What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Eventually there HAS to be a 2nd edition otherwise there just becomes more rules, charts and numbers than what we can possibly play the game without having to carry 60pds of books with us when we go somewhere to game as a player. Right now I do NOT think (my opinion once again) that we are at that point yet. Not even close. (Based on my reasoning in my previous postings. At the current rate of book releases I do not think that we will be there for at least 4-6 years from now. 8-10 years is a reasonable time frame between editions of a rules system. Otherwise the game stagnates and they start to loose their customer base.

I do not think that there should be another setting. We learned that from TSR. There could be some kind of catastrophic event that could change the setting for the new system that would make it fresh and exciting for the new rules. I think that Paizo should keep their current balance of book releases and such too. With a new edition comes new books. We know this and as gamers we accept it. A reasonable time frame for that would NOT be 5 years and right now a lot of people would be very upset should Paizo go to another edition. With a new edition people will still be upset and might stay with the current system regardless... but they would likely come around faster if Paizo stretches the time out further then 5 years.

I have been gaming with D&D now for 39 years and have been doing so SINCE the beginning of it. I vowed with 2nd edition coming out I would never play it... I did. I was wowed by 3.0 to the point of buying the books immediately. Systems change, that is the cost of a business and as a consumer we know this. But we are becoming more fickle of late and demand more expectations with such change. Paizo has done a good job of meeting those demands from us in such a way that they took the number one spot in sales over a giant that could not be toppled for almost 3 decades. Paizo knows what it is doing and I have faith in that. They listen to us and try and accommodate each and everyone of us and know they can't, and knowing that they still listen and explain what they are doing for us by giving us feedback to our concerns.

That is why I stay with them now. I know I will not do that for any other game system right now as customer service means a lot to me and right now Paizo is number one in customer service for a major gaming company too. More companies should take that as a model for the way they deal with their consumers as well! :)


Deanoth wrote:
Eventually there HAS to be a 2nd edition otherwise there just becomes more rules, charts and numbers than what we can possibly play the game without having to carry 60pds of books with us when we go somewhere to game as a player. Right now I do NOT think (my opinion once again) that we are at that point yet.

Not 60 lbs, but certainly too many. Playing anyone with polymorph spells other than elemental shape and form of the dragon (which I think reference Bestiary 1 only) can require as many as 10 hardcovers and Bestiary 4 is coming out soon. Even if you don't kill your back or rip the straps off your backpack you're going to volume out anything not designed for long term hiking. A GM can need an additional 3 books and I'm pretty sure NPC codex 2 is on the horizon.

It's basically impossible to play the full game without a smartphone or laptop.

Which leads to another thing I want from 2nd edition:

5) Get rid of the cruft and put the old stuff people actually use in as few books at possible. The CRB's pretty tight, but everything after is loaded down with badly written filler: garbage archetypes, garbage feats, optional rules. Even the CRB has its share of little used feats and spells that make it harder to look up the stuff that's actually useful. In a 2nd edition the genuinely useful player oriented content of the CRB, APG, UC, UM, ARG, and PoP could probably fit in two CRB sized books or 3 smaller hardcovers.

Paizo's core business is APs not rulebooks after all, or at least that's what they said early in PF's life.


Quote:
Eventually there HAS to be a 2nd edition otherwise there just becomes more rules, charts and numbers than what we can possibly play the game without having to carry 60pds of books with us when we go somewhere to game as a player

I just want to point out that you can play the game without every supplement. I still don't own all the 3.5 supplements and I can still play 3.5.

Shadow Lodge

Yah, but why would you want to do that? :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Either increase the time duration of buff spells, or made Extend Spell into a truly viable Feat by extending spells to the next time category (from rounds to minutes, minutes to tens of minutes, tens of minutes to hours, hours to days, and days to weeks).

Also, limit the number of buffs a player can have according to the Charisma score. So yeah, that 12th level fighter's walking around with Bull Strength for two hours, but he can't have ANY other buffs because Charisma was his dump stat! ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mithral Mustang wrote:

We love Pathfinder, at least I do, and Paizo managed to get a lot of things right. Eventually however the rules will need to be updated and things will have to evolve or risk becoming stagnant.

Why? What defines stagnancy? Monopoly hasn't changed it's basic design in close to a century, and it's still going strong.

I'm not on board with the idea that we have to throw away our rules systems every few years or so. Pathfinder may use some cleaning up and trimming of some inconsistencies, but I don't see a need for change merely for the sake of change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be more interested in a Pathfinder 2.0 that significantly cleaned up the presentation of the rules. The Core Rule book is not reader friendly, and looking up stuff in it can take quite awhile. I have given up using it in preference to the hyperlinked PRD.

For actual rule changes, minor errata esq changes would be preferred. I don't want the APs and present books I owned to be made completely worthless. I doubt Paizo does either.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, the Core Rule Book is too damn big! It's simply unwieldy and not fun to browse through. I only own 3 books: CRB, APG, and B1, and I like flipping through APG and B1, but manipulating the CRB requires a feat of strength worthy of Festivus.

Shadow Lodge

Tangent101 wrote:

Either increase the time duration of buff spells, or made Extend Spell into a truly viable Feat by extending spells to the next time category (from rounds to minutes, minutes to tens of minutes, tens of minutes to hours, hours to days, and days to weeks).

Also, limit the number of buffs a player can have according to the Charisma score. So yeah, that 12th level fighter's walking around with Bull Strength for two hours, but he can't have ANY other buffs because Charisma was his dump stat! ;)

I like the idea about Extend, but I think either Con or Wis would he better. Cha already has way too many uses I think. Especially when you consider monsters. Con and Wis are also the toughness/endurence stats. Also, balance wise, the classes that have cha as the dump stat are usually the ones that sort of need all the help they can get while those that use Wis (Wizards and Sorcerers come to mind at the top of the list) are probably the ones you want to worru about stacking buffs.


Less attacks.

The number of attack a character can made in pathfinder have bad implications for the game in several aspects.

- It make the game slower, you have to roll a bunch of dice.

- It hurts martial, yes it does, if you do not have pounce then the fact that you standar action attack do 1/5 of your full attack damage hurt a lot. martial are encourage to full attack all the time wich when they can make the game slower.

- It is boring that, as a martial, your best option is to stand still and full attack.


What I would like to see is support for GMs who want to run low magic campaigns.

Dont grt me wrong, I like Pathfinder... But by the time characters are mid level, the encounters tend to assume each players own multiple magic items.

When you consider most fantasy fiction (at least those not based on rpgs) a hero tends to own only one or two magic itmes (and sometimes none at all)

Now, of course a GM can house-rule things (and I do) to replace the monty-haul assumptions, but it would be nice for there to be more written into the main rulebook to assist this sort of adjustment ... either that or a low magic supplement (one that does not simply replace magic items with unrealistic feats, but that offers solid advice where the only change to vanilla parties is the lack of magic items)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nicos wrote:

Less attacks.

The number of attack a character can made in pathfinder have bad implications for the game in several aspects.

- It make the game slower, you have to roll a bunch of dice.

- It hurts martial, yes it does, if you do not have pounce then the fact that you standar action attack do 1/5 of your full attack damage hurt a lot. martial are encourage to full attack all the time wich when they can make the game slower.

- It is boring that, as a martial, your best option is to stand still and full attack.

Maybe grant all characters the Vital Strike feat chain, and instead of iterative attacks, you can roll 1d20 at BAB 0-5, 2d20 at 6-10, 3d20 at 11-15, and 4d20 at 16-20, and pick the highest result.

But iterative attacks can still be used against multiple weak opponents if desired.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deanoth wrote:
If you do not want a 2nd edition what is it YOU want?

What makes you think I want something? All I did was express disbelief that there is no rules bloat in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, taking Ivory Tower ideals out back and ol'yellering them with power-tools.

Just because one developer specifically dislikes a weapon and believes they should be less effective than tossing water balloons does not mean his idea is any good. While it's difficult with such a large selection, every weapon should have its ups and downs, and ultimately be suited to a worthy combat style.

Likewise, the Simple<martial<exotic separation was mostly false - both in the stats of half the weapons there, but also by the fact that only a tiny handful of classes, generally considered not to need those weapons, and perfectly capable through racials or traits of obtaining martials anyways, were limited to simple weapons only.

I'd suggest, actually, a return to "tight groups"; use proficiency points or something to equalize the easier, lesser weapons to the better or more complicated stuff [like you can master a club quicker than you can even learn the longbow] and allow small packages of proficiency taken at a time either by combat style or by weapon familiarity.

For example your fighter or sorcerer might be proficient in Spears, which would include ranseurs, partisans, boar-spears and pikes perhaps, or in one handed axes [hand and others], while the wizard over there learned buckler and short-sword; exactly what he likes to use, but only those two specific items as a result.

Having massive but fewer attacks should also be viable - vital strike certainly was not. Not everything should always have to have seven attacks to be good.

DR is basically an all around failure. While it can be devastating if you have more than the average 1-2 at CR1, by the time player abilities grant them 5/- or higher, things are swinging for the forties or fifties multiple times per round. Even vs monsters, DR 25/<anything that isn't a dash> is basically nonexistent.

As is AC. You either have so much that half the things can't hope to hit you and the other half laugh at all the resources and effort you put in, or you just don't bloody bother ever, because it will never be high enough to matter if you didn't focus on it heavily.

As a result of both of the above, so are Shields. I would suggest taking a page from Hackmaster regarding defense, armor and shields. That one's been done right and shields matter. They matter greatly.

A lot of abilities should probably just save us all the book-keeping and become unlimited use around level five to eight. When you've got something like 3+CHA+Level uses per day, that just starts feeling pedantic.

Of course, 'martial' characters are also supposed to be supernatural and heroic. It would be utterly amazing if for once the designers of a system would remember that "normal, mundane" beings in their system include stuff with adamantine teeth, acid spitters, giant bombardier-fire-beetles, and people made of stone. Let them heroes be heroic, not just temporary meatshields for their eventual wizard/cleric/druid gods.

Finally, this one's for magic: Save-or-F***ed is too damn binary, which is where so much of the trouble comes from. If things were more of a stacking debilitation, like % slows or the like that can eventually cause paralysis, you'd have a much easier time balancing saves, resistances and the actual effects.

And one last thing:
In the next edition, if there is one, DO NOT FEAR REWRITING THINGS. This is a strange tendency since 3.0 by many game companies to utterly refuse to admit you're wrong and fix things in a direct fashion. Instead they abandon the class and make a new better one, or install tax-feats that would almost fix things if it weren't for the cost they still add up, or outright try to pretend that this was intentional and we all just need to learn to play.

When the so-called 'yelling' is backed by solid numbers and proper data, you look the bigger man if you just accept that something needs to be changed, and give proper errata in the next product you put out or online in an easy to find place [like an errata page/doc]


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
A skill system that abandons d20, and works like Chaosium's BRP.

D&D started out with a system like that for thieving skills and abandoned it for very good reason.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Paizo needs to proceed carefully to avoid repeating the mistakes that Wizards of the Coast made with D&D 4E. The lack of an OGL is the easiest one to avoid -- I think they are committed to maintaining the OGL.

The main virtue of the current Pathfinder game is also its greatest limitation -- its compatibility with D&D 3.5. That game has some inherent problems that cannot be fixed by anything short of a complete rewrite of the game system. Wizards did come up with some good ideas for improving the system, but Paizo cannot use most of them because they are not open content.

Paizo really cannot do anything but add to the current system until their player base is ready for such a rewrite -- say, when there is so much Pathfinder material available that few people care about maintaining compatibility with D&D 3.5 any more. We are much closer to that point now than when the game first came out, but even now there would be a major backlash if Paizo took that step.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
137ben wrote:
--Eliminate Spontaneous casting. You can already cast "spontaneously" with the prepared classes--just prepare the exact same spells every day.

Very bad idea, especially since it involves eliminating player options. A spontaneous caster is a nice step in between prepared spellcaster who potentially have access to every spell and non-spellcasters whose options are far more limited.

137ben wrote:
--Make low-ranked skill-training easier. I.E., have each skill rank cost more than the one before it, so you are better off focusing on a couple core skills and spreading out the rest. And so that it doesn't kill you to take 1 rank in something for fun.

Or provide some sort of automatic boost to all skill checks just for being high level. Unearthed Arcana had some good ideas for doing this.

137ben wrote:


--Eliminate rolling ability scores.
--Eliminate rolling hit-points.

I emphatically agree with these two.


David knott 242 wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
A skill system that abandons d20, and works like Chaosium's BRP.

D&D started out with a system like that for thieving skills and abandoned it for very good reason.

The main reason afaik was consistency of skill checks , not any flaw with rolling percentiles as a mechanic per se.

That said, i dont think a change to % skills would be an imorovement (or any worse either -just different). If you changed to % you'd still have the flaws we currently recognise, like class imbalances, monty-hauldom, the games sweet spot running out before higher levels, and so on....

I'd agree with eleminating rolling for hit points, it seems a bit needless.
Spontaneous spell casting is one of the things I *like* , so of course Id want it kept in.

DR and SR are areas I think could be improved. Combat maneuvers could do with improving, as well.

However, the big difference for me is an increased ability to tell interesting and challenging stories (as opposed to long combats) at high levels . As a consequence i'd like stronger restrictions written into raise dead/resurrection, etc, to limit their use considerably.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Jamie Charlan wrote:

First, taking Ivory Tower ideals out back and ol'yellering them with power-tools.

Just because one developer specifically dislikes a weapon and believes they should be less effective than tossing water balloons does not mean his idea is any good. While it's difficult with such a large selection, every weapon should have its ups and downs, and ultimately be suited to a worthy combat style.

Likewise, the Simple<martial<exotic separation was mostly false - both in the stats of half the weapons there, but also by the fact that only a tiny handful of classes, generally considered not to need those weapons, and perfectly capable through racials or traits of obtaining martials anyways, were limited to simple weapons only.

I'd suggest, actually, a return to "tight groups"; use proficiency points or something to equalize the easier, lesser weapons to the better or more complicated stuff [like you can master a club quicker than you can even learn the longbow] and allow small packages of proficiency taken at a time either by combat style or by weapon familiarity.

For example your fighter or sorcerer might be proficient in Spears, which would include ranseurs, partisans, boar-spears and pikes perhaps, or in one handed axes [hand and others], while the wizard over there learned buckler and short-sword; exactly what he likes to use, but only those two specific items as a result.

<trimmed>

Maybe tighten up the Fighter weapon groups, and get 1 group per skill point in Knowledge Weapons or whatever. And if Knowledge Weapons is a class skill, you get 3 free groups (like the class-skill +3). Or even 1 weapon per skill point. Kind of like Linguistics.


Edge marks like the NPC codex has. Every book that isn't a bestiary should have chapters indicated and bestiaries should have marks for 3-4 letter blocks. You can't go to a position like you can in a dictionary or encyclopedia because some letters are vastly overpopulated. (like 'a' with all the good outsiders and 'd' with all the dragons and dinosaurs and evil outsiders)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DaveMage wrote:
I would like to see "Copyright 2025, Paizo Publishing".

This. So hard.

I love this thread so people can vent and suggest, but I have ZERO interst in a new edition when there is so much yet to explore in Golarion. If I need to buy new books for a new edition, I'd rather just invest in a totally new game altogether and keep what I have with Pathfinder. No thank you, dear Paizo.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe instead of a 2.0, they can come up with some optional systems, like Arcana Unearthed. Or Unearthed Arcana.

Shadow Lodge

David knott 242 wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
A skill system that abandons d20, and works like Chaosium's BRP.

D&D started out with a system like that for thieving skills and abandoned it for very good reason.

I'd not have any more skill points gained by leveling...the increase in skills would work exactly like it does in BRP. You get better at skills you actually use.

Shadow Lodge

Winter_Born wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
I would like to see "Copyright 2025, Paizo Publishing".

This. So hard.

I love this thread so people can vent and suggest, but I have ZERO interst in a new edition when there is so much yet to explore in Golarion. If I need to buy new books for a new edition, I'd rather just invest in a totally new game altogether and keep what I have with Pathfinder. No thank you, dear Paizo.

I could get behind that, if they were to maybe back down to ONE rule supplement every 2-3 years.

Cos if they went until 2025 at the current rate, they'll end up making 3.5 with ALL it's supplements look like a rules-light game.

Shadow Lodge

I actually would like a PF 2.0

I think that there is a little too much that needs or could use some alterations that is rwally beyond what errata can handle. I also wouldn't mind the core book being split up into a PHB and the DMG portion being added together with the GMG and an NPC codex book into one book each.

A different settingwould also be veey cool, or even maybe sort of like Taladas to Dragonlance, a new land that only slightly has any relation and throws out a lot of the core assumptions to Golarion.


MMCJawa wrote:

I would be more interested in a Pathfinder 2.0 that significantly cleaned up the presentation of the rules. The Core Rule book is not reader friendly, and looking up stuff in it can take quite awhile. I have given up using it in preference to the hyperlinked PRD.

For actual rule changes, minor errata esq changes would be preferred. I don't want the APs and present books I owned to be made completely worthless. I doubt Paizo does either.

See, I'd call that Pathfinder 1.5 (or even 1.1, to allow lots of room for doing it all over again every few years).

2.0 implies the rules themselves have changed dramatically.

I'm all for condensing and re-presenting the current system to reduce rules bloat, all the way down to reissuing the rulebook to include everything that's now "core" and losing some other things to compensate, as long as the underlying system itself is left relatively untouched. 2.0 implies "starting over from scratch because we either got it wrong or want to make your collection worthless and make you buy everything again" while 1.1/1.5 implies "we got it right, we're just revising it a little"

There are people who enjoy starting over with a new core rulebook and nothing else. I'm not one of them. As you say, we don't want the existing books to be worthless (as in not usable with the new system rather than suddenly being unplayable). We tend to see money spent on RPG books as an investment in our hobby. For some, having "Pathfinder 1.0" on their shelves is good enough. For others (me included) we want "the latest version of Pathfinder, whatever it may be" and don't appreciate suddenly finding ourselves back at square one.

So for all the talk of Pathfinder 2.0, I say no way, hopefully not this decade. My answer to the people complaining of rules bloat is to trim the fat a bit in what goes into the next edition of the Pathfinder rules, rather than start building a new system (which in turn will get bloated by supplements and we find ourselves here again in 2020).

You could even take the D&D 4E Essentials approach (I know, sacrilege right?) - which IMO was one of the things they got right - keeping the same game but presenting the rules in a condensed format for new players, with a focus on particular classes and the real "core rules" instead of having a huge core book. However, instead of making new versions of the classes (we all know that was done just to get existing players to buy them too) use the current versions. Use those new "Pathfinder Introductory Rulebook: Fighter", "Pathfinder Introductory Rulebook: Cleric" and so forth to put in just what's necessary to play that class, and reprint a bunch of the relevant splat book material in there too (all the extra feats, spells, prestige classes, etc). Then you've also got the perfect book to take along to PFS games without having to take a dozen extra volumes just because there's a spell in there you want to use.

Along the same line, maybe some compendiums, like "Pathfinder Arcane Spell Compendium" with all the arcane spells printed so far in every Pathfinder product.

One of the main causes of the feeling of "rules bloat" is that we tend to have books that we only really use 5% of. So find that 5% of a dozen books and print it into a single volume.

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
If you do not want a 2nd edition what is it YOU want?
What makes you think I want something? All I did was express disbelief that there is no rules bloat in Pathfinder.

again, I asked more then one question and you chose not to answer any of them but this one and even then not explaining yourself beyond the above. Typical of you and obstinate as well, true to form.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deanoth wrote:
Typical of you and obstinate as well, true to form.

If you don't like the way I post you don't have to respond.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

For the record, I don't want a PF 2.0. But if there is one, I would like it have the basic skeleton of 1d20+modifiers, feats and skills, race and class-based character creation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:
Maybe instead of a 2.0, they can come up with some optional systems, like Arcana Unearthed. Or Unearthed Arcana.

Now I'm fully expecting a third-party product called, "Stuff We Dug Up."

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
Typical of you and obstinate as well, true to form.
If you don't like the way I post you don't have to respond.

You crack me up... always evasive and obtuse. :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deanoth wrote:
You crack me up... always evasive and obtuse. :D

Have you considered that there are no answers to your questions?


Shinmizu wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Maybe instead of a 2.0, they can come up with some optional systems, like Arcana Unearthed. Or Unearthed Arcana.
Now I'm fully expecting a third-party product called, "Stuff We Dug Up."

I'm actually having trouble resisting the urge to do that now :)

Either that or "Crud that the other publishers rejected".


Matt Thomason wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

I would be more interested in a Pathfinder 2.0 that significantly cleaned up the presentation of the rules. The Core Rule book is not reader friendly, and looking up stuff in it can take quite awhile. I have given up using it in preference to the hyperlinked PRD.

For actual rule changes, minor errata esq changes would be preferred. I don't want the APs and present books I owned to be made completely worthless. I doubt Paizo does either.

See, I'd call that Pathfinder 1.5 (or even 1.1, to allow lots of room for doing it all over again every few years).

2.0 implies the rules themselves have changed dramatically.

It most certainly does not. Books have new editions with only minor changes. In fact, other RPGs (like GURPS) go to new editions without completely trashing all the rules--GURPS 4e is still compatible with GURPS 1e. It's really just WotC who feel a need to make a completely different, unrelated game with the same name instead of actually coming out with a new edition of a game they already made.


137ben wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


See, I'd call that Pathfinder 1.5 (or even 1.1, to allow lots of room for doing it all over again every few years).

2.0 implies the rules themselves have changed dramatically.

It most certainly does not. Books have new editions with only minor changes. In fact, other RPGs (like GURPS) go to new editions without completely trashing all the rules--GURPS 4e is still compatible with GURPS 1e. It's really just WotC who feel a need to make a completely different, unrelated game with the same name instead of actually coming out with a new edition of a game they already made.

When you start borrowing version numbering methods from the software world (as D&D did with "3.5"), you inherit the history that comes with it.

"2nd Edition" isn't the same as "2.0"

When you jump a whole version number rather than a "point release", it's an indication that you're throwing compatibility out of the window and doing a whole new thing.

Now, if we're talking "Pathfinder 2nd Edition", that's not the same as "Pathfinder 2.0".

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

gbonehead wrote:
I want a publication date in the far distant future.

This. Pathfinder is nowhere near ready to be moving on to a new edition. With Advanced Class Guide coming out next year and psychic magic on the horizon for 2015 beyond that, the current edition has several good years left before a new one should even be considered.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
...and psychic magic on the horizon for 2015 beyond that...

Has this actually been confirmed?

I've seen several non-Paizo people speculate that it's going to happen next year, but I saw people speculating it was going to be this year as well.

Shadow Lodge

I think the most random edition numbering I've ever seen is in my hardcover Call of Cthulhu book, which proclaims itself as 5.6.1 edition.

Given how little has historically changed between the first six editions of that game, I have to amuse that they changed the position of a comma or something to that effect to add the .1.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Steve Geddes wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...and psychic magic on the horizon for 2015 beyond that...

Has this actually been confirmed?

I've seen several non-Paizo people speculate that it's going to happen next year, but I saw people speculating it was going to be this year as well.

I interviewed Erik Mona for our site, somnambulant-gamer.com (I'll be posting the interview tomorrow) and he confirmed that it's definitely on the menu. James Jacobs has actually been talking a bit about how they're going to execute it as well.


Matt Thomason wrote:
137ben wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


See, I'd call that Pathfinder 1.5 (or even 1.1, to allow lots of room for doing it all over again every few years).

2.0 implies the rules themselves have changed dramatically.

It most certainly does not. Books have new editions with only minor changes. In fact, other RPGs (like GURPS) go to new editions without completely trashing all the rules--GURPS 4e is still compatible with GURPS 1e. It's really just WotC who feel a need to make a completely different, unrelated game with the same name instead of actually coming out with a new edition of a game they already made.

When you start borrowing version numbering methods from the software world (as D&D did with "3.5"), you inherit the history that comes with it.

"2nd Edition" isn't the same as "2.0"

When you jump a whole version number rather than a "point release", it's an indication that you're throwing compatibility out of the window and doing a whole new thing.

Now, if we're talking "Pathfinder 2nd Edition", that's not the same as "Pathfinder 2.0".

If you're talking software every version of MS. Word from at least 2.0 until Microsoft switched to year numbering is fully compatible. Individual features may not be, but if they're not used the files can be read by older versions. The interface is basically the same as well.

The rest of Office is the same way. Microsoft got a bee in its bonnet for changing everything a few years ago with the ribbon interface, but they also haven't been using version numbering for quite some time.

ViM 7.2 is the same as the original Vi with some extra bells and whistles. You can use it exactly like Vi and completely ignore everything new.

Opera keeps changing the interface skin, but Opera 12.16 is pretty much the same browser it's been as long as I've been using it at 7.something, just compatible with newer standards and with fewer, or at least different, bugs. Firefox is also basically unchanged through quite a few "major" versions.


Ssalarn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...and psychic magic on the horizon for 2015 beyond that...

Has this actually been confirmed?

I've seen several non-Paizo people speculate that it's going to happen next year, but I saw people speculating it was going to be this year as well.

I interviewed Erik Mona for our site, somnambulant-gamer.com (I'll be posting the interview tomorrow) and he confirmed that it's definitely on the menu. James Jacobs has actually been talking a bit about how they're going to execute it as well.

Developers have been talking about Psychic Magic for years now as something they will eventually do. What makes you think 2015 would be the year? Given the hush hush nature of anything that far out, I am surprised they would announce that or tell anyone prior to Gencon 2014


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...and psychic magic on the horizon for 2015 beyond that...

Has this actually been confirmed?

I've seen several non-Paizo people speculate that it's going to happen next year, but I saw people speculating it was going to be this year as well.

I interviewed Erik Mona for our site, somnambulant-gamer.com (I'll be posting the interview tomorrow) and he confirmed that it's definitely on the menu. James Jacobs has actually been talking a bit about how they're going to execute it as well.

Cheers. I dont feel so bad about missing a not-yet-released interview. :P

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

MMCJawa wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...and psychic magic on the horizon for 2015 beyond that...

Has this actually been confirmed?

I've seen several non-Paizo people speculate that it's going to happen next year, but I saw people speculating it was going to be this year as well.

I interviewed Erik Mona for our site, somnambulant-gamer.com (I'll be posting the interview tomorrow) and he confirmed that it's definitely on the menu. James Jacobs has actually been talking a bit about how they're going to execute it as well.
Developers have been talking about Psychic Magic for years now as something they will eventually do. What makes you think 2015 would be the year? Given the hush hush nature of anything that far out, I am surprised they would announce that or tell anyone prior to Gencon 2014

Which really only reinforces the idea that this system is nowhere near ready for a next edition, doesn't it :P


Ssalarn wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...and psychic magic on the horizon for 2015 beyond that...

Has this actually been confirmed?

I've seen several non-Paizo people speculate that it's going to happen next year, but I saw people speculating it was going to be this year as well.

I interviewed Erik Mona for our site, somnambulant-gamer.com (I'll be posting the interview tomorrow) and he confirmed that it's definitely on the menu. James Jacobs has actually been talking a bit about how they're going to execute it as well.
Developers have been talking about Psychic Magic for years now as something they will eventually do. What makes you think 2015 would be the year? Given the hush hush nature of anything that far out, I am surprised they would announce that or tell anyone prior to Gencon 2014
Which really only reinforces the idea that this system is nowhere near ready for a next edition, doesn't it :P

It reinforces that the developers think this, but a new edition could provide some much needed bug fixing. Pretty much everything that's been FAQed is something that's poorly worded in the printed rules and should be fixed. There are quite a lot of FAQs. Several poor decisions were made that are hard to fix within the constraints of the existing pagination and the balance on a number of classes is pretty bad. A lot of the problems, though admittedly not all, could be fixed with a new edition closer to current PF than core PF is to 3.5.

Pathfinder has been around long enough to know where the problems are and that means it's time to fix them.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Atarlost wrote:


It reinforces that the developers think this, but a new edition could provide some much needed bug fixing. Pretty much everything that's been FAQed is something that's poorly worded in the printed rules and should be fixed. There are quite a lot of FAQs. Several poor decisions were made that are hard to fix within the constraints of the existing pagination and the balance on a number of classes is pretty bad. A lot of the problems, though admittedly not all, could be fixed with a new edition closer to current PF than core PF is to 3.5.

Pathfinder has been around long enough to know where the problems are and that means it's time to fix them.

Or, the gaming franchise which is currently the most successful and popular tabletop RPG in the world and which completely demolished the 4th edition of its predecessor could take their success as a sign that they're probably doing quite a few things right and keep riding that golden pony until the sun sets. A vocal minority dissatisfied with things about the system that a paying majority like does not equate to a reason to discard a vibrant system growing in popularity almost daily.


Atarlost wrote:


If you're talking software every version of MS. Word from at least 2.0 until Microsoft switched to year numbering is fully compatible. Individual features may not be, but if they're not used the files can be read by older versions. The interface is basically the same as well.

True, but I'm thinking more along the lines of "addons compiled for version X will not work with version Y".

In Pathfinder terms you're basically talking whether or not existing splatbooks will work without conversion, and from what I see that's what will make or break a new edition of Pathfinder for most of the posters on here (myself included)

Second Edition Pathfinder that consists mostly of reformatting of rules, clarifications, and a few revisions here and there while retaining compatibility with the rest of the books on everyone's shelves looks like it would go down just fine. Second Edition Pathfinder that requires a second edition of all the other books too is what would turn it into a flop. and that's really the only problem I'd have with it. Image matters too, though, so deciding what to call it could have a nasty impact if it made people think Paizo were throwing out the existing system.

I'm not that bothered if I'm told my core rulebook is now outdated and needs replacing, just so long as the new core rulebook is designed to work without modifications to the rest of the books. Once it gets into the realms of needing a conversion guide in the back of the book, it's gone too far IMO.


A complete gutting of the non-magical Crafting rules.

instead of by price (which is retarded on so many levels) crafting times and DC should be determined by complexity, materials, size, delicacy required.

For instance, masterwork items shouldn't take much longer to make, as they are just made with a much higher degree of skill.

They should only take more time if they are decorative with gold filigree, carved decorations and such added in.

IRL a skilled smith can bang out a decent enough sword in a few days time, or a 'masterwork' in less than a week. Not a truly significant difference.

well assuming he buys his steel pre-made.
.
.
.
.
Also get rid of blanket +300gp masterwork costs. make it proportionate to the item.

If a Masterwork sword costs 315GP, then a Masterwork Dagger should cost 42GP.


I must admit I'm with those who dont see any strict need for a 2.0.

However, if there was, my interest would be to see it enabling inexperienced gamers (or those that dont play other games) to go beyond the "build mechanic/combat heavy" roleplaying aspect.

This will sound quite egotistical but...I quite often get told I am a "fantastic" GM, but all I do is apply the same sensibilty to plot, storytelling and characterisation other games encourage to Pathfinder, its not anything genius.

I suspect its due to published scenarios rather than the core rules mind you- as good as many are, the traditional "dungeon" remains an overused trope that I'd like to see de-emphasised . We all enjoy a good dungeon bash occassionally, but I think many groups have come to expect a certain narrow way of playing the game.

That said, feats that relate to a characters background could be, in my mind, improved by some sort of rule that says you're not entitled to take them - you have to rationalise them to the GMs satisfaction and he should scrutinise the background for its logic in terms of characterisation, not just rules-compliance. That would reduce the number of wacky build crossblooded sorcerers for a start, and encourage people to think more about character than just game mechanics.

But then, I've been gaming for a looong time , so maybe I'm a bit jaded.

Shadow Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:
A vocal minority dissatisfied with things about the system that a paying majority like does not equate to a reason to discard a vibrant system growing in popularity almost daily.

Just a heads up, the majority do not visit the message boards at all. I think what you are meaning, is that (in your opinion) there is a small group that doesn't want change and a small group that does. Unless you have some sort of secret knowledge, there is no indication that those that do not want change is a majority, or even large than the group that does, and that Paizo does not hear from the actual majority who do not post here.

However, if you visit other threads on the same topic, you will generally see a pretty even split, which various a lot depending on th scope of the changes. A full updated version that incorporates all of the FAQ'd items, updates, and fixes some of the issues from the start is almost completely agreed upon as a good thing. A fully new edition much less so. Somewhere in the middle, where most of the other book's flavor is fine, but might need some crunch updates, fairly even split.

With that in mind, and because it is generally easier (and more "heated") to comment on things you don't like or in the negative sense than it is to about what is liked or in a positive sense, the truth is that it is probably the opposite of what you think. I can't remember where it was talked about, but Paizo essentially said the only way they would get something even close to an honest view from their whole fan base would be to put in a prepaid questionnaire in all of their products and also a digital return email with all the PDF's, but even that would not be accurate and possibly invalidated by the time they even got a lot of them back.


I'd like to see some changes under the hood. The crafting rules are wonky, the stealth rules are unworkable as printed, the perception distance penalties are ludicrous, and the combat maneuver rules have issues. Facing would do wonders for rationalizing stealth. An action point system is worth beta testing and would have little or no effect on statblocks.

Of these only combat maneuvers effect statblocks and it's just CMB/CMD.

The addition of non-selectable class features to underpowered classes also won't completely invalidate old statblocks, though some things may need to be recalculated and in the much desired elimination of 2+int skill point non-int casters the skill points need to be allocated. Or not, since NPC skills hardly matter.

And then there's writing down all the unwritten rules, clarifying anything that needed a FAQ, and probably moving the extra rules from various places into the CRB and the GM stuff out. Stuff that doesn't really change anything at all.

51 to 100 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.