Why Pathfinder 2.0 should never happen


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 574 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

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.

Pathfinder flourishes because:1. Wotc/Hasbro abandoned 3.5 and replaced it with something far inferior- thus creating a vacant niche for another new company to step in. 2.The WoTC/Hasbro replacement was done in the worst possible way, thereby alienating many of it's former customers (I, for one, have not bought a Hasbro product since this was done) and 3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5, along with great service and support by the company. Pathfinder, despite a few flaws, is an eminently playable and fun game. I don't think Pathfinder 2.0 is needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nothing gold can stay. Someday, Paizo will need to go back to the well. I hope it's a long time coming, but to imagine it never will is ignoring reality. For one thing, they will eventually run out of hardbacks people are willing to buy, and hardbacks are the big moneymakers. Eventually, the APs will start to seem either too familiar or too outlandish, and not enough people will buy them, and there goes the other pillar.

Planned obsolescence is aggravating, but necessary for creative companies to survive. When there aren't enough new players coming in and old players willing to buy increasingly extraneous products, Paizo will have to start the cycle over to survive. Paizo is doing it a lot better than TSR or WotC, but that just prolongs the inevitable. I'll be there to support them, whenever the time comes. I owe them for all the fun.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Azazyll wrote:
...hardbacks are the big moneymakers.

Really? I would have thought the opposite - namely that people would underestimate the additional costs associated with producing a hardcover (the obvious extra production costs, but also the extra logistical costs, extra shipping, etcetera) and would thus undervalue them and require the publisher accept a lower margin.

Shadow Lodge

My understanding is that the Hardbacks far out sell all other products, (include digital sells of the hardback books in that), and are much more well liked, but they are among the least profitable to Paizo than many other products. This is because of the cost to make and ship, the time that needs to be invested, and other factors. They cost more to buy, but that doesn't mean that Paizo turns that much more of a profit from them.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
My understanding is that the Hardbacks far out sell all other products, (include digital sells of the hardback books in that), and are much more well liked...

Where did you here that? Even on release, they rarely outrank the current AP issue (and although they seem to me to sell over a longer period, other than the core book and bestiary, I dont think they spend that much longer in the "top ten selling" lists).

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've never heard that before.

Shadow Lodge

I want to say the JJ or SKR mentioned it in some random thread. Another major factor is that a lot of the Hardcover books are 1.) not Golarion secific, so have a slightly more open fan base (for example they play FR or Eberron, but just use the PFCRB rules but no setting), and 2.) most AP's and advenures are kind of DM only material while many people purchase the PF CR, APG, ISWG, and the Ultimates, even if their group(s) already have a copy. Also PFS players need to have a copy of most material outside the CRB in order to play it legally. It's hard to tell, as some people, like myself, prefere to purchase physical books from a local store and usually only pick up digital copies here or a few other places, more as a back up copy.

Note I wasn't trying to say that Hardcovers outsell digital materials, I was saying that Hardcovers and digital copies of the hardcovers out sell others and the digital copies of others, as I understand it.

Contributor

One interesting point is that the longest Paizo waits to update the rules, the most existing rules will be affected by the change.

For example, let's say that Paizo decides to redo Cleric Domains so the Cleric gets more powers as she levels. Currently that would affect three hard-cover books (Core Rulebook, Subdomains in Advanced Player's Guide, Animal/Terrain Domains in Ultimate Magic) and myriad Player Companions and Campaign Setting Guides. As time goes on, we're likely to see even more new subdomains get published as well, which means all of those would be affected by even that small change.

On a different note, one of the things that bugged me about Dungeons and Dragons was that new "edition" actually meant "entirely new game." If your core mechanics aren't staying pretty much the same and you're getting a massive overhaul, you don't really have a new edition anymore. You have a new game. A new edition should be minor tweaks and changes to the previous edition that cleans it up a little bit.

One idea that I would personally find interesting is a sort of small, maybe semi-annual update in the form of a 64 / 32 page book. A Campaign Setting-sized book for the Rulebook Line. Each book could compile information on a topic while also fixing rules and providing errata. If we're talking about $20 a month for a major fix to some of the community's concerns without interrupting the rulebook release line, I'd totally pay for it. Plus it would be nice to see things like the Void Elemental School or the Moon Subdomain get out of the Campaign Setting line; they're not topics that should be considered unique to Golarion, yet because of the outlet they were introduced in 3rd Party Publishers can't actively cite them; I actually ran into this problem when I wrote Pact Magic Unbound, Vol. 1. I wanted to cite the Void Elemental School for a spirit's abilities, but couldn't because it wasn't on the proper Exhibit List of referable products, which only currently consists of Core Rulebook Line material.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Note I wasn't trying to say that Hardcovers outsell digital materials, I was saying that Hardcovers and digital copies of the hardcovers out sell others and the digital copies of others, as I understand it.

Yeah, I understood what you meant. It's just I've got the opposite impression (other than the CRB and Bestiary, which consistently place in the top ten selling paizo products). I'm always curious to hear snippets of actual facts over my impressions - it's pretty hard not to extrapolate one's own experiences and assume they are the norm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see several books along the lines of Unearthed Arcana and time for people to fully process them before Pathfinder 2.0 is released, but I do think that a 2.0 is needed at some point. It shouldn't be done for profit reasons, and since the ruleset isn't the main money maker, I doubt it would need to be as long as they can keep coming up with quality APs. But there are definitely places in the rules and the core classes that could benefit from a rewrite and different approaches. Personally, I'd love to see the words of power system fleshed out a bit more and eventually made the norm for spontaneous casters, helping to differentiate them from the prepared casters, who work just fine with the vancian system. I also think that the cleric, monk, and rogue could all benefit from a complete rewrite that incorporates the lessons learned from the various archetypes and newer classes created by Paizo, which also could benefit from experience in being able to be revised in positive ways. In short, I think Pathfinder 2.0 should come out when there is enough experience with the different archetypes, alternate rules, and expanded character options that the devs are confident that they can make a better core product based on that experience and knowledge base.


Alexander Augunas wrote:


On a different note, one of the things that bugged me about Dungeons and Dragons was that new "edition" actually meant "entirely new game." If your core mechanics aren't staying pretty much the same and you're getting a massive overhaul, you don't really have a new edition anymore. You have a new game. A new edition should be minor tweaks and changes to the previous edition that cleans it up a little bit.

THIS! A thousand times this!


ikarinokami wrote:

i certainly would want pathfinder 2.0 at some point

Fix rogues and monks
fine tune fighters and barbarians
fix stealth
rebalance crafting
fix feat chains
fix high level play
build in epic levels from the start

That's the "best" list of suggestions I've seen from someone who would want a new edition of the game to date. I still think however that more things would inevitably be changed for the worse if pathfinder 2 became a reality. Including some of the things on your list.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

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.

Pathfinder flourishes because:1. Wotc/Hasbro abandoned 3.5 and replaced it with something far inferior- thus creating a vacant niche for another new company to step in. 2.The WoTC/Hasbro replacement was done in the worst possible way, thereby alienating many of it's former customers (I, for one, have not bought a Hasbro product since this was done) and 3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5, along with great service and support by the company. Pathfinder, despite a few flaws, is an eminently playable and fun game. I don't think Pathfinder 2.0 is needed.

QFT


After reading through this forum I have to take the opposite stance. While I hope that PF remains true to the d20 core mechanics I hope that PF 2.0 comes much sooner than later.

It appears that the majority agree that the d20 system is a good fit for their gaming groups and I would agree; but as far as the system is concerned it needs to have a complete mathematical overhaul. I understand that PF wanted to appeal to disenfranchised gamers who felt abandoned when D&D moved to 4th edition so they tried to keep things the same while moving the system forward. Unfortunately in doing so they failed to tackle the underlying mathematical problems beginning with 3.0 and growing substantially with every new book released and Pathfinder doubled down on this.

The next move forward needs to have a complete review/revision of the underlying math of the game as well as a streamlining of some of the rules; the bonus system is an example that immediately come to mind. I agree that the overall core of the game needs to remain the same but the balancing issues with the math needs to be addressed. I am not a developer so I do not suggest to have the answers or pretend this challenge will be easy but it is necessary to make the product stronger moving forward.


I don't think Paizo needs a 2.0 for Pathfinder any time soon. The rules base seems to work well to support their business model of fleshing out Glorion and creating Adventure paths. Then add in the modules and Pathfinder Society. With Mythic rules they can release more rules content. I think that if anything they should create other genres. A Sci Fi oriented game based of the D20 system would be good. Modern horror would be good. Steam Punk or Cyber punk as well. Lots of directions to go with rules sets once they get Pathfinder as far as it can go.


I could certainly go with a PF 1.5. Like AD&D 2nd Edition or D&D 3.5e. As long as it is something that makes items, spells, feats, and monsters still work with the new rules, I think there are several minor things that would benefit from some overhauls.

But of course, it would have to be an actual new edition of the same game. Not a new game with the same name. There is absolutely no reason why Paizo would ever want to do that.


I agree with those who suggested a revised edition just to refine/overhaul problematic areas and clarify those rules which cause some confusion.

For those not yet ready to buy a new core rulebook, an appendix of the rules updates could just be released as a free pdf.


Things I'm not too thrilled about currently are the Craft and Fly skill, and the Improved Combat Maneuver feats. Grapple obviously could always use a complete rewrite as are the needlessly complex rules for being at 0 hp and recovering when at negative hit points. The whole business of attacks of opportunity could also be simplefied.
But I think these are all things that could be changed without really changing the game as a whole. Pretty much every book would work just the same with altered rules in these areas, with 99% of the content requiring no adjustments or conversions at all.
You could easily remove prerequisites for either feats or PrCs, but any stat block that includes them would still be 100% viable. Or if movement in squares would be changed, you could replace for example the effect of the "Spring Attack" feat. Since the stat blocks only say the creature has the feat, but it does not change any other parts of the stat block, there would also be no need for changes at all.

Such a kind of a new edition would be something I might highly welcome if I like the actual changes. But even then, I don't really see any economic reason to do that in the forseeable future. The amount of people who would start buying the game after such changes, but won't buy it now should be pretty much negible. Pathfinder is already highly refined in the rules (even though I don't agree with everything myself).
AD&D 1st Ed. ran for 12 years, 2nd Ed. 11 years. Pathfinder isn't anywhere near that yet.


The biggest issue in my view is that in the digital age there are ways to bridge the old content of a new system version with all the past material—embrace pdf updates instead of the currently in place system of produce/don't look back that Paizo sticks with. 1 non-core product, Adventurer's Armory, has seen a reprint due to errors. With no errata system in place—every other non-core product, especially in this case pdfs, is left as originally released. The consumer is left with the options of trying to find answers in a limited FAQ system or in the vast expanse of what is honestly not the best laid out of forum systems. Even these are not always viable options as a proper answer depends on a qualified Paizo employee, or panel of them, to actually give a stamp of approval.

Every single non-core product could be updated to a new rule system. All of the pre-Pathfinder 3.5 products could be updated by Paizo, if they were willing to slow down a bit on so many product lines—which seem to be pushing their limits the past 2 years or so. Right now it is in the hands of the end user to convert these outdated products themselves. Even if they do they can not share certain things with the rest of the public due to the OGL, which is not a limit placed on Paizo. Paizo could, if they wanted to, truly embrace the digital age and show that even with a new "2nd" edition", fans could rest easy as updates to all the previous releases would eventually see the light of day. Core products are, beyond the fluff portions which are fine to reprint/tweak a bit, open content and would once again be available in a new PRD just as the original PRD would still exist.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nukruh wrote:
1 non-core product, Adventurer's Armory, has seen a reprint due to errors.

Actually, AA was reprinted because it sold out lightning-fast*, within a window of time that the management decided, "this is still new enough that if we do a reprint, it'll still sell pretty well."

* I don't recall how fast it was, but I think it was less than six months. Certainly less than a year, which is unusual—one of the reasons why Paizo doesn't reprint most books is by the time the available stock is low enough to start considering a reprint, the book is over a year old and the sales have trickled off to a very small number. For example, if there are 200 copies left 12 months after the release date and Paizo has been selling 50 copies per month for the past 3 months, there's not much interest in reprinting that book because Paizo doesn't expect that 50/month rate is going to increase, and doing a second printing of 1,000 copies would mean Paizo would be sitting on copies of that book for another 20 months (longer than the original sellthrough time for the original print run when the book was new).

Shadow Lodge

To be honest, some of the things I would hope for are maybe a little outside the boundaries of a small update. Reevaluating some of the core classes and incorporating in some of the new mechanics and systems that the newer base classes use would help with balance. For example giving the Fighter a grit-like system that allows them to pull of some cool stuff and renew cinematically with a crit. Take a look at the Witche's Hexes and maybe bump some of the Cleric/Sorcerer/Wizards low level at will abilities. The spell lists can really use a little bit of a switching up in some places. At least, Clerics and Fighters really need 4+int skills, but I would kind of hope for 4+Int being the standard lowest (with the exception of Wizards and other Int based classes sort of like the Barbarian gets d12 HP as an exception to the BaB/HP link).

This doesn't really mean that all the older material will be obsolete, just like it isn't now when things have been errata'd, for example with the various Monk changes. It just means that people need to remember that it works a bit differently.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Nukruh wrote:
1 non-core product, Adventurer's Armory, has seen a reprint due to errors.

Actually, AA was reprinted because it sold out lightning-fast*, within a window of time that the management decided, "this is still new enough that if we do a reprint, it'll still sell pretty well."

* I don't recall how fast it was, but I think it was less than six months. Certainly less than a year, which is unusual—one of the reasons why Paizo doesn't reprint most books is by the time the available stock is low enough to start considering a reprint, the book is over a year old and the sales have trickled off to a very small number. For example, if there are 200 copies left 12 months after the release date and Paizo has been selling 50 copies per month for the past 3 months, there's not much interest in reprinting that book because Paizo doesn't expect that 50/month rate is going to increase, and doing a second printing of 1,000 copies would mean Paizo would be sitting on copies of that book for another 20 months (longer than the original sellthrough time for the original print run when the book was new).

Thanks for the clarification, I actually just used that to prove a point in relation to non-core digital products besides that never seeing updates. I should have used "update" instead of "reprint" due to the matter at hand being about digital products. The meat of the reply was essentially everything else besides that minor point.

Grand Lodge

Looking into my crystal ball, I gaze into the future, and see pathfinder 2nd edition in 2016.

Actually do I think there will be a revision sometime within the next four years, but I don't think there's going to be a complete system rewrite/overhaul. It may even come in a players handbook 2 style splat book, without a actual revision more like some optional rules to help in game balance and introducing new game elements, sorta like mythic.


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...

This is quite nonsense. You would not forced to play the new system. Also, if you don't like change, you should not like even new books like ultimate combat, and so on. Actually i'll be very happy if developers will be brave enough to revise the rules, since is pretty clear that this game suffers from balance issue and is too much tied to 3.5.

But this will not happen soon. Fortunatly for players who like to emprowe and try new things, there's a lot of contents from other members that could be useful. If someone is able to modify rules, of course. Developers could also work on pathfinder and an "advanced pathfinder" for more demanding players. You have a personale and opinable opinion on PF (like me, like all). For example i feel a big urge to have some major fix about skills and feats, spell system, and classes. I play PF just because it's easy to modify and because D&D team seems not able to create a real RPG after 3.5 (4th was a board video game, and actually it's great for Neverwinter online, but awful for real RPG).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

OK... I got about halfway through the thread...

This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Vancian Casting -

The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept. The Sorcerer can be a bit powerful spamming spells over and over again on that other end, so a mechanic will be needed to recharge spells over time (more powerful, area effects and such will have longer recharge times) This is similar to the Monster abilities recharging in the current system. using the current system, a wizard would use the Sorcerer mechanics while using a spellbook to change known spells when needed using more than an overnight onceover to do so. (I have an Archtype doing it an hour per level of spells changed)

- Feat mechanic would need to be focused -

This means class exclusive feats (much like the Rogue Talents), no skill improvement/ focus feats (This would be better implemented in how the character gets/improves his skills and in class specific bonuses), and no feats that emulate other class abilities. (including to making Evasion and Improved Evasion Rogue specific)

- Magic properties of items need to be scaled down -

This isn't about weapons and armor, but is about the various items that simulate class abilities and such. Evasion is again a good example of what not to have.

- Rewards for succeeding in the game need to be clear, and not limited -

Pathfinder, as a whole, isn't bad with this. 3.5 and 4th edition limits wealth because of some perceived notion that being wealthy somehow improved your character to epic levels. This is somewhat a symptom of Magic Items having gotten away from their original purpose, but can be mitigated in a new system and currently by the GM not making broken items available. (See above point)

- Classes need to be effective in a party -

See Monk, Bard, Oracle that doesn't heal, etc....

- Classes need to not be a solo machine that... -

Yeah, classes in general need to be balanced with one another. I believe the Summoner would be a wizard specialization, and most of the spontaneous casters would be folded into the base classes using a unified magic mechanic.

- Psionics -

Would need to be either included or thought of as a later addition. Not as a mechanic per sey, but the concept should have some thought as to how it would be implemented and what former spells might be something that would be exclusive to it. I would think that the monk might (as it was perpetrated to be in 4th) use psionics and be the Psi Warrior hybrid. The Psi points need not make a reappearance here.

- Traits -

Need to be it's own thing instead of a 1/2 feat. Put Improved Initiative here. This can also have the skill feats shifted over to here. Some classes that don't use magic may need to get additional traits later on in levels.

- saving throws -

I like the 4th edition idea of Defenses, but for it to actually work, spells would need to improve their own to hit according to what the class/abilities/feats/etc would give it. They also need to be in line with being a lower defense (typically) than AC, unlike those in 4th ed.

SR would also be tied to a defense, in my mind.

- CMB/CMD -

This would be refined and be within the rule-set as a whole, rather than tacked on.

- Races -

Would have no negative stat and have some abilities that can be improved on with traits. The prime example is a bird people that would have glide that can be improved to fly. Would like to see an expanded race selection in the new edition, maybe to include Tiefling, Tengu, Dragonken and Goblin.

- Backgrounds -

Have a background section that gives some sense of what the various races have done historically. This also would include some generic background packages that any would do. This might include being a farmer, sailor, merchant and the like as well as having been enslaved, adopted, and so on. This would be in addition to the traits, and might include getting additional traits as a part of the background.

So...

There is so much that can be done in a new edition of Pathfinder.


thaX wrote:

OK... I got about halfway through the thread...

This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Vancian Casting -

The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept. The Sorcerer can be a bit powerful spamming spells over and over again on that other end, so a mechanic will be needed to recharge spells over time (more powerful, area effects and such will have longer recharge times) This is similar to the Monster abilities recharging in the current system. using the current system, a wizard would use the Sorcerer mechanics while using a spellbook to change known spells when needed using more than an overnight onceover to do so. (I have an Archtype doing it an hour per level of spells changed)

- Feat mechanic would need to be focused -

This means class exclusive feats (much like the Rogue Talents), no skill improvement/ focus feats (This would be better implemented in how the character gets/improves his skills and in class specific bonuses), and no feats that emulate other class abilities. (including to making Evasion and Improved Evasion Rogue specific)

- Magic properties of items need to be scaled down -

This isn't about weapons and armor, but is about the various items that simulate class abilities and such. Evasion is again a good example of what not to have.

- Rewards for succeeding in the game need to be clear, and not limited -

Pathfinder, as a whole, isn't bad with this. 3.5 and 4th edition limits wealth because of some perceived notion that being wealthy somehow improved your character to epic levels. This is somewhat a symptom of Magic Items having gotten away from their original purpose, but can be mitigated in a new system and currently by the GM not making broken items available. (See above point)

- Classes need to be effective in a party -

See Monk, Bard, Oracle that doesn't heal, etc....

- Classes need to not be a solo machine that... -...

I agree with most of what you said, but even moreso, what I want to see is the transition from the badly designed base of 3e, to a more mathematically well designed base. 4e's base is actually one of the big things I like about it, because it is clear the designers understand the way scaling works (for the most part...) in a system with (roughly) d20 mechanics.

The rest of the system is a mixed bag, but if Pathfinder 2.0 changed nothing besides making the base system scale better, I'd buy the books in a heart beat. I'd appreciate other changes, like non-vancian casting options, ToB-ish mundanes (not necessarily the same mechanics, but the same feel), or options to vary the system math's dependence on magic items, to allow for both high and low magic games, and the like.

PS: There are rules in the Advanced Race Guide (and I think the SRD as well) for some of those races, and a way to build your own races. I know for a fact Tiefling and Goblin are there, but I'm not sure about Tengu or Dragonkin


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...

I agree, but I think you are stuck in a bit of a cycle. You don't have to buy the new things or all the books of each edition. This isn't a spending contest (a new Olympic games for the consumerist age?). If a new edition of any game comes out, rely on friends and the like and work out if you want to upgrade or make changes. For 3.5, you didn't have to buy the main books, you really didn't. A notepad and some time with the books would have sufficed. Then you could repeat this with all the splat or buy the splat that genuinely interests you. A few friends of mine were like this, they only owned splat, someone else owned the main books (yes we were poor). A bit of book work and chatting can save you a lot of trouble.

If you just go out and buy a lot of new books, you may not need them or end up wanting them. I am always very careful about my purchases, and I am not a hoarder/collector, so this comes up a bit with my friends who are. There is enthusiasm, the expectations of friends, but after a lot of xp with it, I would not buy all that PF offers, just because it comes after 3.5.


Tholomyes wrote:
thaX wrote:

OK... I got about halfway through the thread...

This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Vancian Casting -

The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept. The Sorcerer can be a bit powerful spamming spells over and over again on that other end, so a mechanic will be needed to recharge spells over time (more powerful, area effects and such will have longer recharge times) This is similar to the Monster abilities recharging in the current system. using the current system, a wizard would use the Sorcerer mechanics while using a spellbook to change known spells when needed using more than an overnight onceover to do so. (I have an Archtype doing it an hour per level of spells changed)

- Feat mechanic would need to be focused -

This means class exclusive feats (much like the Rogue Talents), no skill improvement/ focus feats (This would be better implemented in how the character gets/improves his skills and in class specific bonuses), and no feats that emulate other class abilities. (including to making Evasion and Improved Evasion Rogue specific)

- Magic properties of items need to be scaled down -

This isn't about weapons and armor, but is about the various items that simulate class abilities and such. Evasion is again a good example of what not to have.

- Rewards for succeeding in the game need to be clear, and not limited -

Pathfinder, as a whole, isn't bad with this. 3.5 and 4th edition limits wealth because of some perceived notion that being wealthy somehow improved your character to epic levels. This is somewhat a symptom of Magic Items having gotten away from their original purpose, but can be mitigated in a new system and currently by the GM not making broken items available. (See above point)

- Classes need to be effective in a party -

See Monk, Bard, Oracle that doesn't heal, etc....

- Classes need to not be a solo

...

Well PF could really improve by cutting down on its damn crunch. The numbers do not have to be so high and leapfrogging all over the place. It could do with some simplicity in the mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Well PF could really improve by cutting down on its damn crunch. The numbers do not have to be so high and leapfrogging all over the place. It could do with some simplicity in the mechanics.

Yeah. There are many things I like about 3rd ed. but it is clear some of the designers didn't understand probability as well as they probably should have. Simpler mechanics can make it easier to see the impact of certain class features, and what happens when you make a feature scale by level/not scale by level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to see a 2.0.

...if 2.0 meant its primary focus was a firm cleaning up of the CRB's presentation and a streamlining of content. The CRB as-exists is a barrier to new players and a hassle for older ones.

Though, I'd not mind a summoner 2.0 either...mostly in the sense that the summoner was in ways an amazingly fun yet ground-breaking class. It wouldn't hurt to give it some tightening-up after seeing the results of years of experimenting.

Oh, and rage points. Those were in beta, so I don't count them as too big of a change...more something we should have moved to, but at the time felt too "new." Now that the playerbase has had time to adjust, there'd probably be less resistance. Some, but not as much as there was then.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

OK... I got about halfway through the thread...

This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Vancian Casting -

The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept. The Sorcerer can be a bit powerful spamming spells over and over again on that other end, so a mechanic will be needed to recharge spells over time (more powerful, area effects and such will have longer recharge times) This is similar to the Monster abilities recharging in the current system. using the current system, a wizard would use the Sorcerer mechanics while using a spellbook to change known spells when needed using more than an overnight onceover to do so. (I have an Archtype doing it an hour per level of spells changed) ..

No thanks. Look, D&D is the single most popular and longed lived RP game out there. It out sold avery other game by 10X. No other game even came close. And Vancian Spellcasting has been part of it always. Yes, there were experiments- The early Psionic's with points, the Warlock, etc. But neither was very popular (most outright banned psionic).

In indeed, other spellcasting systems were so popular- why hasn't Fantasy Hero or Runequest or any of a hundred other Fantasy RPGs' supplanted D&D?

We like Vancian spell casting.

Now sure, there's room for a few offbeat other spell casters. If they did a Warlock type class, I'd be Ok with it.

Oh wait- they already did (well sorta). Witches can use their hexes at will. Cantrips are at will, too.

But I hope that Vancian spellcasting is always the default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:


This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Feat mechanic would need to be focused -

- Magic properties of items need to be scaled down -

- Rewards for succeeding in the game need to be clear, and not limited -

- Classes need to be effective in a party -

See Monk, Bard, Oracle that doesn't heal, etc....

- Classes need to not be a solo machine that... -

Psionics-
- saving throws -
- CMB/CMD -
- Races -

No thanks.

Nope.

Looks fine to me.
My bard is VERY effective in my party, thankyouverymuch. So are Oracles.

Rather not.

No thanks, let's keep psionics 3rd party. They did a fine job, and they are there for any DM that want's to add them.

I despise 4th Ed "defenses".

Yes- CMD needs to be redone.

No, they are doing a great job what with the new races book.

Hey, we agreed on exactly one thing!


Tholomyes wrote:
There are many things I like about 3rd ed. but it is clear some of the designers didn't understand probability as well as they probably should have. Simpler mechanics can make it easier to see the impact of certain class features, and what happens when you make a feature scale by level/not scale by level.

Hmm. Why not start a thread explaining where they went wrong? Have you ever designed a game system or published a supplement?


Jeven wrote:

I agree with those who suggested a revised edition just to refine/overhaul problematic areas and clarify those rules which cause some confusion.

For those not yet ready to buy a new core rulebook, an appendix of the rules updates could just be released as a free pdf.

This in not a bad idea. Make sure all the FAQ are in there, and/or that rule changed. Change the stealth/perc system to what they wanted it to be in the Stealth Blog. This would be the only real "rules change", and it's not like most folks don't houserule it already.

Work on CM system a bit. Tighten it up. Fix the holes.

Change the Summoner back to what it was supposed to be. (It wasn't supposed to be a completely "build your own", and this is why JJ doesn't use them currently, even tho he really likes the concept. I agree).


DrDeth wrote:
Jeven wrote:

I agree with those who suggested a revised edition just to refine/overhaul problematic areas and clarify those rules which cause some confusion.

For those not yet ready to buy a new core rulebook, an appendix of the rules updates could just be released as a free pdf.

This in not a bad idea. Make sure all the FAQ are in there, and/or that rule changed. Change the stealth/perc system to what they wanted it to be in the Stealth Blog. This would be the only real "rules change", and it's not like most folks don't houserule it already.

Work on CM system a bit. Tighten it up. Fix the holes. Grapple- ugh. Sunder is too easy, etc.

Re-do crafting. Throw the "bottom three" classes (Monk, rogue, fighter) a few bones. (For example- allow Rogue to use certain talents way more often, give the fighter the Vital strike chain for free, etc. Nothing HUGE, just a good fine-tuning- in a UP direction.

Change the Summoner back to what it was supposed to be. (It wasn't supposed to be a completely "build your own", and this is why JJ doesn't use them currently, even tho he really likes the concept. I agree).


DrDeth wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
There are many things I like about 3rd ed. but it is clear some of the designers didn't understand probability as well as they probably should have. Simpler mechanics can make it easier to see the impact of certain class features, and what happens when you make a feature scale by level/not scale by level.
Hmm. Why not start a thread explaining where they went wrong? Have you ever designed a game system or published a supplement?

Why no, I haven't designed a game system... I guess I'm not allowed to express my dislike of something, because I have not done it myself /sarcasm.

But seriously, I don't need to have designed a system to understand basic probability. The way 3rd edition handles scaling in many places is exceedingly wrong, from a mathematical standpoint. I have already mentioned various cases elsewhere, but suffice it to say that the asymmetry in scaling between d20 modifiers and target numbers is largely the culprit, though there are more ways than just this (oddly enough some of them are due to symmetric scaling bonuses, when they shouldn't necessarily be).

Pathfinder is not my system of choice. No edition of D&D is my system of choice. They are all compromise systems, for me (which makes me shake my head at 5e being described as the "Compromise edition"; for me everything from 2e and Rules Cyclopedia onward (never played 1e) has been a compromise edition.). But I don't think it's too much to ask for at the very least a game where the basic game math doesn't fall apart at high or low levels.


DrDeth wrote:
thaX wrote:

OK... I got about halfway through the thread...

This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Vancian Casting -

The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept. The Sorcerer can be a bit powerful spamming spells over and over again on that other end, so a mechanic will be needed to recharge spells over time (more powerful, area effects and such will have longer recharge times) This is similar to the Monster abilities recharging in the current system. using the current system, a wizard would use the Sorcerer mechanics while using a spellbook to change known spells when needed using more than an overnight onceover to do so. (I have an Archtype doing it an hour per level of spells changed) ..

No thanks. Look, D&D is the single most popular and longed lived RP game out there. It out sold avery other game by 10X. No other game even came close. And Vancian Spellcasting has been part of it always. Yes, there were experiments- The early Psionic's with points, the Warlock, etc. But neither was very popular (most outright banned psionic).

In indeed, other spellcasting systems were so popular- why hasn't Fantasy Hero or Runequest or any of a hundred other Fantasy RPGs' supplanted D&D?

We like Vancian spell casting.

Now sure, there's room for a few offbeat other spell casters. If they did a Warlock type class, I'd be Ok with it.

Oh wait- they already did (well sorta). Witches can use their hexes at will. Cantrips are at will, too.

But I hope that Vancian spellcasting is always the default.

Vancian spell casting works very well for prepared spell casters, but it doesn't work as well for spontaneous casters. What I would like to see is defaulting to vancian for prepared, and a refined version of the words of power, or something similar, for spontaneous casters. That preserves what works from the past while giving spontaneous casters their own spotlight for a change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thaX wrote:

- Vancian Casting -

The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept.

No, it does not. Seriously, this is one of the iconic things of D&D. 4E tried to get rid of it, and where are they now?

Shadow Lodge

The only change to Vancian Casting Id like is a Spell Point system and/or a small tweeking of the core spell lists.


While I've never played with an alternate magic system like Words of Power, I've heard that they slow down games a lot. When you have to take time to construct a (potentially) new spell each turn, I can see this being a serious problem.

But anyways, please don't take Vancian magic away.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly It would be a huge mistake to completely rewrite the system. 4e did this, and it spit the player base. Likewise I'm against the idea of slimming down the system as well, D&D next does this, and it's still splitting the player base. Besides it wouldn't be a good idea to compete against D&D next with a system that's almost identical. I say let pathfinder be the advanced system, and let next be the basic one.

Is a revision in order, yes, but let paizo's take their time with it, and lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'll wait for a revision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What I would like to see with a Pathfinder 2.0:

- A serious look by the developers at what the most constant complaints on the forum are about bad classes ( Monks, Rogues, Summoners, Gunslingers, IMO ) and a revision of them into something more appealing.
- Trying to make the math work at the higher levels
- An alternative way to deal with the magic item inflation ( Christmas tree effect, big six, etc. )
- A look at the core philosophies for some of the game systems, in the sense of "Why are these things working in this particular way?", in regards to magic item crafting and the "rest system - 15 minute work day" problem.

And that is just a bad summary of topics which would need to be expanded much more to make real sense, but which all should be examined in more detail when the time for a new edition comes.


Great ideas mag.

Although the 15 minute work day is easily solved by a dm. You brutally kill the lazy cowardly spellcasters that won't go forward, get more active (actually heroic) players to leave them behind, or you have them miss key events (which they needed to move fast to reach) over and over and let their losses and failures pile up by their own volition.

If we do not punish them, how will they learn?
(This is a joke, except about the punishment).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Please help me to understand this thread.

Our premise is, "the OP has exactly the game he wants. Paizo could also make a new game that other people would prefer -- one that the OP would be in no way obligated to switch to (except for some sort of neurological compulsion that could easily be cleared up with a session or two of therapy)."

The response is, "No! If I have the game I want, no one else is allowed to have theirs, if the same company produces it! (If a different company produces it I guess it's OK.)"

Help me. I'm at a loss.


Yep, we never have to switch. I still know AD&D guys, and the old school system still facilitates good games and stories to tell around the water cooler.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Please help me to understand this thread.

Our premise is, "the OP has exactly the game he wants. Paizo could also make a new game that other people would prefer -- one that the OP would be in no way obligated to switch to (except for some sort of neurological compulsion that could easily be cleared up with a session or two of therapy)."

The response is, "No! If I have the game I want, no one else is allowed to have theirs, if the same company produces it! (If a different company produces it I guess it's OK.)"

Help me. I'm at a loss.

A better response:

"If Paizo moves to PF 2, then Paizo stops making stuff for PF 1. I like getting more stuff for PF 1. Therefore, I do not want Paizo to make PF 2."


thejeff wrote:
"If Paizo moves to PF 2, then Paizo stops making stuff for PF 1. I like getting more stuff for PF 1. Therefore, I do not want Paizo to make PF 2."

Why not say so in the first place? The reasons cited were "I don't like change" and "don't want to re-purchase rulebooks." Nothing about AP support or anything else.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


A better response:
"If Paizo moves to PF 2, then Paizo stops making stuff for PF 1. I like getting more stuff for PF 1. Therefore, I do not want Paizo to make PF 2."

For me, the ideal solution to this is evolutionary change in any new edition. I do not particularly want a new PF edition that is not largely compatible with the current edition. That was my single biggest problem with 4e and one of the biggest benefits we experienced when we blended 1e and 2e together throughout the 1990s. We had campaign continuity and the editions worked together well, allowing us to replace problematic 1e rules with 2e's better organization, and allowing us to continue to use 1e classes where the 2e classes didn't measure up (like the ranger).

The shift to 3e from 2e didn't allow us to be nearly as seamless, yet conversions from 2e to 3e worked reasonably well. We could't really even do that with 4e so there was no chance of taking the 20+ year old campaign and characters to the new system.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Please help me to understand this thread.

Our premise is, "the OP has exactly the game he wants. Paizo could also make a new game that other people would prefer -- one that the OP would be in no way obligated to switch to (except for some sort of neurological compulsion that could easily be cleared up with a session or two of therapy)."

The response is, "No! If I have the game I want, no one else is allowed to have theirs, if the same company produces it! (If a different company produces it I guess it's OK.)"

Help me. I'm at a loss.

From my point of view, it's a network thing. Ongoing support, a healthy organized play environment, and local player activity, etc.

Personally, I can scarcely imaging having "exactly" the game I want. Even if I thought the mechanics of Pathfinder were absolutely perfect, the Core Rulebook is in desperate need of a re-write.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take is this. If the second edition would allow me to continue to use the literally hundreds of dollars worth of first edition materials, (probably pushing thousands at this point) then fine. If it does not then I cancel my subscriptions and play with my old stuff. I have been playing since 2nd ed. and am at this point tired of changing rule sets. I picked up Pathfinder primarily because it allowed me to continue to use my old 3.5 stuff and in fact I continue to buy old 3.5 stuff that would work well with something i'm working on. I bought Burnt offerings oh so many years ago and have picked up a print copy of everything since so if there is an incompatible edition switch I'm covered for years to come. I'll keep my Pathfinder at 3.75 thank you very much. As an aside I did buy and try 4e and although great as a narrative board game it was terrible as a rpg game, but I did try it and not dismiss it out of hand. 5e I'm not even trying.


Bill Dunn wrote:
The shift to 3e from 2e didn't allow us to be nearly as seamless, yet conversions from 2e to 3e worked reasonably well. We could't really even do that with 4e so there was no chance of taking the 20+ year old campaign and characters to the new system.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't agree with this last part. I'm pretty sure it was possible to convert a 3E campaign to a 4E one -- I know people that did it.

401 to 450 of 574 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.