What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I personally don't want to see a Pathfinder 2.0 - at least not in the sense of any significant change so that all of the current adventure products remain compatible. I would like at some point in a few years to have a new core rulebook, one that's leaner, lighter and more player centric - but more a reorganization/1.5 version than a true 2.0. The goal for Pathfinder should be for it to remain a relatively constant game with few changes for as long as possible. Now, an Ultimate Options/Unearthed Arcana style book or the like which introduces variant concepts related to skills or magic or classes or hit points or whatever would be a good idea.

I would like to see a second RPG from Paizo. Modern or Sci-Fi or something else (but not generic) that's different mechanically but it still supported in the same style as Pathfinder with subscriptions and adventure paths, stand alone modules, player and GM supplements and a new default campaign setting. The way Paizo has made Pathfinder so well supported and loved by fans would work with another game just as well I think.


I think the Revised Core Rules should be timed to coincide with the D&D Next launch, actually.

Now, I am not one for edition warring, I think that's silly, but I believe the conversation that would arise from such a product would be generally beneficial to Paizo. "Dude the new edition of D&D is coming out..." "Yeah, but the *same* edition of Pathfinder is getting cleaned up in a more playable format!"

Edition Warrior? Click here:
I'm not saying one game is better than the other, in fact, I generally believe the world is better with more game options. I'm just saying this makes sense for Paizo to do.

If you're going to take these comments and derail the thread with edition warring, that's on your head, not mine. Let's think about what my point was before going down that road. Peace.


Yes, a revised Core Rule book, with all the FAQ & other changes.

Now, a few subtle changes:
Paladins: Immunity to Domination, not Charm.
Rogue: The cooler talents need to be used more often than once a day. 1Xday is crazy. 3X at least.
Fix the corner reach weapon exception back.
Fix the summoner back to what JJ envisioned: instead of a ‘build your own super min/max’ you get three templates with some customization (such as when you get a +8 to a skill, you get to choose the skill from a list).
Dump or re-write some of the most abused spells, etc, like Blood Money, Simulacrum, Wish (from others) and so forth.
Give the Fighter something more to do out of combat, ie. 4skp . or something along those lines.

Still- compatible with PF1. No major changes.

But it needs to be D&D. None of this “dump the whole idea of D&D and bring us a level-less or class-less or skill-based or Vancian-magic less” crud (not that there can’t be classes that don’t use Vancian magic, of course, or options for folks who want to play class-less, like Unearthed Arcana had). Armor as DR? Fine, but only as a option.

Look, there are dozens and dozens of FRP’s out there. Some are indeed class-less, some are mostly magic-less, some are level-less, etc. And they are fun to play, too. So, instead of changing PF/D&D to be like one of those, why not play…one of those?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To be frank. When ver 2 of Pathfinder does come out, it will be without the OGL. That is my most humble opinion.

I believe it will still have classes, though a lot of what we have now should be able to be folded into a better system of choices within fewer classes. (We shouldn't have a Sorcerer and a Wizard simply to have different mechanics be represented)

I would hope that Vancian Caster can be laid to rest, and a coherent magic system can be use throughout the whole of the system instead of being twisted to different mechanical whimseys. I think cool downs can be used to prevent spamming, something that some monsters already do in the current system. (able to use power again in 1d6 rnds)

To simply update to 3.95 would be a disservice, if I want to repurchase Pathfinder, I expect to have more than an editing change and a few fixes. Nothing like that will ever make the Monk viable until it is completely rewritten, so that it can be done right.

The fixes the poster above mentions would be something that a new version would address, something learned as we all move forward. But as long as Paizo is working with the OGL, some things just are to engraved in stone to budge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My hope is that Pathfinder 2.0 includes nothing, because I never want it to come out.

Honestly, PF 2.0 would be the end of my support for Paizo. If I was OK with edition hoping, I would still be playing the D&D line.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Honestly, PF 2.0 would be the end of my support for Paizo. If I was OK with edition hoping, I would still be playing the D&D line.

If you weren't OK with edition hopping, you'd still be playing 3.5, instead of ever having switched over to Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

thaX wrote:

To be frank. When ver 2 of Pathfinder does come out, it will be without the OGL. That is my most humble opinion.

I believe it will still have classes, though a lot of what we have now should be able to be folded into a better system of choices within fewer classes. (We shouldn't have a Sorcerer and a Wizard simply to have different mechanics be represented)

I would hope that Vancian Caster can be laid to rest, and a coherent magic system can be use throughout the whole of the system instead of being twisted to different mechanical whimseys. I think cool downs can be used to prevent spamming, something that some monsters already do in the current system. (able to use power again in 1d6 rnds)

To simply update to 3.95 would be a disservice, if I want to repurchase Pathfinder, I expect to have more than an editing change and a few fixes. Nothing like that will ever make the Monk viable until it is completely rewritten, so that it can be done right.

The fixes the poster above mentions would be something that a new version would address, something learned as we all move forward. But as long as Paizo is working with the OGL, some things just are to engraved in stone to budge.

While I agree with most of what you are saying, I think you misunderstand the OGL. It does not force the d20 system. There are plenty OGL games released under the OGL that don't use anything remotely close to the d20 system....quite a few of them using systems that pre-date d20. An example would be Mongoose's Legend, which is essentially RuneQuest with the numbers filed off, a system that dates back to 1978.

I think, no matter what they do, Paizo will stick with the OGL (if for no other reason than because a decent-sized portion of their fan base attributes a lot more credit to the OGL than it deserves). And, I am afraid that they will also barely update the system...I think v 3.8 is almost all but assured, regardless of how poor of a choice I think that would be.


A new edition, not a new game.

Tighten existing rule set, not make a new game.


Kthulhu wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Honestly, PF 2.0 would be the end of my support for Paizo. If I was OK with edition hoping, I would still be playing the D&D line.
If you weren't OK with edition hopping, you'd still be playing 3.5, instead of ever having switched over to Pathfinder.

Yes cause Paizo was just announcing PF 2.0 when I switched. It's not like D&D NEXT finally made me realize that WoTC was never going to support 3.5 again.

Shadow Lodge

Marthkus wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Honestly, PF 2.0 would be the end of my support for Paizo. If I was OK with edition hoping, I would still be playing the D&D line.
If you weren't OK with edition hopping, you'd still be playing 3.5, instead of ever having switched over to Pathfinder.

Yes cause Paizo was just announcing PF 2.0 when I switched. It's not like D&D NEXT finally made me realize that WoTC was never going to support 3.5 again.

I'm sure you've played through all that 3.5 has to offer, right?


Kthulhu wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Honestly, PF 2.0 would be the end of my support for Paizo. If I was OK with edition hoping, I would still be playing the D&D line.
If you weren't OK with edition hopping, you'd still be playing 3.5, instead of ever having switched over to Pathfinder.

Yes cause Paizo was just announcing PF 2.0 when I switched. It's not like D&D NEXT finally made me realize that WoTC was never going to support 3.5 again.

I'm sure you've played through all that 3.5 has to offer, right?

1. I enjoy playing a supported system

2. I want to avoid edition hopping business like WoTC

3. Paizo does not have multiple editions of PF.

Shadow Lodge

How long have you been gaming, Marthkus?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Honestly, PF 2.0 would be the end of my support for Paizo. If I was OK with edition hoping, I would still be playing the D&D line.
If you weren't OK with edition hopping, you'd still be playing 3.5, instead of ever having switched over to Pathfinder.

Yes cause Paizo was just announcing PF 2.0 when I switched. It's not like D&D NEXT finally made me realize that WoTC was never going to support 3.5 again.

I'm sure you've played through all that 3.5 has to offer, right?

I tend to see the argument on here quite a bit that (system X) didn't disappear just because it isn't in production any more, and that existing books are still playable.

While that's true, it overlooks the extra value a lot of us give to a currently produced, supported game. The biggest of which is the ability to find other players, especially through Organized Play.

I can pick up my 3.5 books and play 3.5. I bought into Pathfinder specifically because it meant the majority of my 3.5/d20 supplements are still viable. If that ceases at some point, I'll move to whatever other system is being published and most easily supports my stack of 3.5/d20/Pathfinder books.

I'll happily discard* core rulebooks, I don't want to be left throwing out campaign settings and books of extra spells and monsters and having to buy into my chosen replacement system from scratch.

One of the reasons I play Pathfinder now is because I haven't played through all 3.5 has to offer, and still want to play through a ton of adventure modules some time - except now I'll be using Pathfinder rules because 3.5 is now a "dead system" to me.

*By which I usually mean "shove into a box and store in the loft", after wishing I hadn't sold my 2E books years ago :)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I'm sure you've played through all that 3.5 has to offer, right?

Hard to do that without a group.

Shadow Lodge

The problem is that any supported game going to eventually go through an edition change. So if you refuse to play an unsupported game, and you refuse to play a game that will eventually have an edition change...might I suggest Monopoly?


Kthulhu wrote:
The problem is that any supported game going to eventually go through an edition change. So if you refuse to play an unsupported game, and you refuse to play a game that will eventually have an edition change...might I suggest Monopoly?

A lot of us see Pathfinder as the solution to the above scenario, and trust Paizo not to make sweeping changes that will make everything we bought from them obsolete. Pathfinder is built on supporting players that didn't want to change editions, so I can't see why they'd risk alienating part of their own player base by doing the very thing that drove us here in the first place.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

If PF 2.0 was to happen and it was to be a small step change (like 3.5 to PF) I would like to see...

Clean up the whole Ability Score Bonus / Penalty mess - make sure its effect on all the other rules makes sense. Ideally just make ability score bonuses and penalties act as if the score has naturally changed (like 3.5).

Clean up the Grappling rules, they are a mess and counter-intuitive.

Consolidate skills further -
rather than Climb and Swim have Athletics,
fold Fly into Acrobatics (if you can fly you effectively have Acrobatics / Aerobatics)
fold Spellcraft into Knowledge (Arcana),
rather than Knowledge (Nobility), Knowledge (Geography) & Knowledge (History) have Knowledge (Kingdoms and Lands),
combine Ride and Handle Animal.

Get rid of Profession and Perform as skills and replace them with a Profession attribute that just indicates what profession the PC practised before becoming an adventurer, e.g. Noble, Wandering Minstrel etc. Then have such PCs gain a minor (+2) or major (+5) bonus to various ability checks when their Profession is relevant. This would avoid players putting skill points into skills that rarely get used just to justify their character's background.

For example, if attending a ball and the PCs want to impress with their dancing, the GM could call for a Dexterity check. A PC with the Noble profession may get a minor (+2) bonus because they would have been taught the dances and attended a few balls. A PC with the Dancer profession would get a major (+5) bonus as it is even more relevant to their profession.

Include some archetypes (alternate class builds) in the core rulebook, perhaps rather than archetypes just have more alternate class abilities.

Scale back the cleric's ability for magical healing in terms of channelling and maybe make it a Swift action (so the cleric can do something else in combat besides heal) and maybe ditto for other healing classes that I am not familiar with. Introduce something like Unearthed Arcana's Reserve Points to allow PCs to recover somewhat after a fight without having to resort to class based magical healing or "happy sticks".

Re-institute the 3.5 Diagonal Reach exception - it seems like most people play with it anyway (even in PFS).

Make the Trip quality of weapons do something, e.g. give a +2 bonus to Trip attempts and / or allowing tripping without provoking an AoO, rather than just allowing the weapon to be dropped to avoid the counter trip.

Drop feats that exist for backwards compatibility only e.g. Stealthy should just be dropped in favour of Skill Focus (Stealth).

Increase the minimum Skill Points per level to be 4 rather than 2.

Add an option for Mook rules.

Allow magic users to have some sort of At Will spells beyond cantrips - maybe allow a number of spells equal to spellcasting ability bonus to be prepared as At Wills for the day, but limited to those spells with a required caster level of half the PC's level (round down).

E.g. a 7th Level wizard with a +4 Intelligence bonus could prepare 4 spells with a spell level no greater than 2 (i.e. the maximum spell level a 3rd level wizard could cast, 3rd level based on half 7th level rounded down) as At Wills.

Or if that is too powerful maybe a Feat that allows one spell to be prepared At Will.

E.g.
Minor At Will Spell
Pre-requisite: Ability to Cast 4th level spells.
Benefit: The magic user cast one spell of 2nd level at will. Spell casters that prepare spells must nominate one of their prepared spells to be the one able to be cast At Will; this choice can be changed the next time the spellcaster prepares spells. Spontaneous casters can nominate one of their known spells to be cast at will, this spell can be cast at will without using up a daily spell allotment.
This feat can be taken more than once, each time allowing a different spell to be cast At Will.

Major At Will Spell
Pre-requisite: Ability to Cast 6th level spells.
Benefit: As Minor At Will Spell but the at will spell can be of 3rd level or lower.

Greater At Will Spell
Pre-requisite: Ability to Cast 9th level spells.
Benefit: As Minor At Will Spell but the at will spell can be of 4th level or lower.

That is all I can think of for now.

Sovereign Court

What would I want out of a new Pathfinder edition? Well I have some suggestions. ;D

1. Absolutely no streamlining done in the name of "accessibility" or other useless crap like that. People can read rulebooks despite what some forum posts might lead you to believe.

2. Extremely crunchy rules. Like even more stuff. Everything crunch++. Tactical abilities and lots of fun. Tables especially, loads of them. I need 20 different pole-arms and they all need to be slightly different! Hell go so far as to assume war game style play for combat with tape measures.

3. Keep magic as Vancian as possible. Ban people from your forums for suggesting otherwise.

4. Do the same excellent work you did with all the play testing rounds for most everything else.

5. Switch up the base classes and have a core assumption for archetypes. Like Cavalier is a core class, Paladin is an archetype of Cavalier, Sorcerer an archetype of Wizard, Druid an archetype of Cleric and so forth. Very Unearthed Arcana.

6. Add a new core race or two. A quadrupedal race of colorful equestrians, maybe with three types of tribes or subraces would be the best addition to the game. One good at magic, one more physically capable and one that could fly would be amazing! They could even have kind a magical tattoo that appears which represent their special talents somehow.

7. Make more of an assumption that most adventuring parties will use things like followers and hirelings. Armies battling for control of the world is much more interesting and fun then just a small group of people.

8. Bloat the ever loving heck out of it. I want to have like 20 amazingly well made source books to lug around!

9. Place Monk properly into some kind of additional Oriental Adventures book rather then in the core book.

10. Don't call it Pathfinder 2.0 or anything like that. It's a terrible name.

Shadow Lodge

Morgen wrote:

What would I want out of a new Pathfinder edition? Well I have some suggestions. ;D

1. Absolutely no streamlining done in the name of "accessibility" or other useless crap like that. People can read rulebooks despite what some forum posts might lead you to believe.

2. Extremely crunchy rules. Like even more stuff. Everything crunch++. Tactical abilities and lots of fun. Tables especially, loads of them. I need 20 different pole-arms and they all need to be slightly different! Hell go so far as to assume war game style play for combat with tape measures.

3. Keep magic as Vancian as possible. Ban people from your forums for suggesting otherwise.

4. Do the same excellent work you did with all the play testing rounds for most everything else.

5. Switch up the base classes and have a core assumption for archetypes. Like Cavalier is a core class, Paladin is an archetype of Cavalier, Sorcerer an archetype of Wizard, Druid an archetype of Cleric and so forth. Very Unearthed Arcana.

6. Add a new core race or two. A quadrupedal race of colorful equestrians, maybe with three types of tribes or subraces would be the best addition to the game. One good at magic, one more physically capable and one that could fly would be amazing! They could even have kind a magical tattoo that appears which represent their special talents somehow.

7. Make more of an assumption that most adventuring parties will use things like followers and hirelings. Armies battling for control of the world is much more interesting and fun then just a small group of people.

8. Bloat the ever loving heck out of it. I want to have like 20 amazingly well made source books to lug around!

9. Place Monk properly into some kind of additional Oriental Adventures book rather then in the core book.

10. Don't call it Pathfinder 2.0 or anything like that. It's a terrible name.

I think this is parody, but with some of the crazy crap people have wanted in the past, I'm not positive.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't see Pathfinder getting rid of their open access to rules for 3pp products. Beyond everything else, Most of the Pathfinder rules team and major contributers also contribute or run 3pp operations. It also allows further support of systems that Pathfinder itself isn't willing/able to support, and allows more resources for players and DMs.


Kthulhu wrote:
Morgen wrote:

What would I want out of a new Pathfinder edition? Well I have some suggestions. ;D

<snip>
I think this is parody, but with some of the crazy crap people have wanted in the past, I'm not positive.

I'm scared, because I actually agree with some of those points and am wondering if it means it's time to visit the shrink again.

Sovereign Court

Well maybe #8 is a little silly for silliness sake (I do like having a large collection of books however) and #6 is unfortunately a pipe dream given licensing issues and so forth but other then that I'm reasonably serious.


Morgen wrote:
Well maybe #8 is a little silly for silliness sake (I do like having a large collection of books however) and #6 is unfortunately a pipe dream given licensing issues and so forth but other then that I'm reasonably serious.

But... but #8 was one of the ones I liked!


The thing I don't quite understand about those people calling for a major change (remove levels, remove vancian casting, etc) is that those games exist already. They're out there, ready to be played, whereas Pathfinder is really sort of the last bastion of those concepts.

If you would change that about Pathfinder, why on earth are you playing Pathfinder? I don't mean this dismissively (I sometimes see "go play another game" used as such)... I am honestly confused as to why you would look at the pantheon of living RPGs and pick one of the most conservative options to play, then insist on progress.

I play a lot of different games, but the reason I play Pathfinder is precisely because it is such a retro experience. If I want a modern RPG with flexible character advancement and spells-as-skills, there is a whole catalog of games I can go to.

If Pathfinder became just another one of those RPGs through the "progress" solicited in this thread, then it would be to our detriment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
If you would change that about Pathfinder, why on earth are you playing Pathfinder?

Because it's popular.


MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
If you would change that about Pathfinder, why on earth are you playing Pathfinder?
Because it's popular.

Thing is, I'm not sure it would still be after all those changes.

(And, it's kinda funny that with all the edition warring about actual editions, we're in danger of one starting here over a mythical one ;) )


MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
If you would change that about Pathfinder, why on earth are you playing Pathfinder?
Because it's popular.

Hm. But what if the popularity of Pathfinder is fueled by the very rules that people are agitating to change? :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Hm. But what if the popularity of Pathfinder is fueled by the very rules that people are agitating to change? :P

What has that got to do with what people want?


Morgen wrote:
1. Absolutely no streamlining done in the name of "accessibility" or other useless crap like that. People can read rulebooks despite what some forum posts might lead you to believe.

Partial agreement. I think rules changes could be kept to a minimum, but there are places that could be "streamlined" that would basically only save time and space. The rules for deciphering scrolls and magical writings, for instance, or the redundancy in identifying magic items.

Morgen wrote:
2. Extremely crunchy rules. Like even more stuff. Everything crunch++. Tactical abilities and lots of fun. Tables especially, loads of them. I need 20 different pole-arms and they all need to be slightly different! Hell go so far as to assume war game style play for combat with tape measures.

Disagreed. Crunch level is just right. More crunch should be optional, which means it needn't be in the revised core.

Morgen wrote:
3. Keep magic as Vancian as possible. Ban people from your forums for suggesting otherwise.

Agreed in the first part, agreed in sarcastic spirit in the second part. I just made my thoughts on this clear upthread.

Morgen wrote:
4. Do the same excellent work you did with all the play testing rounds for most everything else.

Agreed. Methodical, open playtesting is great and I would happily wait longer for a product to get it.

Morgen wrote:
5. Switch up the base classes and have a core assumption for archetypes. Like Cavalier is a core class, Paladin is an archetype of Cavalier, Sorcerer an archetype of Wizard, Druid an archetype of Cleric and so forth. Very Unearthed Arcana.

Disagree. Don't invalidate stat blocks. That should be the guiding star of the revised core. They should stick with this even more than they did in the switch from 3.5.

Morgen wrote:
6. Add a new core race or two. A quadrupedal race of colorful equestrians, maybe with three types of tribes or subraces would be the best addition to the game. One good at magic, one more physically capable and one that could fly would be amazing! They could even have kind a magical tattoo that appears which represent their special talents somehow.

Acceptable but unnecessary. If included, it should be something innocuous from the ARG. A revised core should not be about new material, it should be about reorganizing and re-presenting what already works in a less confusing and more affordable package.

Morgen wrote:
7. Make more of an assumption that most adventuring parties will use things like followers and hirelings. Armies battling for control of the world is much more interesting and fun then just a small group of people.

Disagreed. New assumptions are not good for a revised core. This material should get continuing support from books like Ultimate Campaign. Basically, this is the same as your "more crunch" request upthread. My answer: yes, in a separate book.

Morgen wrote:
8. Bloat the ever loving heck out of it. I want to have like 20 amazingly well made source books to lug around!

More crunch, more books. We need a revised core — not a new edition, but the existing core rules in a less huge and confusing book.

Morgen wrote:
9. Place Monk properly into some kind of additional Oriental Adventures book rather then in the core book.

Thou shalt not make existing APs harder to GM. Monk, and ALL the base classes go to the core. Cut out the huge GMing sections that are basically optional crunch. Make room for the rules that are being used frequently. If a new Pathfinder player can expect to have the question "What's a Summoner?" they should find the answer in the core rules.

I'm not sure "what's the hardness of an iron door per inch of thickness?" is one of those questions. If it is, I'm sure it can fit in a table. But the amount of space in the current CRB dedicated to rules that not even GMs need to reference frequently is too much.

Morgen wrote:
10. Don't call it Pathfinder 2.0 or anything like that. It's a terrible name.

Agreed 200%.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Morgen wrote:
(stuff)
(more stuff)

I'm pretty much agreed with everything the Mythic Evil Dead President had to say, other than I'm also open to the idea of removing some of the core classes into a second book (although no more than that, or we'll have GMs needing piles of supplements in case class X shows up in an adventure).

And yeah, "Pathfinder 2.0" screams too much "We're throwing away the old, make room for the new" to me.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well streamlining for the purpose of making mechanics function more in lines with how you would want them to work or for improving efficiency is likely quite acceptable.

I'm talking specifically about when it's done because the "rules is hard" crowd shouts loud enough about something that actually is completely functional if they'd just stop complaining and read a damn paragraph of text.

I can certainly see where your coming from with making sure that all AP stuff remains relevant and as easy to use as is present and I certainly agree in that regard. I hadn't considered those points when writing my list up so my desires are operating in something of a vacuum.

All base classes in core.... Yeah I could go that way.

Maybe Monk more of an archetype of a more generic Martial Artist base class or even under the Fighter class... Meh, more work then it's worth probably.


Kthulhu wrote:
The problem is that any supported game going to eventually go through an edition change. So if you refuse to play an unsupported game, and you refuse to play a game that will eventually have an edition change...might I suggest Monopoly?

Well, since I am the designated grognard here, been playing since 1974, there are “Editions” and “editions”. The gap between 1st & 2nd was small. You could easily play a 1st ed PC in a 2nd ed game, even if you didn’t want to make the small modifications.

It was the HUGE gap between AD&D and the two 3rd eds and then 4th ed which is the problem. Not only were the rules changed drastically but often even the settings were RETCONed.

So, if PF just does a 1st -2nd small move, I am happy. All the sourcebooks, etc all will be 99% valid (even today some of the 3.5 paizo sourcebooks are mostly valid). The settings will be fine. You could play your 1st ED PC happily in a “2nd ED” game, with the DM pointing out a few changes here & there.

So, it’s perfectly possible for PF to NEVER go radically edition happy, just newer updated stuff com as needed.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
If you would change that about Pathfinder, why on earth are you playing Pathfinder?
Because it's popular.
Hm. But what if the popularity of Pathfinder is fueled by the very rules that people are agitating to change? :P

I have no doubt that it is. Look for all the wingeing over Vancian, etc, D&D (with the possible exception of 4th ed) is THE most popular FRP ever by a HUGE margin. PF is just the newest and best version of D&D*. If we change it so that it’s no longer D&D, it will become as popular as all those other systems with spellpoints, skill-based, class-less, etc. Can you say; “niche market”? Not that those can’t be fun, heck we had hella fun playing early RQ, and even T&T, Melee/Fantasy Trip and so forth.

The only reason I can think that folks want to change PF down that road is because they want Paizo to fail like WotC did. Or that they really REALLY want to run C&S but all their players insist upon Pathfinder, so let’s just change PF to be more like C&S… This will do one of two things- ruin PF so that the players will come to C&S or make PF sort of a C&S "lite" that I want to run...even if no one wants to play it. (You may delete "C&S" and insert "Rifts" or "Fantasy hero" or any of a dozen other games)

* Mind you, AD&D 2nd Ed is still a great game.


I don't think PF needs a 2nd ed in the foreseeable future. I would like to see a book with options, allowing a group to convert spellcasting to spell point based rather than Vancian (I love Vancian casting myself), basically optional alternate rules for a lot of sacred cows. I love the sacred cows, but PF could have alternate rules available. Converting a module to non-vancian casting would be a lot of work, but if a group really wanted to and the GM had lots of free time it would be a fun option. And I would like to see more campaign worlds- PF is a very strong system (IMO) and it would be cool to have a second core world. Golarion is brilliant for the core setting, but I enjoyed a lot of elements of Forgotten Realms in the first three editions (you could have elements of Western European fantasy, Arabian Nights, Aztec influenced elements and some very strong stuff out of Oriental Adventures in one campaign, or even one session). The craziness of FR (if a developer thinks it's cool it goes into the setting) doesn't lend itself to being a core setting, but did lend itself to fun. A LG god of loyalty (Torm) and a LN god of duty (Helm) didn't get along, their portfolios were too similar and there were about four times as many gods as necessary.

But my suggestions could be done in the next edition of the core rulebook (the usual tweaking class balance, skills, and feats), a book along the lines of 2E's Skills and Powers (alternate to vancian casting and alternate to alignment, for example) and a second official setting.


Pathfinder 2.0 is years away if there is anyone with business sense at Paizo. D&D next is by in large a move to retake huge amounts of market share lost by WOTC with edition fatigue. Those who have significant problems with Pathfinder, magic item dependence, Christmas tree effect alignment, boring fighters and so on will likely be watching DND Next launch and possibly pulling away from PF. A new edition during the same timeframe (or within a few years) would drive players to "look into what the buzz is about." Its kinda like telling your boyfriend like you need space while his recently single ex-love-or-his-life girlfriend is in town.


I wouldn't mind a reformated Core book, but not much in the rule changes.

What I would want most in Pathfinder 2.0 - A release date of 2030 or later.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I pretty much agree acrosa theboard with DigitalMage. Ironically, it seems the way to improve PF (like it was from 3.5 -> PF as he said), is to in a lot of ways return PF to the 3.5 way of doing it in the first place. :)


Quote:

Thou shalt not make existing APs harder to GM. Monk, and ALL the base classes go to the core. Cut out the huge GMing sections that are basically optional crunch. Make room for the rules that are being used frequently. If a new Pathfinder player can expect to have the question "What's a Summoner?" they should find the answer in the core rules.

I'm not sure "what's the hardness of an iron door per inch of thickness?" is one of those questions. If it is, I'm sure it can fit in a table. But the amount of space in the current CRB dedicated to rules that not even GMs need to reference frequently is too much.

Well, if you want to take 'optional' stuff out of the CRB, then we might as well not have a CRB. Or just have "the most important rule" on one page, and call that the CRB. Move all the optional rules (i.e. every rule in the game) to splat books.

Much easier...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Mhoram wrote:
What I would want most in Pathfinder 2.0 - A release date of 2030 or later.

Why not 2130, that would be just about as realistic an estimate? ^^


I've seen it stated multiple times by Paizo employees that a second edition won't happen while the first edition is still growing. And according to this, Paizo is one of the top 5000 fastest growing companies in America (#2370 to be exact). So, while I do think there will and should be a 2nd edition of Pathfinder, it probably won't be for quite a while.

Long live Paizo! :)

Shadow Lodge

Theres a big difference between Paizo and Pathfinder growth. But both make most of their money off of the adventures rather than the game material so kind of irrelevant. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gnomezrule wrote:
Pathfinder 2.0 is years away if there is anyone with business sense at Paizo. D&D next is by in large a move to retake huge amounts of market share lost by WOTC with edition fatigue. Those who have significant problems with Pathfinder, magic item dependence, Christmas tree effect alignment, boring fighters and so on will likely be watching DND Next launch and possibly pulling away from PF. A new edition during the same timeframe (or within a few years) would drive players to "look into what the buzz is about." Its kinda like telling your boyfriend like you need space while his recently single ex-love-or-his-life girlfriend is in town.

I dunno, I can see business sense in having a flagship product that is complete and user-friendly.

That's what the Beginner Box was supposed to fix, except now instead of completely baffled and confused new players, we have moderately experienced players making the leap to the flagship product and experiencing that confusion.

I understand the appeal of being conservative with the main rulebook, and I agree with it. I'm just saying that as far as I am concerned, the time is fast approaching for a new Core Rulebook that has better information architecture with the same rules. And I'm only pushing for it sooner because I hope they change very little about the mechanics, and just make it more user-friendly.


I'd like to see the information presented better. Pathfinder has a lot of legacy issues in it. By this I don't mean stuff like "fighter or monk". Rather many sections of the rules have had a lot of hands work on them over the years and parts of it are like a badly fragged hard drive with left over code floating about.

Like curing lycanthropy specifically requires a lvl 12 cleric.

Anyhow english can be complex. But its probably a lot of work to do this.


A retconned core rule is not a new edition.

Though I would point out such a thing exists its the pfsrd.


Mojorat wrote:
many sections of the rules have had a lot of hands work on them over the years and parts of it are like a badly fragged hard drive

THIS. Excellent metaphor.

The rules are fine, I think, it just took me years to learn them correctly.

That's a problem, and I think it should be dealt with so that Pathfinder can continue to grow.

The Beginner Box was a step in the right direction, but there's more to be done. Even as a huge fan of this game, I would not be comfortable taking a beginner box player of several months and dropping the CRB in their lap.

A) You're liable to hurt someone physically by dropping a CRB in their lap, and that's emblematic of the problem.

B) The format is so different, so crufty, and so laden with legacy issues and missing info that you're still likely to confuse them, even if they have Pathfinder experience!


One problem though is the sort of easy solution a rules compendium is one of those products that's. Viewed as an end od life thing.

I think they are doing a book on character creation? Maybe something like that for the combat section? I'm not sure if there is an easy work around. Actually re writing all the rules is horrendous amounts of work.

I have good rules fu and I still stumble over unknow rules. I have seen posts from the devs running into the same problem.

But doing 1 section at a time may be doable.

Scarab Sages

Gnomezrule wrote:

A retconned core rule is not a new edition.

Though I would point out such a thing exists its the pfsrd.

That is debatable - at least Chaosium would probably strongly disagree. In fact that is what I would like to see in a new edition: That Paizo took the same way as Chaosium - better presentation, perhaps the integration of certain subsystems (although that would probably mean dividing the core rules into two books), but not much rules change.

There are other RPGs out there and some of them are very good - why change the core of one that has many happy players?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd like to nominate Evil Lincoln and his mythic counterpart as my proxy on this issue going forward. If paizo powers that be are reading this and similar threads, please mentally append a "+1" post from me every time he comments.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I'd like to nominate Evil Lincoln and his mythic counterpart as my proxy on this issue going forward. If paizo powers that be are reading this and similar threads, please mentally append a "+1" post from me every time he comments.

Evidently I've been saying the same thing for two years now.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I'd like to nominate Evil Lincoln and his mythic counterpart as my proxy on this issue going forward. If paizo powers that be are reading this and similar threads, please mentally append a "+1" post from me every time he comments.

I don't always agree with him, but his posts are well reasoned.

151 to 200 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.