Why Pathfinder 2.0 should never happen


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 574 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

All Paizo needs to do is clean up the dodgy parts of the system and they are set. They have a perfectly good system that has outlived 4th edition and probably will out live Next. You stick with what people want. Wotc failed to realize this and look where it got them.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is trying to decide which "dodgy" parts of the system they want to clean up. If you randomly grab 20 Pathfinder players and ask them what the weakest part of the system is, I'd wager you get at least 10 distinct answers. And there are probably very few, if any, components of the system that don't have detractors. Even concepts that most will agree were rooted in a good idea can often be subject to some intense criticism. AoO were a great idea, but they also can bog combat down to a hideous crawl. Feats were a great idea for character customization, but they've become something that practically makes a 1st level character have to decide between the ability to pick his nose or wipe his ass.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
The problem is trying to decide which "dodgy" parts of the system they want to clean up. If you randomly grab 20 Pathfinder players and ask them what the weakest part of the system is, I'd wager you get at least 10 distinct answers. And there are probably very few, if any, components of the system that don't have detractors. Even concepts that most will agree were rooted in a good idea can often be subject to some intense criticism. AoO were a great idea, but they also can bog combat down to a hideous crawl. Feats were a great idea for character customization, but they've become something that practically makes a 1st level character have to decide between the ability to pick his nose or wipe his ass.

I think Paizo was very smart with the beginner box, and perhaps that foreshadows what I think would be a brilliant buisness strategy.

Paizo's core buisness is not the rules. It is the APs, Modules and Setting books. That is where the profit comes in. That is where the room for growth is nigh unlimited. So you don't want the rules to leave the setting.

But you also don't want the system to get stagnant or full of creep.

So what do you do?

A tiered, but compatible, rules system.

Beginner box gets you in the door. Simplified rules that can still run modules without to much work. Nice entry level product to get you ready for...

Core system (with some clean up erring toward simplification) is what the APs and Modules are built around. Re-release core cleaned up as Evil Lincoln suggested, followed up by a series of separate rules compendiums for each the major plug features (Spells, Feats, Archetypes, etc) making clear these are the "core" rules and having these rules be someone more complex than Beginner Box, but still more straightforward and simple than...

Advanced Pathfinder. This is where the splatbooks come in, with clear "GM approval caveats". This is where you can go crazy experimental with all of the test rules that may or may not work. Your Dev playground, fully compatible with Core, but separate.

Things from Advanced may eventually drift into core rulebooks once they are fully tested and accepted by the community, similar to how things end up PFS.

Three separate lines, all compatible with the core buisness.


ciretose wrote:
a bunch of stuff about a tiered, but compatible, rules system

Have you seen/heard any of the interviews with the WotC people about D&D Next? Your proposal sounds a lot like their "modularity" concept.

No time to verify but I think this is the interview I'm thinking of, specifically.

Liberty's Edge

Abyssian wrote:
ciretose wrote:
a bunch of stuff about a tiered, but compatible, rules system

Have you seen/heard any of the interviews with the WotC people about D&D Next? Your proposal sounds a lot like their "modularity" concept.

No time to verify but I think this is the interview I'm thinking of, specifically.

If they aren't fully invested in OGL, it will fail.

That was where they messed up as much as any problems with the system itself. If 4e is a baseline for the entry level product for Next, that would be fine. But if your modules and adventures suck because no one wants to write for a closed system, and your entry costs put you outside of the market you are trying enter...fail.

If WoTC had a good idea, Paizo should steal it.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

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.

;-)

Your wish list sounds exactly like the d20 variant of Big Eyes Small Mouth.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
The problem is trying to decide which "dodgy" parts of the system they want to clean up. If you randomly grab 20 Pathfinder players and ask them what the weakest part of the system is, I'd wager you get at least 10 distinct answers. And there are probably very few, if any, components of the system that don't have detractors. Even concepts that most will agree were rooted in a good idea can often be subject to some intense criticism. AoO were a great idea, but they also can bog combat down to a hideous crawl. Feats were a great idea for character customization, but they've become something that practically makes a 1st level character have to decide between the ability to pick his nose or wipe his ass.

I know about 25 lads from around the island that play and I can tell you the two things that always pop up, magic item creation and the simulacrum spell.


Trikk wrote:
Morain wrote:
First off yes, I admit it. I'm the kind of guy who don't like change.

This is really where the OP should have ended. The whole sentiment is identical to any "old man rants about new things and hates change" sentiment that's ever been presented:

1. There's nothing wrong with what we have.
2. The things that are wrong with what we have are hard/impossible to fix.
3. If we fix what's wrong with what we have, some new issues are bound to creep up.
4. I have to get the new thing because everyone else is stupid and doesn't use the old thing.
5. I don't like change.

Conclusion: it's never worth developing or improving anything because that means we might have to change or learn something new. Also new things cost money and I hate to pay for stuff, especially in this economy/with these prices/a can of coke cost 2 cents when I was a kid.

Actually... While I can sense the sarcasm here, I DO subscribe to this philosophy. Before any new edition comes out... THESE are the questions that should be asked.

1) Is XXXXXXX broke?

2) Will YYYYYYY fix it?

3) Are we just trying to screw people over by making them buy the same thing all over again?

This is the key to all 'invention.' If you want to update a new Core rule with changes to monks and/or magic creation? Cool... Fine... Do I need to completely toss out my Ultimate Combat, APG and all the Golarion books.... then to heck with it!

THAT is what I think the issue with 4E was for us... We were still able to take the 3.5 books and convert them to our 2E FR campaign... 4E came in and completely DESTROYED the realms... Retconned the entire concept of elves... It was as similar to AD&D as Guantlet or WoW was... Similiar themes... completely incompatable.

I have zero issue with a rewrite of the core. As long as the RULES stay the same.

Liberty's Edge

phantom1592 wrote:


1) Is XXXXXXX broke?

2) Will YYYYYYY fix it?

3) Are we just trying to screw people over by making them buy the same thing all over again?

I have zero issue with a rewrite of the core. As long as the RULES stay the same.

But this precludes evolutionary leaps in the rules. If we applied this logic while we were all playing 2e AD&D then 3e would never have been developed and we would still be calculating THAC0's.

I can't see the point of a PF 2.0 as with each printing they make incremental changes. Very smart idea that evolves the game without people rolling their eyes about a 2nd edition. I personally have all but one of the core rule printings and each of the bestiary 1 printings. Now had WotC say released D&D 4e, 5e, 6e, 7e, & 8e in the same time frame as Paizo released the 1st to 5th printings of the PF core rules many would be screaming EVIL EMPIRE at them. Sure Paizo are nice enough to send me a free updated PDF with each printing but for us non-techy old schoolers who like paper I have effectively had to re-buy the 'same' rule-set 4 times (out of a possible 5). That was my choice for sure, and it is also my choice if I buy the latest D&D when I could continue to play 2e (my D&D of choice).

S.


Morain wrote:
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!

you do know.. to stay in business past 1 production cycle they NEED to publish a 2.0 at some point...

and IF you like the company and the product you should buy it. by doing so you support the game you love and the company that produces it.

in today's economy you MUST evolve your product line.. do you think apple would make the same amount of money they do no if they never produced the iPhone 3.0 and iPad 3?

I company must innovate and must have a development cycle to refresh and grow their player base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nunspa wrote:
Morain wrote:
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!

you do know.. to stay in business past 1 production cycle they NEED to publish a 2.0 at some point...

and IF you like the company and the product you should buy it. by doing so you support the game you love and the company that produces it.

in today's economy you MUST evolve your product line.. do you think apple would make the same amount of money they do no if they never produced the iPhone 3.0 and iPad 3?

I company must innovate and must have a development cycle to refresh and grow their player base.

In many ways, Pathfinder's innovation has been to defy precisely that theory Nunspa.

They innovate in content, but the rules are relatively static, which means they're not alienating the player base every few years.

They don't "need" to scrap the rules and republish. The rules are still making money, but they're not even the heart of the company, the adventure content is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
In many ways, Pathfinder's innovation has been to defy precisely that theory

When you look at Paizo, they've really innovated in many ways that have defied the traditional wisdom about what a tabletop RPG company should do, and made it work.

It was the accepted wisdom that adventures were poor sellers - Paizo has three successful adventure lines (the adventure paths, the modules, and the PF Society adventures).

It was the accepted wisdom that world-specific material was less desirable than generic crunch material - Paizo has two lines specifically about their game world (the Campaign Setting line and the Player's Companion line), though they do oftentimes feature a fair amount of crunch.

It was the accepted wisdom that legally reproducing your content online, for free, would hurt sales - Paizo not only keeps a continually updated SRD for their hardcover books, they also work with d20PFSRD to make all of their Open Game Content available, and have a fansite policy for places like the Pathfinder Wiki...and sales are (last we heard) booming.

Paizo is, in short, pretty well able to defy quite a bit of the accepted wisdom where tabletop RPG companies are concerned; here's hoping they can also break away from the "new editions are inevitable" accepted wisdom too.


Morain wrote:

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...

My gaming group feels the same as you, and we made the switch for the exact reasons you stated.


Evil Lincoln wrote:


In many ways, Pathfinder's innovation has been to defy precisely that theory Nunspa.

They innovate in content, but the rules are relatively static, which means they're not alienating the player base every few years.

They don't "need" to scrap the rules and republish. The rules are still making money, but they're not even the heart of the company, the adventure content is.

Except that's what the DID with pathfinder 1.0, they could have simply reprinted the entire SRD with new art and new gods..

but they evolved the game, they tweaked and they modified.

I expect PF to have a 8 to 10 year cycle.. especially if 5th edition starts to chip away at their sales.

and as an aside.. have you tried to play a game pathfinder's 1st print run with a group that has adopted all the errata?

It will drive you crazy... you can't unless you have several pages of errata and are ready to do a lot of back and forth.

I just stick with the PDF because of just that.. guess what, I'm NOT buying another print copy. I have my tablet and I can look up the updated rules when I wish.

also as new classes come to light the core classes will fall behind power wise.. well.. unless you buy all the new books. making getting into the game, and staying with the power curve, more and more expensive.

keeping new players away

Thus, at some point they will consolidate.. aka 2nd edition.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The PF CRB has already gone through five editions.

Pathfinder has already changed, and will continue to change.

The only question is how much and how quickly.

Right now the answer is 'a little and slowly'.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

The PF CRB has already gone through five editions.

Pathfinder has already changed, and will continue to change.

The only question is how much and how quickly.

Right now the answer is 'a little and slowly'.

which may backfire.

IF 5e takes a bite out of the market... Pathfinder may find itself in trouble.

there are some things in 5e i already like more then PF (see they way they are doing wizards with spells known and how many they cast and how you can simply cast a low level spell as a higher level spell for greater effect)

seeing how much WoTC is responding to player input... PF may have a fight on their hands.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No one said the answer will remain the same.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
No one said the answer will remain the same.

fair enough


phantom1592 wrote:
THAT is what I think the issue with 4E was for us... We were still able to take the 3.5 books and convert them to our 2E FR campaign... 4E came in and completely DESTROYED the realms... Retconned the entire concept of elves... It was as similar to AD&D as Guantlet or WoW was... Similiar themes... completely incompatable.

Yet, PF's Golarion isn't set in the Realms, so in that system the Realms don't exist, so essentially completely erased and drow were retconnned and ...

Never mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nunspa wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

The PF CRB has already gone through five editions.

Pathfinder has already changed, and will continue to change.

The only question is how much and how quickly.

Right now the answer is 'a little and slowly'.

which may backfire.

IF 5e takes a bite out of the market... Pathfinder may find itself in trouble.

there are some things in 5e i already like more then PF (see they way they are doing wizards with spells known and how many they cast and how you can simply cast a low level spell as a higher level spell for greater effect)

seeing how much WoTC is responding to player input... PF may have a fight on their hands.

Also, it's not a zero-sum game. Everyone seems to like to feel that way, but it really isn't.

PF is a fun, playable game. A new system doesn't invalidate that, and a lot of people play more than one system.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Nunspa wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

The PF CRB has already gone through five editions.

Pathfinder has already changed, and will continue to change.

The only question is how much and how quickly.

Right now the answer is 'a little and slowly'.

which may backfire.

IF 5e takes a bite out of the market... Pathfinder may find itself in trouble.

there are some things in 5e i already like more then PF (see they way they are doing wizards with spells known and how many they cast and how you can simply cast a low level spell as a higher level spell for greater effect)

seeing how much WoTC is responding to player input... PF may have a fight on their hands.

Also, it's not a zero-sum game. Everyone seems to like to feel that way, but it really isn't.

PF is a fun, playable game. A new system doesn't invalidate that, and a lot of people play more than one system.

THIS. I do not get why x new game means everyone has to burn their old books and play only the new game.

Especially since while Pathfinder and 5e are both D&D-based fantasy adventure RPGs, they will likely be different enough to do different things well, and BOTH be worthwhile to play (if 5e is worthwhile to play -- not saying it won't be, it's just not out yet so I don't know!). I can totally see a possible future for me where I'm in a Pathfinder game with one group and a 5e game with another and that working out just fine.

I admit I haven't played an older D&D game in awhile but if a good GM ran one I'd probably join in (although if someone wanted to run 3.x I'd really push for Pathfinder, but that's precisely because they're so similar, one being a revision of the other, that I'd rather play the one I have consistently had vastly more fun playing). And I still read and use the books--a lot of the rules are out of date but there's still a lot of good ideas, maps, etc. that I can make use of in not only Pathfinder but many systems.

And more to the point, Pathfinder will still be supported and 5e comes out, seeing as they're made by different companies and all. Usually when people stop playing a system for another, it's precisely because it is an older game that is no longer getting new material out for it. People would rather focus on the game that has new stuff coming out for it and not the one that won't ever get any further material--or errata or other staff support. That's actually the great thing about the Paizo business model--their bread and butter is APs and they make many of those for a long time to come, let alone the rest of their other product lines.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I know the main issue for me is opportunity cost. I can only game so many times a week, and every session of one game is one less of another. Plus the difficulty of getting a group that will play more than one game.


pres man wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
THAT is what I think the issue with 4E was for us... We were still able to take the 3.5 books and convert them to our 2E FR campaign... 4E came in and completely DESTROYED the realms... Retconned the entire concept of elves... It was as similar to AD&D as Guantlet or WoW was... Similiar themes... completely incompatable.

Yet, PF's Golarion isn't set in the Realms, so in that system the Realms don't exist, so essentially completely erased and drow were retconnned and ...

Never mind.

I feel the same way.

He's confusing the Setting for the Rules in use in a Setting. I had no problems going from 1st to 2nd to 3rd to 4th using the Greyhawk Realm (even when it was poorly supported) with no issues. I don't understand why he couldn't do the same for the Realms (Inferior Setting maybe ;-).

I view the "Points of Light" as setting. Like Darksun, Eberron, FR, Greyhawk, etc...... You don't want to acknowledge those Setting Changes, don't.

And while I don't DM Pathfinder (I do play), I'd be using Greyhawk for it as well (sorry Paizo). That won't prevent me from using Modules from Pathfinder or updating ones that I've acquired over the last 25-30 years .
Oh well.

Since it was a page and a half ago, I did want to make one note, if you don't want to acknowledge the Errata Changes in PF Core Rulebooks as 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4..... then why is 3.5 considered "A new edition". All it was was a collection of Errata (which included some class rebuilds) done all at once. As Nunspa has stated, if you have the 1.0 PF CR, and play in a group that uses all the Errata since then, it's hard to play, because there are a lot of changes. The D&D 2.5 Ed was an updated collection of all the Errata (not typos) and was released. It just didn't get the fanfare 3.5 did.


Stefan Hill wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:


1) Is XXXXXXX broke?

2) Will YYYYYYY fix it?

3) Are we just trying to screw people over by making them buy the same thing all over again?

I have zero issue with a rewrite of the core. As long as the RULES stay the same.

But this precludes evolutionary leaps in the rules. If we applied this logic while we were all playing 2e AD&D then 3e would never have been developed and we would still be calculating THAC0's.

Honestly... I LIKED thac0. Admittedly it was a bit tough on the math skills late at night... But there is something annoyingly unbalanced sometimes with these 'open ended' ACs and Attack bonuses...

I really liked that you had a 20 point spread to attack, and a 20 point spread with a max AC...

Here there are just way too many times that I will NEVER hit an opponent, and he will ALWAYS hit me...

DeathQuaker wrote:

THIS. I do not get why x new game means everyone has to burn their old books and play only the new game.

Especially since while Pathfinder and 5e are both D&D-based fantasy adventure RPGs, they will likely be different enough to do different things well, and BOTH be worthwhile to play (if 5e is worthwhile to play -- not saying it won't be, it's just not out yet so I don't know!). I can totally see a possible future for me where I'm in a Pathfinder game with one group and a 5e game with another and that working out just fine.

It's kind of a question of 'how much support' will the old game get? IF the goal is to sit in the basement and play a decade old edition with NO new APs, NO new splat books, NO new FAQs or forum discussion.... GO for it!

We did that with 2E for YEARS!!!

However, some people enjoy being part of the community and talking witht eh designers and going to conventions and being part of the living campaign world.

If they release a new version of Pathfinder DRASTICALLY different... (say like the 5th AGE Saga version of years ago...) Then the current one will be delegated to the back corner and left to die.

Similiar to the Marvel Super Heroes TSR game... In college I was part of a forum.... mailing list that kept that game going for 10 years after the company let it die... But even THAT community is done now. the game is long dead and been replaced at LEAST twice...

The goal should ALWAYS be to KEEP players. If you have a healthy online community then you should KEEP them. Not tell them to take their 1st edition and go play somewhere else... Becasue that's what they'll do.

ZugZug wrote:
pres man wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
THAT is what I think the issue with 4E was for us... We were still able to take the 3.5 books and convert them to our 2E FR campaign... 4E came in and completely DESTROYED the realms... Retconned the entire concept of elves... It was as similar to AD&D as Guantlet or WoW was... Similiar themes... completely incompatable.

Yet, PF's Golarion isn't set in the Realms, so in that system the Realms don't exist, so essentially completely erased and drow were retconnned and ...

Never mind.

I feel the same way.

He's confusing the Setting for the Rules in use in a Setting. I had no problems going from 1st to 2nd to 3rd to 4th using the Greyhawk Realm (even when it was poorly supported) with no issues. I don't understand why he couldn't do the same for the Realms (Inferior Setting maybe ;-).

The setting was utterly destroyed.

But more so the CORE of D&D changed drastically. I had already made my decisions before the 4E FR sourcebook ever came out. There were a few '4e races' books and 'previews' things that were released at the neighborhood bookstore. As a big player of elves, the disection of the whole subraces and concepts were altered to the point that it just wasn't worth trying to preserve those existing campaigns.

Quite frankly the thing PF had going for it the most was the APs. Our DM loved the idea of the fully realized 1-17+ level adventures at a time when his career was taking off to the point of homebrewing was becoming tough.

Silver Crusade

Nunspa wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

The PF CRB has already gone through five editions.

Pathfinder has already changed, and will continue to change.

The only question is how much and how quickly.

Right now the answer is 'a little and slowly'.

which may backfire.

IF 5e takes a bite out of the market... Pathfinder may find itself in trouble.

there are some things in 5e i already like more then PF (see they way they are doing wizards with spells known and how many they cast and how you can simply cast a low level spell as a higher level spell for greater effect)

seeing how much WoTC is responding to player input... PF may have a fight on their hands.

If Next continues down its current path, the only people it will get are the loyalists who would buy a turd on a stick if it said D&D. The current playtest at the moment has nothing in it that would cause a 4th edition player to leave his/her game nor a Pathfinder/3.5 player. I have done the playtest and so far I can tell you that Next is the one in trouble, not Pathfinder.

All PF needs to do is stick with their current plan and it's smooth sailing.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Also, it's not a zero-sum game. Everyone seems to like to feel that way, but it really isn't.

PF is a fun, playable game. A new system doesn't invalidate that, and a lot of people play more than one system.

THIS. I do not get why x new game means everyone has to burn their old books and play only the new game.

Well, "burn their books and only play the new game" for a LOT of groups means basically putting all your books for whatever you were playing away, pretty much for good, and having to completely switch up to the new game.

My group all changed up to Pathfinder with "no 3.5 allowed," which means for me and my 120+ book 3.5 library, while I'm not literally "burning my books" I am saying goodbye to them while the group plays a different system.

Most close-knit groups don't like to play multiple systems for the same genre.

I could just look for a new group, but finding 3.5 players where I'm from are slim pickin's, and my group are my best friends, I don't really want to game with a group of strangers over spending time with my friends. If forced to choose between a gaming system and people close to me, real people take precedence over gaming books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel your pain, Josh. My main player groups have both moved to Pathfinder years earlier, and though one of them has shown interest in a 3.5e game, the players themselves are divided with their opinions on the matter. One of them reasons that he didn't want to buy all his PF books for nothing, though I forgot that I have the counter-argument of "I bought the 3.5e books too, so your argument is as valid as mine" and whatnot.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


If Next continues down its current path, the only people it will get are the loyalists who would buy a turd on a stick if it said D&D. The current playtest at the moment has nothing in it that would cause a 4th edition player to leave his/her game nor a Pathfinder/3.5 player. I have done the playtest and so far I can tell you that Next is the one in trouble, not Pathfinder.

People were saying the same thing about Pathfinder before it was released. That only 3.5. loyalist would buy it because those who liked 3.5 wanted support. Any support. I was one of the few who was at first against PF thinking I would never play any edition of 3.5. Now it's the only edition of D&D I want to play. At least for the time being. If Wotc can pull off a modular edition that does allow fans who like 1E to 4E to play they will take market share away from Paizo. Pathfinder is made to be used with 3.5/PF. Next if designed properly allows for 4 editions of D&D to be played. Drawing in more fans than what PF can bring in.

shallowsoul wrote:


All PF needs to do is stick with their current plan and it's smooth sailing.

For the moment it works eventually if the current version stops making a profit they would and should imo make a new edition. No company owner in his or her right mind takes a loss for the fanbase forever. Not to mention it would give the Paizo devs a reason to try and actually address actually issues with 3.5. Hopefully in a eventual 2E playtest the vocal minority don't hijack the playtest a second time. You know the types that thought that giving a 19th level fighter DR to +1 magic weapons was broken and should not be implemented because it was no longer a true 3.5. fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't keep my hopes up if such a playtest does happen, considering all the shady stuff that happened in the actual PF one...

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
I wouldn't keep my hopes up if such a playtest does happen, considering all the shady stuff that happened in the actual PF one...

I wouldn't call banning a few people for being jerks "shady stuff", but YMMV.


Icyshadow wrote:
I feel your pain, Josh. My main player groups have both moved to Pathfinder years earlier, and though one of them has shown interest in a 3.5e game, the players themselves are divided with their opinions on the matter. One of them reasons that he didn't want to buy all his PF books for nothing, though I forgot that I have the counter-argument of "I bought the 3.5e books too, so your argument is as valid as mine" and whatnot.

Agreed. Honestly, my frustration isn't even aimed at Paizo or Pathfinder as much, really. I'm honestly frustrated with my fellow players. The complete transition to PF is fairly recent; up until a couple of months ago we were still playing 3.5 campaigns with a little PF on the side. For the past several years, I've been snatching up 3.5 books on secondary markets like crazy(and for my personal collection) stockpiling campaign material for us to use.

Part of the whole reason several of us, especially me, even entertained the idea of PF in the first place was because we didn't want to see our 3.5 material get shelved and collect dust. Backwards Compatibility was my chief, A#1 reason for even bothering to look at Pathfinder, and it's come back to bite me on the behind. This is not meant to be a jab at Paizo at all, but really, if I knew I was going to wind up playing a fantasy RPG where none of my 3.5 books were going to be allowed, I would've just went with 4e and been done with it. My group is to blame for disallowing the books, but at the same time, if the changes in PF weren't so radical and the power level not so thrown off compared to 3.5, backwards compatibility might have been a little less of an issue.

THIS is why if Paizo ever thinks about a "version 2," or a different game altogether, that I would like to see a final divorce from the 3.5 rules entirely, so they can take their ideas and go nuts with it. Anything else just needs to be kept in the same edition( a consistent series of errata and adjustments).


Well, my 2 Coppers on the topic...

As long as they don't 'Salt The Earth' on the first edition rules and support like 4E did, I don't think I'd blink twice at giving it a go. I mean, a simple investment in the first CRB that came out will be a good indicator if it is a needed change for me, you or your groups.

My real motive will be if any of the Three Gaming Groups I run want to use the new stuff. I have usually been the driving force for all the changes to date. My oldest group started in the early 80s with 1st Ed on the grand setting of Mystara and I have dragged them and Mystara through AD&D, 2Ed, 3.0, 3.5 and now to Pathfinder.

If it's seamless to roll into PF2, as a streamlining of shtuff, sure, I don't see a reason to not. If it will take a lot of work to revamp and my players don't want to, it will be a no go.

Change is exciting, usually in a good way. I think it would interesting and entertaining to see what the minds of Paizo would do with a PF2. They haven't disappointed my group or me yet.

Have Fun Out There!!

~ W ~


I would be okay with them revising and correcting some of the rules, but not for a complete change of system. The 3e changed AD&D alright, but to me, it was only about adding new features and simplifying things, like removing the THAC0, eliminating the stat requirements for classes and putting every class on the same EXP level.

The reason why I stick to Pathfinder is simply because I hate the 4e. Why? because it changed, not added, so many features that I liked in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder that it didn't feel like the same game anymore.

Bottom line, I could see them correcting and fixing some rules, but not a completely new system, and yes, I really hope that they DON'T imitate the 4e, because it's probably the biggest nerf-fest I've seen in my life. I'm not kidding: I pit a 10th-level Pathfinder wizard against a 10th-level 4e wizard... and the Pathfinder version wallops it in 2 rounds tops because the class has been grounded to no end in 4e.

Silver Crusade

memorax wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


If Next continues down its current path, the only people it will get are the loyalists who would buy a turd on a stick if it said D&D. The current playtest at the moment has nothing in it that would cause a 4th edition player to leave his/her game nor a Pathfinder/3.5 player. I have done the playtest and so far I can tell you that Next is the one in trouble, not Pathfinder.

People were saying the same thing about Pathfinder before it was released. That only 3.5. loyalist would buy it because those who liked 3.5 wanted support. Any support. I was one of the few who was at first against PF thinking I would never play any edition of 3.5. Now it's the only edition of D&D I want to play. At least for the time being. If Wotc can pull off a modular edition that does allow fans who like 1E to 4E to play they will take market share away from Paizo. Pathfinder is made to be used with 3.5/PF. Next if designed properly allows for 4 editions of D&D to be played. Drawing in more fans than what PF can bring in.

shallowsoul wrote:


All PF needs to do is stick with their current plan and it's smooth sailing.
For the moment it works eventually if the current version stops making a profit they would and should imo make a new edition. No company owner in his or her right mind takes a loss for the fanbase forever. Not to mention it would give the Paizo devs a reason to try and actually address actually issues with 3.5. Hopefully in a eventual 2E playtest the vocal minority don't hijack the playtest a second time. You know the types that thought that giving a 19th level fighter DR to +1 magic weapons was broken and should not be implemented because it was no longer a true 3.5. fighter.

In fairness, Wotc just didn't listen to the customers. They thought they knew what the customers wanted even after being told it wasn't what they wanted. It's like asking for a coke, only to get a sprite because that person claimed he knew what you really wanted more than you.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
Part of the whole reason several of us, especially me, even entertained the idea of PF in the first place was because we didn't want to see our 3.5 material get shelved and collect dust. Backwards Compatibility was my chief, A#1 reason for even bothering to look at Pathfinder, and it's come back to bite me on the behind. This is not meant to be a jab at Paizo at all, but really, if I knew I was going to wind up playing a fantasy RPG where none of my 3.5 books were going to be allowed, I would've just went with 4e and been done with it. My group is to blame for disallowing the books, but at the same time, if the changes in PF weren't so radical and the power level not so thrown off compared to 3.5, backwards compatibility might have been a little less of an issue.

For what it's worth, my preferred game is to this day a hybrid of the two systems, using mostly PF's backbone but allowing as much 3.5 content as I own, and I don't mind converting stuff. If your group would allow things once PF-ized, I'd happily alter and update classes, races, feats, whatnot on request for their perusal.

Though, I'm pretty loose and relaxed with the rules and power level in the game, so if your group is used to a low-power game they may not like my style much ;)


JiCi wrote:

I would be okay with them revising and correcting some of the rules, but not for a complete change of system. The 3e changed AD&D alright, but to me, it was only about adding new features and simplifying things, like removing the THAC0, eliminating the stat requirements for classes and putting every class on the same EXP level.

The reason why I stick to Pathfinder is simply because I hate the 4e. Why? because it changed, not added, so many features that I liked in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder that it didn't feel like the same game anymore.

Bottom line, I could see them correcting and fixing some rules, but not a completely new system, and yes, I really hope that they DON'T imitate the 4e, because it's probably the biggest nerf-fest I've seen in my life. I'm not kidding: I pit a 10th-level Pathfinder wizard against a 10th-level 4e wizard... and the Pathfinder version wallops it in 2 rounds tops because the class has been grounded to no end in 4e.

I disagree. If all a new edition would be is just a handful of fixes and updates, then that, to me, is not a new edition. That's just errata. There's no reason to start a new edition if it's just a couple of updates and fixes.

A new edition, in my opinion, should be a clean start. A fresh re-imagining of the core of the game. If that new core feels consistent with the previous one, while not exactly copying it, that's not a bad thing. I just can't justify calling a handful of patches a whole new edition.

A new edition of Pathfinder doesn't have to be the literal "end of the world" for current PF players. As long as they don't mangle and destroy their setting like WotC did to the Realms, I think a new game could exist alongside the old. Not even talking about supporting two different rulesets, but basically making new rules books fore the new edition, while maybe a handful of staff continue AP's for the previous one for a while until the new edition is more set in place.

Basically, as long as Paizo doesn't nuke their own game and try to tell their fans how much fun they aren't having, and a new edition can "play nice" with the previous for a while, I think it'd be all good. A slow transition, not driving the previous full speed into a brick wall, suddenly switching everything full-stop to the new one; new rules for the new, new AP's for the old for at least a year. YMMV


I dont need nor want pathfinder 2.0 as I am very happy with the game as it stands. But I will say this, if they want to do it, I will support it and at least buy the core book. I say this for a few reasons.

First and foremost Pathfinder is a buisness I really want to see continue and I understand the need for fresh revenue streams as an edition gets long in the tooth. If there arent enough new players comming in, at somepoint you have to sell something new to the fans you already have...I get that.

Secondly there are a host of tiny changes and clarification that have come down the pipe over the years that a new edition could encompass while adding new innovations. Maybe a 2.0 would end up being the perfect game for me and my group? Paizo has earned enough cred with me to give them that chance, and if I dont like it...I have a wonderful backlog of their existing product to return to.

Thirdly the yolk of backwards compatability did probably stop paizo short from making the game they wanted. Dont get me wrong, I loved that their focus on keeping your old stuff usefull allowed for a wonderful transitional period where you could use all of your old material. But now that Pathfinder stands on its own, I dont go back to old splat books at all. Maybe it's time to allow the paizo folks to lay all the sacred cows aside and put out something completely free of past baggage.

In summation...I dont know that I will leave Pathfinder 1.0 for 2.0...but I would at least buy a core book and give it a fair shake...these guys have earned my loyalty.

Dark Archive

Gorbacz wrote:
Trailblazer set out to be a "better 3.5 D&D". It boasted to be "a better revision of 3.5 than Pathfinder". It moved significantly from several paradigms of the ruleset. Where is Trailblazer now? It didn't even manage to get a monster book out, that's how great a trail it blazed.

I think you are being too harsh on Trailblazer.

I can see why they didn't adopt the marketing policy of describing it as "like D&D 3.5 but worse".

RPGs published by tiny companies are unlikely to set the role-playing world on fire and become the next big thing, however good the games are. I seriously doubt that was the purpose behind publishing Trailblazer.

And the monster book is extremely late, but it will still be published. Per the recent kickstarter update, the contents are now complete and they are moving towards getting print proofs.

Shadow Lodge

A lot of the mechanics in Trailblazer are quite good. If Pathfinder 2E is essentially D&D 3.875, then Paizo could do far worse to look to Trailblazer for some inspiration.

Shadow Lodge

This is the first I've ever heard of Trailblazer, to be honest. Though I'm a bit used to being out of the loop. Info link?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Trailblazer. It's pretty much Pathfinder without the art budget. I was beginning to think the monster manual was going the way of Razor Coast.

Shadow Lodge

Here is the DriveThruRPG page. If Bad Axe Games has a website, I dunno the address.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
This is the first I've ever heard of Trailblazer, to be honest. Though I'm a bit used to being out of the loop. Info link?

Here's its sales page, with reviews.

EDIT: Trailblazer is, to summarize, a truly excellent analysis of 3.5, and a series of suggested (and, to a large degree, modular) fixes for some of its biggest problems.

They analyze various aspects of the game (mostly giving you the results, rather than walking you through the tedious process of how they got there) and use that as the basis for making changes. One good example of this is their analysis of iterative attacks and BAB.

They calculate that the first and second attacks of a full-attack action are worthwhile, but the third and fourth (e.g. the -10 and -15 attacks) only really matter when your opponent is damn-near impossible to hit (e.g. when you need as many chances as possible to roll a natural 20, since that auto-hits) or damn-near impossible to miss (e.g. when you can really only miss if you roll a natural 1).

Based on that, they suggest the following change: at BAB +6, you can make two attacks on a full attack action, each at a -2 penalty. At BAB +11, this becomes two attacks on a full attack action, each at a -1 penalty. At +16, it's two attacks on a full attack action, with no penalty. They run the numbers to show how, notwithstanding the two aforementioned extremes (e.g. can't possibly hit your enemy, or can't possibly miss) this alternate system actually deals more damage (from more hits on average) over the course of a campaign, all without combat being slowed by high-level melee/ranged characters insisting on taking iterative attacks that are comparatively likely to miss anyway.

Personally, my favorite part of the book was how to add specific class features to monsters, and bump up the CR accordingly, without having to add entire class levels (e.g. I can make my frost giant cast spells as a 7th-level cleric, and calculate the corresponding CR increase, without going through the tedious process of adding cleric levels, which would require more save bonuses, skill points, etc. when all I want him to do is cast spells).

It's really a great book, and I'd recommend it to any fan of the d20 System.

Dark Archive

ZugZug wrote:
Since it was a page and a half ago, I did want to make one note, if you don't want to acknowledge the Errata Changes in PF Core Rulebooks as 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4..... then why is 3.5 considered "A new edition". All it was was a collection of Errata (which included some class rebuilds) done all at once. As Nunspa has stated, if you have the 1.0 PF CR, and play in a group that uses all the Errata since then, it's hard to play, because there are a lot of changes. The D&D 2.5 Ed was an updated collection of all the Errata (not typos) and was released. It just didn't get the fanfare 3.5 did.

3.5 was more than errata.

There were some changes that didn't improve things, just made them different to how they used to be. YMMV, but for me the changes to monster Space and damage reduction fall into this category.

And there were some changes that made things worse – for instance the re-wording of the charge rules so that by RAW the Ride-by-Attack feat can’t actually be used.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
amethal wrote:
There were some changes that didn't improve things, just made them different to how they used to be. YMMV, but for me the changes to monster Space and damage reduction fall into this category.

On these specific points, I agree with you. While I do understand the design decision to decrease DR point-values overall (e.g. no more DR 25/X, for example), the downgrading of DR with specific plusses to a general "magic" was not something I liked. Same for the idea that all monsters now occupied a perfect square.

Likewise, back before he joined Paizo, Sean K Reynolds once ranted about how it was a mistake that 3.5 didn't allow keen and Improved Critical to stack the way they had in 3.0, and had the math to back his point up (though I have seen one convincing rebuttal to Sean's original rant).

Shadow Lodge

Alzrius wrote:
Likewise, back before he joined Paizo, Sean K Reynolds once ranted about how it was a mistake that 3.5 didn't allow keen and Improved Critical to stack the way they had in 3.0, and had the math to back his point up (though I have seen one convincing rebuttal to Sean's original rant).

Heh, I typically allow them to anyway. Mostly because I was introduced to D&D via Neverwinter Nights, and there they do stack. It typically takes someone pointing it out to remind me they don't in PnP. Then I generally allow it anyway.


3.0 crit stacking was beyond broken. using a bladed gauntlet(light weapon, 1d6 damage, 17-20x2) from 3.0's Sword and Fist book(pre 3.5 errata), making it Keen with the Improved Critical feat gave it a 9-20 crit range. Seriously.

Even not using an exotic weapon, just using a rapier stacking those two things gave it a 12-20 threat range.

My math might be a little off.

Dark Archive

DeathQuaker wrote:
4e was not compatible with my campaign setting as I wrote it, and I didn't want to take the time to try and convert and adapt it. That was definitely a big factor in why I don't play 4e.

A few people have said similar things about 4th edition.

I don’t suppose I’d ever want to, but I don’t think I’d have had much difficulty converting mine to 4th edition. My campaign world didn’t have any dragonborn, or teleporting eladrin, but it would have been easy enough for me to add them in, and even easier just to leave them out.

What kind of things were not compatible with your campaign setting?

Dark Archive

Josh M. wrote:

3.0 crit stacking was beyond broken. using a bladed gauntlet(light weapon, 1d6 damage, 17-20x2) from 3.0's Sword and Fist book(pre 3.5 errata), making it Keen with the Improved Critical feat gave it a 9-20 crit range. Seriously.

Even not using an exotic weapon, just using a rapier stacking those two things gave it a 12-20 threat range.

My math might be a little off.

As "great" as that was, a simple wizard/cleric combo of haste + harm + another damage spell easily trumped that. There's probably a ton of other things that could be done instead that I forgot about or never found. There were a lot of combos in 3.0 that were good, some were broken. But 3.5 fixed a lot of that.

Of course, the very engine of 3.0 and d20 cause other issues (like full attacks only with a 5' step, and concentration checks allowing spells to succeed when they took damage and lack of spell speeds).

I'm fine with PF as it is, even with the creep. When PF 2 comes out, I'll take a look at it and decide if I want to switch or not.


BYC wrote:
Josh M. wrote:

3.0 crit stacking was beyond broken. using a bladed gauntlet(light weapon, 1d6 damage, 17-20x2) from 3.0's Sword and Fist book(pre 3.5 errata), making it Keen with the Improved Critical feat gave it a 9-20 crit range. Seriously.

Even not using an exotic weapon, just using a rapier stacking those two things gave it a 12-20 threat range.

My math might be a little off.

As "great" as that was, a simple wizard/cleric combo of haste + harm + another damage spell easily trumped that. There's probably a ton of other things that could be done instead that I forgot about or never found. There were a lot of combos in 3.0 that were good, some were broken. But 3.5 fixed a lot of that.

Of course, the very engine of 3.0 and d20 cause other issues (like full attacks only with a 5' step, and concentration checks allowing spells to succeed when they took damage and lack of spell speeds).

I'm fine with PF as it is, even with the creep. When PF 2 comes out, I'll take a look at it and decide if I want to switch or not.

A simple "cleric/wizard combo" trumped 90% of the entire system. That's not exactly a fair comparison.

151 to 200 of 574 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why Pathfinder 2.0 should never happen All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.