easier.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, even for a robust system like Pathfinder there are some... flaws....
Namely, it is very confusing and hard for TOTALLY NEW players to understand.
The Core Rule Book for instance in clearly written by those that have played D&D from the very start. :) This shows in the current layout. It can be very confusing for a new player to find out what to do. From how to make a new character to what happens when I level? What body slots are there? What is concentration?...etcWhat I would like to see in a "Pathfinder 2.0" would be a more user friendly version of the current Pathfinder. NOT a new system, the current one works fine, but a more easy to UNDERSTAND version of Pathfinder. (Specifically the CRB.)
One more like... the Beginner Box set's layout. Something that I can pass to a friend (With no RPG experience) for a week and he can pop up at the table with a character that work.PF 2.0 could be a simple "updated" look for PF. Like a updated version of a software. It can still do all...
This! Exactly how I feel about the Core Rulebook. Coming from a White Wolf background the CR is impossible sometimes, especially looking up stuff in the middle of games. A second edition must be more new user friendly in it's layout and presentation of information.
I would say that if the amount "change" from 1.0 to 2.0 is not too much more than the changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder I think most people will be fine with it. They made a ton of excellent improvements to the game and I think they could do even a bit more.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the OP has considered that if majority of 3.5 players adopted the "we never want another revision of our favorite ruleset" mindset, Pathfinder would never come into being or would die a quick death.
Yep, I find it odd when some people in one breath say about 3.5:
I really felt cheated having to rebuy all books again.
Then in the next breath say:
When WotC announced 4.0 I had had it. That was why me and all my friends changed to Pathfinder as soon as we heard about it.
I.e. buying all new books again! :)
Hell, I'd love for them to dump the d20 system altogether.
If that happened it would kill what interest I have in PF. I play PF because PFS is the closest I can get to playing a 3.5 living campaign that is popular. I am not a big fan of Golarion as a setting and if Paizo dumped the d20 ruleset the Pathfinder setting would be the only thing that would allow them to continue credibly using the Pathfinder name.
I think a new "edition" is inevitable (or however you spell that word :P)
But I hope that the new edition cleans up rules and presents them in a easier to use format (I agree with the posters above..some sections of the core rule book are hard to use). And I think some things could use a bit of improvement, especially higher level play.
A big radical change however might be a huge problem for Pathfinder. Since all the pathfinder rules are freely available through a open gaming license, another publisher could easily continue with Pathfinder and draw off the fanbase if the edition doesn't go over well. Potentially they might face the same issue that WOTC faced with Paizo
There is also the fact that Paizo's business model is not focused on rulesets, but rather adventures and golarion support. I actually could see them needing to switch to a new setting before I see them NEEDING to switch to a ruleset.
So when Paizo does create a new edition, I could see it being more of a PRPG 1.5 or even 1.25, rather than something like the 3.5 to 4th edition change in D&D.
THis of course assumes that Paizo is able to keep doing well. If 5E becomes the second coming of role playing games and wins over a chunk of the customer base, Paizo might have to rethink their strategy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing mention of the problems with hundreds of pages of errata: errata doesn't matter if you simply ignore it. I have never printed out or downloaded any of the errata.
I want to enjoy my RPGing. Errata is just an aggravation.
|
|
If that happened it would kill what interest I have in PF. I play PF because PFS is the closest I can get to playing a 3.5 living campaign that is popular. I am not a big fan of Golarion as a setting and if Paizo dumped the d20 ruleset the Pathfinder setting would be the only thing that would allow them to continue credibly using the Pathfinder name.
Whereas I'm the opposite...I like the setting, but I've never been a huge fan of the system. And if you use that logic about the name, then 3.0 should have been called Crypts and Demons or something. It certainly was a massive paradigm shift from the prior editions, and there wasn't one single setting that was associated with either edition over any others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind pathfinder 2.0 if it was Pathfinder-lite as in free of miniatures/square positioning/stop the game because we need a battle mat. Kinda going back to the "products of your imagination" mindset.
I don't mind using the occasional battlemat just for flavor/visuals on the important battles like against a Dragon or the BBEG at the end, etc.
The tactical board game part of the game stops me from running anything ATM. 3.5/PF rules with AD&D/2E style would be awesome. Requiring minis, battle mats, positioning, not so much.
This would keep our current modules/APs etc. still usable too.
Ever? No, I disagree. Even if it's just an "updated" book in another 5 or so years that becomes a defacto version 2 that only rewords things, *cough* revamps the stealth mechanic *cough*, etc but doesn't nothing to the vast majority of mechanics then that's a much more likely outcome and one I would welcome.
|
Eventually the density of errata demands a revised edition. And I eventually welcome it. Especially if it's 80-90% reverse compatible and better presented than the core book.
Everyone likes to improve and refine their product.
As long as Pathfinder 2 isn't a sea chang elike 3/5 to 4E was, I'll be fine. I'd rather see a 1E to 2E level of friendly update.
PF 2.0 is a bad idea for many of the reasons listed above. First and foremost, and I'm surprised at home many people overlook this fact, but the Pathfinder RPG is just a tad over 3 years old. Pathfinder as a brand is 5 years old.
Now in that 3 years, Paizo has added a tremedous amount of great content that truly differentiates Pathfinder from 3e. I have ZERO interest in living through a new development cycle and then having to wait 3-4 years after that to get back to "game parity". (Even if I can and am willing to refresh my RPG rules library. And that is no certain thing...)
Most RPGs, when issuing a new edition, are updating errata and doing system tweaks based on additional playtesting and customer feedback rather than the earth-breaking system re-writes that WotC employs on D&D. THAT's what I want from an eventual (hopefully many years away) PF 2e, a cleanup, some tweaks, and some new polish. Not a bottom-up rebuilding of the game.
No RPG is, or ever will be, perfect. It's a lot easier to affect incremental improvements that it is to correct errors by starting from scratch, primarily due to the fact that you're bound to introduce new errors that didn't exist before. After all, you don't typically see cars being engineered from scratch or computer programs written from a totally blank slate. You build upon what came before.
That's why I vastly prefer Paizo's business model to WotC's. RPG books sales are a critical part of their strategy, but not the only (or even primary) focus. They are as much a vehicle for supporting their other lines as much as it is a product line in and of itself. In WotC land, hardback rulebook production & churn is the business model. Granted, DDI may have altered that to a degree, but for all the talk about D&D Next/5e, I've seen little, if any mention of DDI or its future.
Does there really need to be a new edition? Does there really need to be a reason to buy all kinds of the same stuff over and over again? They are wondering why these games don't sell that well anymore because you barely get enough time to enjoy them before they do edition changes. The people are the ones ruining this hobby, not the hobby itself. People put their hard earned money into it only to be deceived by the company. It's getting ridiculous, and even if they do make a new edition I certainly won't be rushing out to buy it like I won't be rushing out to buy D&D NEXT or whatever they are calling Dungeons & Dragons these days.
We will not see a new version of Pathfinder for a while. They are a business that sells a product to make money and the decision to push a new version takes this into count. While a new version is supposed to fix major errors in the previous version and maybe even fix hard coded issues that require major rewrites (i.e. stealth), one of the major reasons for a new addition is market share and saturation. As long as new people are buying this set of rule books and Pathfinder continues to grow, Paizo probably won't push a new edition. Once they have saturated their market and no one new is purchasing product (i,e, we are all just purchasing the core books to replace the ones we already own), they will push a new addition and it all starts over again.
I would give it years before we hear about 2.0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope at some point they can implement their own rule system, make the game their own. As much as I loathe learning new systems, I would give this a shot.
I'd be totally cool with a new edition with less emphasis on backwards compatibility.
I don't see what the problem is. Eventually, you get to the point where the system already has all the stuff you'd ever want, and it's finished.
4e and 3.5 are in that state now. If you want to play those games, there's plenty of material for you to do so, even though new stuff doesn't come out for them anymore. Pathfinder will likely end up like that, and if a 2.0 came out, there's no reason in the world to stop playing 1.0 if you don't like 2.0.
This is assuming you don't rely on pre-made adventures...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what the problem is. Eventually, you get to the point where the system already has all the stuff you'd ever want, and it's finished.
4e and 3.5 are in that state now. If you want to play those games, there's plenty of material for you to do so, even though new stuff doesn't come out for them anymore. Pathfinder will likely end up like that, and if a 2.0 came out, there's no reason in the world to stop playing 1.0 if you don't like 2.0.
This is assuming you don't rely on pre-made adventures...
Given paizo's best selling product is adventures, and it is the best selling RPG in the market...I think you grossly underestimate how important adventures and support material are. People want and in many cases need these products. I personally dont think im ever going to create a game from scratch again. Life has become too demanding on my time for that to be an option as it is with most of my group, so premade adventures are a must. Without a steady stream of them, and supporting products to enhance them our game would quickly grow stale.
Not to mention how important it is for a system to be 'living'. If no new products are coming out for a system, its off the shelves of gaming stores, its out of gaming forums and magazines, and its not on the minds of the majority of gamers. Finding players, a place to play, supporting products for your game etc becomes increasingly difficult. All the things we use to make our gameplay experience easier IE Perrams spellbook, phone and tablet apps that are server based, etc, these all go out of service. It is suddenly a whole lot more work to run your game and even just to get it together.
I'm all for a Second Printing with corrected Errata and rules clarifications. They don't need to change the game, but they really need to correct the errors and oversights.
Technically you could just houserule or print errata, but I'm one who likes to have a corrected book in my hand, not just keep ruling off the top of my head with stuff I know from the internet.
I'm all for a Second Printing with corrected Errata and rules clarifications. They don't need to change the game, but they really need to correct the errors and oversights.
Technically you could just houserule or print errata, but I'm one who likes to have a corrected book in my hand, not just keep ruling off the top of my head with stuff I know from the internet.
Just a note, I believe they are actually on their Fifth Printing right now, released some time early last year. They do add current errata in new printings and the PDFs automatically get updated.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wish list for Pathfinder 2.0:
1. Replace the magic item system with something that allows characters to shine instead of being walking slot machines.
2. Create a reasonably workable magic item crafting system that doesn't cheese up the game, create inter-party conflict or violate economic common sense.
3. Get rid of the class system entirely. Replace it with open ended ability based character creation and advancement. If my arcane spellcaster wants to learn how to use a sword, let him invest in doing so without arbitrary restrictions based on outdated concepts of role-based party dynamics.
4. Ruthlessly pare the feat system down and get rid of any feat that should truly be a role playing choice.
5. Get rid of the single attribute skill system and implement skills that can be based on multiple attributes. Climbing should be equally advanced by strength OR dexterity. Every skill should be associated with at least two attributes.
Oh, heck. Never mind. If they do all that it won't be Pathfinder 2.0, it will just be a new and much better RPG system entirely.
;-)
Just a note, I believe they are actually on their Fifth Printing right now, released some time early last year. They do add current errata in new printings and the PDFs automatically get updated.I'm all for a Second Printing with corrected Errata and rules clarifications. They don't need to change the game, but they really need to correct the errors and oversights.
Technically you could just houserule or print errata, but I'm one who likes to have a corrected book in my hand, not just keep ruling off the top of my head with stuff I know from the internet.
Well...Damn...
Well...Damn...Just a note, I believe they are actually on their Fifth Printing right now, released some time early last year. They do add current errata in new printings and the PDFs automatically get updated.I'm all for a Second Printing with corrected Errata and rules clarifications. They don't need to change the game, but they really need to correct the errors and oversights.
Technically you could just houserule or print errata, but I'm one who likes to have a corrected book in my hand, not just keep ruling off the top of my head with stuff I know from the internet.
That is why I got a e-reader. Easy on the eyes and I have more than made the money on pdfs.
|
|
I'd also be cool with a new edition with less emphasis on backwards compatibility. I think it is inevitable. We already have two versions that are backwards compatibility. Im not sure if another rehash with no changes is going to do as well. Espcially one that does not address the flaws of PF 1E. I like PF but its not perfect. Also the factors leading up to the success of PF (good product, a fanbase tired of new editions and happy with 3.5., lack of continued 3.5 support) may no longer still be there. I know fans that refuse to buy PF because to them they feel that it adds nothing new to 3.5. Im not saying go the way of 4E yet they have to offer something new. As I said I like PF yet Paizo would need to offer me something new and fresh before I would even think of buying a 2E of PF. Backwards compatibility is just not enough anymore for me at least at this point.
Another thig can we drop the whole "they cant release a new edition for profit". Do you think they are going to invest in the time and effort to make a new edition whatever it turns out to be and not expect a profit. That just being incredibly purposefull naive. Im not saying that Paizo is greedy. Yet I doubt the developers are losing sleep at night because the rpg they released is profitable. All the products that Paizo releases are paid with the profit they make. No profit means less products. How exactly do you think they pay their eomployees with good will. Not to mentioon last time I checked Paizo is not a non-profit organization.
In my opinion it need to happen at some point. I have a couple of points (at the moment), which are somewhat related so I apologize if it seems repetitive.
Firstly, I prefer a simpler system, and while the d20 systems are exactly great at being 'simple' (and that isn't the primary concern), they've all started out a lot simpler than they become. My roleplaying experience doesn't improve by the countless character options Pathfinder provide today. Having only the core classes, I could easily play the same types of characters (mostly) as I can today. My evil outsider-hunting ranger was as fun a Van Helsing-type. The many different archetypes and classes grants me mechanical options, but only to a small degree roleplaying ones.
As a result of this, while it is highly a matter of opinion, my experience is that the game deteriorates with the countless rules expansions. Whether or not you like to call it rules bloat, it is difficult to dismiss that the later rulebooks have provided more powerful options than the former ones. The simple logic is that when people buy books to use in their games, some of those options have to appealing to use. Appealing to use ends up being mechanical stronger, as long as you don't change fundamentals of the game. Additionally this challenge increases because of synergy between different powers, in some cases leading to options that doesn't seem intended by developers.
Adding game mechanics to the game necessarily changes to focus of the game toward mechanics. Building a certain character somewhat efficiently is a whole lot more to do with picking the right (read: not mechanically suicidal, or very subpar your fellow characters) mechanical options in classes, archetypes and talents/powers/hexes/whatnot.
I don't suggest that Pathfinder only can be played as an optimizers paradise, far from it. I like optimization as theorycraft a lot, but prefer to tone it down in the games. But even with that preference, I can't help being affected by an extensive knowledge of the rules system. I am inclined to avoid options that I know is worse than others, and essentially mechanics get to affect me a significant deal.
Lastly, I cannot help to feel that the system grow old. While it is an insubstantial critique, at the moment playing Pathfinder simply don't give me the same satisfaction as other systems do. I don't intend to drop Pathfinder entirely, as the system does fantasy well. But the constant expansion of the system is not likely to improve it.
I would like to see Paizo make Pathfinder 2 (or maybe another name) at some point, due to a simple reason: Paizo has made a great job of Pathfinder (and in including and creating the community surrounding it). As such I believe they have the potential of creating a new great game for this type of RPGs.
(Sorry for the long post, I've hold back in previous discussions on this, and something has been bottling up:-) )
I wonder if the OP has considered that if majority of 3.5 players adopted the "we never want another revision of our favorite ruleset" mindset, Pathfinder would never come into being or would die a quick death.Yep, I find it odd when some people in one breath say about 3.5:
I really felt cheated having to rebuy all books again.Then in the next breath say:
When WotC announced 4.0 I had had it. That was why me and all my friends changed to Pathfinder as soon as we heard about it.I.e. buying all new books again! :)
When in the next breath I say that, I mean that I did initially believe the marketing wich said it was compatible with 3.5, However you are wrong when you say "buying all new books again". There was a long period of pathfinder Alpha playtest where I had printed out hardcopies of the playtest document where we played Pathfinder alongside all available 3.5 books before Pathfinder was released. this is what made us switch.
Seeing mention of the problems with hundreds of pages of errata: errata doesn't matter if you simply ignore it. I have never printed out or downloaded any of the errata.
I want to enjoy my RPGing. Errata is just an aggravation.
I completely agree with this. I have no problem playing a system with flaws. Hell I didn't even know there existed erata documents until recently. I played 3.0 Happily oblivious until 3.5 and there was nothing wrong with that system either that needed a new version to be released.
Eventually the density of errata demands a revised edition. And I eventually welcome it. Especially if it's 80-90% reverse compatible and better presented than the core book.
The density of errata don't demand a revised edition if you ignore it. or even house rule the errata'd bits you like into your game.
Does there really need to be a new edition? Does there really need to be a reason to buy all kinds of the same stuff over and over again? They are wondering why these games don't sell that well anymore because you barely get enough time to enjoy them before they do edition changes. The people are the ones ruining this hobby, not the hobby itself. People put their hard earned money into it only to be deceived by the company. It's getting ridiculous, and even if they do make a new edition I certainly won't be rushing out to buy it like I won't be rushing out to buy D&D NEXT or whatever they are calling Dungeons & Dragons these days.
Hear hear! Finally someone who agrees with me :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel a definite need for a 2nd Edition.
Pathfinder is essentially 3.0 reskinned. Copy and pasted with a few changes here and there from 3.5 and some innovative changes inherent in Pathfinder. But it is still almost word for word 3.0
The rule book needs a complete rewrite, entirely new language and formatting.
Ever look for a rule... you find a bit in combat, a bit in skills, part in environment, part in the Appendix...
Ever read actions in combat? It makes no sense at all... half the stuff listed has nothing to do with actual actions.
The language is confusing, contradictory and misleading. There was no clear choice of language for describing the rules, resulting in many different words being used for the same thing. How many topics are there about whether an attack action is a standard action or not and vice versa?
And like HaraldKlak pointed out, 3.x took a system and added overly complex rule systems to an otherwise usable game (sure changes were needed but good lord did they go overboard!). The original Player's Handbook was probably about the size of the Spells chapter in Pathfinder.
The 3.x mechanics are great, I admit, but the rules need to be simplified.
We don't need rules for every single possible outcome (that is why we have a GM after all and not a computer). Do we really need separate rules for suffocation and drowning? Oh wait the same rules but formatted differently!
No, we need a Pathfinder 2.0 sometime. Simplified rules, with clear, concise language, and respecting that the GM is not a complete idiot.
We will not see a new version of Pathfinder for a while. They are a business that sells a product to make money and the decision to push a new version takes this into count. While a new version is supposed to fix major errors in the previous version and maybe even fix hard coded issues that require major rewrites (i.e. stealth), one of the major reasons for a new addition is market share and saturation. As long as new people are buying this set of rule books and Pathfinder continues to grow, Paizo probably won't push a new edition. Once they have saturated their market and no one new is purchasing product (i,e, we are all just purchasing the core books to replace the ones we already own), they will push a new addition and it all starts over again.
Well this is why I hope the other ranges of books appart from the rule books is sufficiently profitable to avoid having to relauch the game again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing DnD-based systems (and I'm lumping PF into that group) since '83. I've played pretty much every version and I've got to say I'm tired of some very sacred cows that have been in place since the very beginning. I'm not planning on purchasing a new version of anything that has any of the following concepts:
1. Alignment
2. Vancian spellcasting
3. Armor as anything but damage reduction
Funny. I would hate to play a system that lacked any of those concepts. Takes all sorts i guess..
My wish list for Pathfinder 2.0:
3. Get rid of the class system entirely. Replace it with open ended ability based character creation and advancement. If my arcane spellcaster wants to learn how to use a sword, let him invest in doing so without arbitrary restrictions based on outdated concepts of role-based party dynamics.
While I disagree with everything you said this is the only part I wanted to comment on: As we both know there is a feat called weapon proficiency that does this already. (sorry if I come across as snide [I just realized I might after typing this]).
Pathfinder, as an RPG system, became a success precisely because lots of people did not want to switch to a new game system. I'm pretty sure the Powers What Be at Paizo realize this. I'm confident they won't make any sweeping changes to the system.