What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

Oh, that's actually high praise!

No sense in winning over those who already agree.


*sheds a single tear*

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would kind of like a boxed set that has a bunch of smaller rule books in it: Race and Class, Feats and Skills and Traits, Combat, Treasure, Spells, other rules systems, etc. etc.


SmiloDan wrote:
I would kind of like a boxed set that has a bunch of smaller rule books in it: Race and Class, Feats and Skills and Traits, Combat, Treasure, Spells, other rules systems, etc. etc.

I can see that being good for introducing new players. Accompany that release with larger "Everything so far" hardback compilations of each of the above, and I'd happily buy into it.

I know there's a resistance to doing compilation books for a game that's still in development, but there's also a point where it's nice to draw a line and say "this book has every [whatever] in it we've done so far, so you only need to buy the newer books to keep up". It can be kinda intimidating to look at the back catalogue of, say, Pathfinder Player Companion books and wonder how you're ever going to catch up with them all :)

It'd also be a godsend for those players that are carrying piles of books to games because they're using a spell/feat from each of them.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

And it would make casually flipping through the book a whole lot easier. I almost never choose to flip through my CRB for fun because it is so big and unwieldly.


What I would like to see in 2.0 (or at least changed into the current game)

1. Hidden rules. They make it so much better for ranged rogues to actually do something. It will also add that technical element for rogues I love so much.

2. Halfling racial weapons. We know they have slings and its been added a lot more with Halflings of Golarion but why, why is the slingstaff still lame? People will stop using it after they get two attacks. There needs to be something to make reloading it better at least. The already available sling feats or Rapid Reload applied to them would work wonders. Maybe let those reloading weapons magic work on it too.

3. Crafting rules. Poisons I guess. I'm playing a poisoner and there aren't really any guidelines in making your own poisons. Same with alchemy items too :(

There might be more, but I can't really remember now :(


Omnitricks wrote:
1. Hidden rules. They make it so much better for ranged rogues to actually do something. It will also add that technical element for rogues I love so much.

You mean stealth rules. Hidden rules would be rules buried in counterintuitive or unintuitive places and that is precisely what we want a new edition to get rid of.


Nope, I was talking about

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcml


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:
1. Hidden rules. They make it so much better for ranged rogues to actually do something. It will also add that technical element for rogues I love so much.
You mean stealth rules. Hidden rules would be rules buried in counterintuitive or unintuitive places and that is precisely what we want a new edition to get rid of.

Which, incidentally, describes most of the stealth rules.

It's hilarious, but sadly unintentional, I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

A skill system that abandons d20, and works like Chaosium's BRP.

Get rid of magic items that don't do anything but provide a numerical bonus.
Get rid of feats. They were a good idea, but they've become more of a limiting factor. At first level you have to pick whether your character knows how to wipe his ass or pick his nose.

lol, dude u just want a different game


I would be pretty upset if they made a new edition. This is the whole reason I stopped playing D&D and started playing PF. The rules are great how they are, although I do admit some of you do have some interesting ideas. I think they should take some of the good ones here and make a book full of alternate rules. That way I can select for myself which rules I want to replace and the rest of my game can use the same system I love. It would also mean that all my books are still valid.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Pathfinder 2.0 is an eventually.

It won't be for a while, though.

Some things that will definitely be done/changed, and the rules will be modernized. It is much like what happened from 2nd (really 1.95 edition) to 3.0 edition some time ago. It was also a different company from before making the "leap."

Here are some things I can see...

Prestige classes will be changed to new type of Archtypes that add to the class rather then change up what is already there.

Feats will be focused and have connections to specific classes (Much like how Weapon Specialization is a Fighter feat)

Traits will turn into background for the characters at creation, be where most of the skill feats will be switched to.

I do see a change in Vancian casting, to a cool down system and having a magic mechanic that will encompass all classes instead of having six or seven different mechanics thrown in the mix. (I have mentioned this in a post above, just here to complete my thought)

No stat penalties for any race and each will have several choices of racial backgrounds that will determine their traits. Feats should be available to unlock other racial traits for races, including cross race feats for various half races (like the Half Elf and Half Orc)

Grappling and maneuvers will be better integrated into the rest of combat, but still not be the pain it was in 3.0/3.5. I don't see the CMB/CMD mechanic staying like it is now.

Just some thoughts. Ver2 will not be a simple rules clean up. It also won't be a complete 360 from what was before like another recent edition we won't mention.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Another thing I would like is from Hackmaster. Each ability score has a percentile portion, like Str 16.23, Dex 13.11, Con 14.98, etc. etc. Each level, you roll percentile for each ability score, and it it to the percentage. This is how ability scores would increase.

So if you had Stength 13.87 at 1st level, and rolled 11 on d%, you would have 13.98 Strenth at 2nd level. At 3rd level, you might roll 45% and increase your Strength to 14.43, so your bonus would increase from +1 to +2.

The only problem I see with this system is making high level characters. Would you assume 50% every 2 levels?

Shadow Lodge

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.

Disagree. It's not a matter of CAN you read thick bloated rulebooks...it's a matter of whether anything is gained by doing so. I personally think systems that aren't so overly-codified make for a better roleplaying game, myself.

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.

Bleh. See my response to #1.

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

Or eliminate the Vancian blight from the game, and ban those that suggest it's return.

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

Except remember to tell people when it's over. And I don't mean six weeks later.

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.

Meh...eliminate most of the base classes is a better idea.

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.

Just go play the My Little Pony RPG, dude.

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.

Maybe for you. I play for adventuring, not for logistics.

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

I kind of hate you.

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

Or just get rid of him altogether and made decent rules for unarmed combat available to fighters.

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

Agreed. If you follow the rest of his suggestions, instead call it F.A.T.A.L. v2.0: The Asexual Edition. 'Cos he seems to want something with that level of horribly bloated rules.


I personally prefer more open, 'classless' systems, but then that wouldn't be 'D&D', would it?

The #1 thing I would change is having both feats and Prestige classes - they are redundant. With Feat trees you accomplish everything a PrC does without all the added baggage. If you want flavor-based PrCs, then simply make certain feats only accessible to certain organizations - its THAT SIMPLE. Joining organizations should NOT be something you pick out of a book, it should be a roleplay opportunity.

In response to the above post(s), Gary Gygax is quoted to having said, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." What that means is, RPGs are about Roleplaying, NOT rollplaying - if you wanted endless crunchy bits then play a video game.

SmiloDan wrote:

Another thing I would like is from Hackmaster. Each ability score has a percentile portion, like Str 16.23, Dex 13.11, Con 14.98, etc. etc. Each level, you roll percentile for each ability score, and it it to the percentage. This is how ability scores would increase.

So if you had Stength 13.87 at 1st level, and rolled 11 on d%, you would have 13.98 Strenth at 2nd level. At 3rd level, you might roll 45% and increase your Strength to 14.43, so your bonus would increase from +1 to +2.

The only problem I see with this system is making high level characters. Would you assume 50% every 2 levels?

I like this a lot, but would modify it with some old RQ rules regarding skills: the higher the Attribute, the harder it should be to get these incremental gains. In other words, a sliding scale. The actual increase should be class dependent, and I prefer bell-curves as well.

For Example:
Rolling the %D, you subtract TWICE your current attribute score from the roll, and if its a positive number, you get to add that to you attribute. This should only be for primary attribute scores for you main class - in the case of other attributes, you should subtract three times the attribute score from the roll. Thus, you are more likely to see gains in attributes you are actively using during play.

Since this is something that would not be guaranteed, its should not replace getting Attributes by other methods, and should also be able to be augmented somehow (like a warrior praying for a 'boon' from his gods, etc).

If anything, it would make a great optional rule.

The Exchange

It's a little bit amusing to see people zeroing in on incredibly specific things like "halfling racial weapon" :P

Anyway, I don't want a Pathfinder 2.0 anytime soon. So instead of saying what I want in it, I'll say what I think could use "fixing" in Pathfinder:

1) math. Many, *many* things in this game don't work as intended, especially as one reaches higher levels. Complaints about archers cracking too much damage per round, casters finishing fights with save or die nukes, or that grapple specialist who can just hug any BBEG to death are common. So someone needs to actually sit down and compare numbers with reality, and make the numbers do what we want them to.

2) Make defense more of a real option. One of the fun things with rolling dice is not knowing if the number that will show up is high enough to succeed. That sort of tension is always present in lower levels, even for that over powered barbarian with a +8 to attack on level 1. However, it seems that some martial classes can just pretty much skip the attack roll against 95% of foes during most of the game, and just assume they hit. While that makes the game more"strategic" in that you are less dependent on luck, it takes away some of the fun. Think of the computer game XCOM, where even your best soldiers would be happy with a 85% to hit, even in higher levels. That could work for Pathfinder, too.

3) Make multiclassing more viable, while also keeping single classing an equally powerful option. I'm not sure just how possible this is, but maybe if many of Magnuskn's ideas from the first page of this thread (limiting magical equipment, buff slots, and other wonderful ideas to reign in the power level of PCs) were implemented, this could work.

4) Make leveling more about more options than about more power. I like how powerful a high level PC can be, but it becomes rediculous when one PC can literally defeat an army of lower level PCs, possibly without ever getting scratched.

5) Make monsters stronger! this is mostly about defense, I have to say, not about offense. Make the monsters more able to compensate for the fact that they'll be facing 4 or more opponents, sometimes alone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
MarkusTay wrote:

I personally prefer more open, 'classless' systems, but then that wouldn't be 'D&D', would it?

.

It's amazing how few people realize this.

Yeah - there are so many games out there with so many different rule sets that most people clamoring for a major change in Pathfinder would likely find another ruleset that fits that better.

I play pathfinder because it is a continuation of the best (IMHO) iteration of the D&D rules, a mechanical system I enjoy and a setting that is really cool.

If I want a classless, can do anything game - I'll play Hero system. If I want a game with little to no math, no levels, and things based on descriptions, I'll play WuShu. Well actually I wouldn't I can't stand Wushu, but others would.

Pathfinder is one of the, if not the easiest game to find a group for - and part of that is the actual rules. If the rules are overhauled to get rid of Vancian casting or d20 based skill checks, then, I think, the majority of players that prefer that would then evaporate, and we would have another lower selling indy game or fantasy heartbreaker.

Dark Archive

Atarlost wrote:

1) Butcher all of WotC's and TSR's sacred cows.

2) Actually think through the math.
3) Abandon the CMB/CMD system. It fails miserably against small creatures with high touch AC.
4) Balance feat and spell value.

Basically this: (except maybe 3: I was not aware of that issue.)

It's probably pretty unlikely for it to happen though.

Also, more variety and option for active defence. And fewer absolutes in defence.

The Exchange

I would love for Multiclassing and Class Archtypes to be folded together I think. Instead of X million of each seperately some Archtypes become a Prestige Class that bolts on to the class, replacing the need to 'swap' the core mechanics of your class. Sure this means some Multiclass options would lose things like BAB, Save bonuses, etc, which would be fine. That way if you dabble in a Archtype or MC, you just swap out the other class features based on level and can still dive back into the core class for the capstones.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and the responses. Let's keep this on-topic please.


Alignment utterly and totally removed.
A class resembling the 4e Warlord, complete with non-magical healing.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Zhayne wrote:

Alignment utterly and totally removed.

A class resembling the 4e Warlord, complete with non-magical healing.

Upthread, I've suggested replacing alignment with d20 Modern-like allegiances. Alignment is pretty integral in the game, like Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, DR/alignments, the Blood War, etc. An allegiance-like system would still allow the option of alignments, or even more specialized priorities, like My Crew, My Captain, Reasonableness, My Sister, My God/My Redemption, Goodness, Order, My Feet, or Vera.

Or My Family, My Kingdom, My Secret Society, My One True Love, Myself, Vengeance, Peace, Greed, Addiction, the City Guard, Ghostbusting, Witch Hunting, Monster Slaying, Exploration, Gaining Knowledge, etc. etc. etc. Or none of the above.


SmiloDan wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Alignment utterly and totally removed.

A class resembling the 4e Warlord, complete with non-magical healing.

Upthread, I've suggested replacing alignment with d20 Modern-like allegiances. Alignment is pretty integral in the game, like Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, DR/alignments, the Blood War, etc. An allegiance-like system would still allow the option of alignments, or even more specialized priorities, like My Crew, My Captain, Reasonableness, My Sister, My God/My Redemption, Goodness, Order, My Feet, or Vera.

Or My Family, My Kingdom, My Secret Society, My One True Love, Myself, Vengeance, Peace, Greed, Addiction, the City Guard, Ghostbusting, Witch Hunting, Monster Slaying, Exploration, Gaining Knowledge, etc. etc. etc. Or none of the above.

that would really narrow down how those spells could be used. Magic circle against my sister wouldn't be very useful. Alignment is very versatile in this mannor


SmiloDan wrote:
Alignment is pretty integral in the game,

Only because the creators choose to make it so.

Sovereign Court

Well are you talking about how alignment is in Pathfinder or the alignment system I see a lot of people complaining about which usually seems to be the one from 1st edition AD&D more often then not?


Built on the 3.5 framework.

Capped ability scores of 20.
Capped spell DCs at 20.
Saving throws massively buffed so a level 20 fighters base saves are Something like +15/+12/+12.
+16/+11/+6/+1 becomes 4 attacks at +16
Classes tweaked
Damage reduced for martials
Combat chapter rewritten
Variant magic item creation rules including feat less options (2nd ed basically).
No more wealth by level
Removing spells stacking
Removing scaling buff spells.
Monsters simplified. No feats etc.
Skill system overhauled.

I would not actually want a game compatible with 3.5 or Pathfinder but want the best 3.5 type game ever made.


Zhayne wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Alignment is pretty integral in the game,
Only because the creators choose to make it so.

Ever since OD&D, yes. Alignment is a integral part of D^&D from the original 3 vol set thru 4th ed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I've never found it integral to my games. Maybe it's just my attitude.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've never found it integral to my games. Maybe it's just my attitude.

It's extensively tied into to so many divine spells, but also creatures and other things. With that sort of thing in mind, removing Alignment, or I should say replacing Alignment puts you in a fairly tough spot, with something like Protection from Evil either becoming amazing or worthless. The most common thing is to translate an Alignment to other in game groups. Smite Aspis Consortiam, for example, according to the individual's faith and enemies. It's actually probably the most dependent mechanic in the d20 system there is, and would honestly almost require an entire system rewrite itself just to remove and keep any sense of balance.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You're operating under the idea that the game is balanced, which means we will never agree on this.

Changing the power of Prot. from Evil just changes a variable, it doesn't effect the overall balance of the system.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
You're operating under the idea that the game is balanced. . .

Well, we can agree that it is not 3.5 :)

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Changing the power of Prot. from Evil just changes a variable, it doesn't effect the overall balance of the system.

But in a game where Protection from Evil works against everything that is not "in your party" is a lot more powerful than one that works against "only the most vile worshipers of ______", yes. That's the point I was making. In the first game, most of my spell list will probably be filled with Protection from Everyone Not in my Party. In the later, I will probably eventually pick up a scroll, around 10th level, and if I get around to it. It's just not useful enough to consider an actual option most of the time.

Shadow Lodge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You're operating under the idea that the game is balanced. . .
Well, we can agree that it is not 3.5 :)

You shouldn't make assumptions like that.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll defend alignment.

It's the only true role-playing rule in the game. No other rules even attempt to capture the personality of players, NPCs and monsters. Alignment not only does that, but it does so succinctly.

While it has the same weaknesses as any psychometric or philosophical taxonomy, the nine alignment system manages to be relevant in discussion beyond game worlds, and frankly there are some truths that it exposes about morality, obedience, freedom, greed and altruism.

It's woven not only into the game mechanics, but into the settings themselves. WIthout alignment, you lose the distinction between devils and demons, and that doesn't strike me as an improvement.

Ultimately, it's a tradition. It's not wrong for people to dislike it, but again, there are lots of games that add nuance to alignments or omit them outright. There's only the one game that has it just so, and we're all playing it for a reason.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I did not mean for there to be a Protection from My Sister spell. I meant that Protection from Evil would only affect particularly evil creatures, like demons and devils, that have the evil allegiance as part of their innate make up.

I kind of like the 9 alignment system, but I think there should be mechanical benefits for other belief systems. Planescape is one of my all time favorite campaign settings. I like the Belief is Power aspect, the low-level planehopping, the "non-strict" planes, like Gehenna, Tarterus, Acheron, Arcadia, Bytopia, Ysgard, Pandemonium, the Beastlands, etc. etc., particularly the Outlands and the Gate Towns. If there were a way to combine the philosophy and cosmology of Planescape with the attiude of Firefly, I would be overjoyed. Maybe kind of steampunky, kind of faeriepunky, with a dash of wild weird west.


A new edition, no. A revised edition, maybe.

Fixing some minor things that should have been fixed the first time around. Druids for example are ridiculous from a GM perspective. I've got players not playing druids feeling like they are pointless, because the druid player is essentially playing a character with an animal companion that is equal to two of the other PCs. That's a problem that Pathfinder should have fixed from 3.5, but didn't. Just one example.

But I think that one reason may be looking for a new edition is rules bloat. When GMs are depending on for-profit companies to control their games, that is when GMs get to buy hundreds of dollars worth of books ever few years. When rule supplements are broken and poorly playtested, especially compared to chained and connected feat trees or combos of abilities, the answer is for GMs to disallow options into the game. Just because it's published by the industry leader doesn't mean you have to buy it, and just because you buy it doesn't mean you have to allow it in your games. GMs especially should be cautious about allowing all those options in their game with some of the horrible design decisions and lack of foresight the rules crunch team at Paizo has made in recent years regarding those new options they have allowed into the game and those options' impact.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'll defend alignment.

It's the only true role-playing rule in the game. No other rules even attempt to capture the personality of players, NPCs and monsters. Alignment not only does that, but it does so succinctly.

While it has the same weaknesses as any psychometric or philosophical taxonomy, the nine alignment system manages to be relevant in discussion beyond game worlds, and frankly there are some truths that it exposes about morality, obedience, freedom, greed and altruism.

It's woven not only into the game mechanics, but into the settings themselves. WIthout alignment, you lose the distinction between devils and demons, and that doesn't strike me as an improvement.

Ultimately, it's a tradition. It's not wrong for people to dislike it, but again, there are lots of games that add nuance to alignments or omit them outright. There's only the one game that has it just so, and we're all playing it for a reason.

I totally agree. Well said


SmiloDan wrote:

I did not mean for there to be a Protection from My Sister spell. I meant that Protection from Evil would only affect particularly evil creatures, like demons and devils, that have the evil allegiance as part of their innate make up.

I kind of like the 9 alignment system, but I think there should be mechanical benefits for other belief systems. Planescape is one of my all time favorite campaign settings. I like the Belief is Power aspect, the low-level planehopping, the "non-strict" planes, like Gehenna, Tarterus, Acheron, Arcadia, Bytopia, Ysgard, Pandemonium, the Beastlands, etc. etc., particularly the Outlands and the Gate Towns. If there were a way to combine the philosophy and cosmology of Planescape with the attiude of Firefly, I would be overjoyed. Maybe kind of steampunky, kind of faeriepunky, with a dash of wild weird west.

I find it strange that they would make gehenna a plane when in reality it was a way to refer to a state of non existence. Anyway, the ideas you describe there are interesting and do sound like fun. I'd check out a game like that, I would just prefer it be a separate game. I like PF how it is


My usual answer to the idea of a Pathfinder 2.0 is that there shouldn't be one, however I'd be all for a Pathfinder 1.5 where feats and classes are cleaned up and the skill system rethought. I don't think we really need a new edition just a revision on what we have.

But since getting and playing the Pathfinder Adventure Card game I think that the check resolution is so elegant that a card-based Pathfinder Lite could easily spawn from those rules and be useable as a product that is concurrent with Pathfinder RPG rather than a replacement.


my biggest requirement for a Pathfinder 2.0
that it is recognizable as the game I enjoy playing

There is a reason I enjoy this game, changing the entire thing for the sake of change and then slapping a familiar name on it is what caused me to turn my back on a certain other company.

I don't mind fixing up the rules and tidying up things and making a few improvements here and there, but the core of the game shouldn't change.

Beyond that

I would like better crafting rules. Was kind of hoping for those in Ultimate Equipment, still hope to see them someday.

Would not mind a bit of work on the skill system, the Difficulty curve gets a bit odd at high levels but mostly I just pass that off as High level heroes are able to do Cool stuff routinely.

Item Creation could be cooler but I think that's actually kind of a DM call sort of thing. I made a list of "Exotic Components" that are required for Item crafting, at least half the GP cost for an item has to be stuff from that list and the PCs need to go get it. Other DMs like to keep it simple

I would like to see a shift to Hex map instead of Grid

There is one thing out of D&D5 that I do like and that is Fix Spell damage based on Spell Slot level used. Fireball as a 3rd level spell is 5d6. It's 5d6 when you are 5th level and it's 5d6 when you 20th level. Want it to do more damage, Prep it as a 4th, 5th or 6th level spell.

That combined with Metamagic Feats could significantly reduce Spell Bloat. (Delayed Blast Fireball could just be a Fireball spell preped at a higher spell level + Delayed Spell Metamagic Feat)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No hex map! Well, maybe for wilderness exploring, like Kingmaker. But keep grid dungeons!!!!

Liberty's Edge

I think a new edition is inevitable. I do see it happening when the current edition is no longer profitable. Which may or many not happen who knows.

What I want to see:

Keep alignments yet define the hell out of them. Tell us in point form what a character can or cannot do. Use Palladium books alignment system as a inspiration. I never ever had a problem with alignments when I ran or played one o their rpgs.

No class tied to a alignment. It's a pain in the behind imo. People either play Paladins as lawful dumb. Or think they are dirty harry with a sword shield. Some pull it off. Most imo don't.

Make exotic weapons truly exotic. Not classify a weapon exotic simply because a dev thinks it's too good for everyone to use.

Keep feats yet make them scale like spells. Eliminate feat taxes as well. They are not fun at all.

Try to keep backwards compitability yet do not be chained down or held hostage by the fanabse when it comes to change. If a second edition of PF is a rehash with new art well I'm simply not interested in buying it. Why would I buy the same product twice.

Make the fighter more than "I swing and hit something". I find the class boring as heck and can do more with Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins. As well as being more interesting.

Optimize the hell out of your npcs with APs that would use a new edition or a compitable edition. Too often I find the npcs underpowered and require major rewrites. I bought the Aps to save time not spend more time using them.

If not a new edition something along the lines of Unearthed Arcana. I can understand and respect some for not wanting a new edition so something like that maybe a solution.

Keep publishing books. Paizo is a business. Good will is not a acceptable form of currency at banks. People will cry "rules bloat" yet no one is forced to use all of the books. I'm glad they broke the promise of trying to keep rules bloat down. It's not major or even minor yet imo. It was a dumb promise to make. A company that needs to publish new material making a promise not to publish more was just a mistake.

Ca we stop with the "go play other rpgs if your not happy" comments. Nothing wrong with trying to improve a rpg. It may never happen yet everyone should have a say. Telling posters to go elsewhere if they are not happy is not a good thing. As well as being rude.

More artists. I like the art yet it's starting to look the same to me know.

I kind of have a hate love relationships wit Vancian Casting. I enjoy it yet hate the whole "I suddenly have total amnesia and can't remember a spell anymore even with years of training and experience". I work in a books store I know where certain books are with my eyes closed. Unless I get brain damage I don't suddenly forget where books are. Keep it or remove it I'm happy wither way. I would rather see it replaced with a spell point system.

Rpgs like everything evolve. I know that with any rpg I buy there maybe a new edition. This is not the hobby to be in if you don't like or accept that. It may sound harsh yet imo it's true. Hell even Chaosium is working on a 7E version of COC. For me revison or


Malwing wrote:

My usual answer to the idea of a Pathfinder 2.0 is that there shouldn't be one, however I'd be all for a Pathfinder 1.5 where feats and classes are cleaned up and the skill system rethought. I don't think we really need a new edition just a revision on what we have.

So there should be a new edition, but not a 'sequel'.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
My usual answer to the idea of a Pathfinder 2.0 is that there shouldn't be one, however I'd be all for a Pathfinder 1.5 where feats and classes are cleaned up and the skill system rethought. I don't think we really need a new edition just a revision on what we have.

I think depending upon experience with other RPGs people may call a refer to a revision as a new edition.

For example Shadowrun 1st ed to 2nd ed to 3rd ed weren't major overhauls, but 4th ed was a much bigger change (less of a revision).

Equally, Call of Cthulhu has had several editions but its all still pretty much the same system.

So when I for example talk about a PF 2nd Ed I may only be thinking about small(ish) changes, i.e. the difference between PF and 3.5 rather than a complete overhaul.


Less tactical.
Nothing kills my drive to game better than having to stop the flow to map out every room and sett ing up counters.
This would get me to come back to the hobby immediately.

201 to 250 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.