From a purely business point of view Paizo will probably not publish new editions that change too much from the current system. Refinements and rebalances at most but few deep changes.
Pathfinder's unique selling point was that it preserved the benefits of 3.0 and 3.5 and expanded upon those. While WotC alienated loyal players with a completely revamped system, Paizo drew them in with a refined version of the system that WotC dumped.
It would be quite foolish of Paizo to make the same mistake that WotC made.
TL;DR: there'll probably be new editions that refine and balance the current system but no system-altering ones. Linear warriors-quadratic wizards will stay mostly the same.
[edit]: as for the 'one way to build each class', these boards are kinda focused on making optimized characters using a small number of guides. There are plenty of ways to make fun and viable characters, most builds on these boards just concern the absolute optimal builds. No matter how much you change the system, there will always be one 'best' way to build a character.
Yup :)
Is Pathfinder ever updated to new editions or new mechanics added? Is anything ever balanced or changed to make the game a little more balanced?
This is a topic of rather significant discussion. Many people dont want a new edition anytime soon because it invalidates all the material they already have, or requires conversion work. Part of the apeal of pathfinder in the first place is it was a continuation of 3.5 dnd and not that much of a departure in rules (many people called it 3.75 for a long time).
Paizo themselves has said a new edition isnt even on the long view of their plans. So you are talking about at least 5 years or so before its even possible. They dont want to alienate fans, or make existing material obsolete (remember there is a large amount of stock of material already printed for the current edition that is being sold little by little that would be sort of wasted if a new edition comes out).
So its really unlikely, and alot of fans would be really unhappy if it happened, though some other fans would look forward for a completely revised ruleset, so it will happen eventually, just not soon.
In reading some guides, it seems that there's really only one way to build each class and that's kinda' disappointing. Unless I'm wrong of course :P
You are wrong. The guides often over emphasis the 'best' build. But the truth is there are TONS of ways to put together each class. Some are better at certain things then others, but lots of variations can function just fine in a typical adventure.
Just think of a concept and try to make that work. You can search on the boards for inspiration or use this link for guides. The key phrase here is 'inspiration' and not direct copying :) I make a lot of highly customized characters just for fun and I almost never copy the builds and guides on these boards (I hate being restricted to stereotypes or set builds). I only use them to see what feats would be useful if I have a feat to spare or how to make a certain mechanic work that doesn't seem to.
Three weeks ago I made a horrendously powerful character completely by accident (a tiefling natural weapons ranger with three full BAB, full Strength attacks at level 2) :)
As long as you keep the numbers in mind and don't frivolously waste feats (Magical Aptitude and such), you'll be more than powerful enough.
Never forget that no single PC can solo a dungeon, teamwork is more important. The fact that you deal an average of 6 damage per round more on level 7 is not gonna change encounters significantly with a group of 4 or more PCs.
There are only a few classes which are highly restricted in build and/or playstyle (looking at you, Cavalier). Almost all others can be very effective with different builds.
|
WNxTyr4el,
you are going to get lots of advice on how to "min max" a character.
I have a 14 level Mystic Theurge in PFS (Paizo's organized play campaign: Pathfinder Society organized play). This character has now been kicking around for 4 years. Being one of my first PFS characters I made some mistakes making the character. He has the extra channel and selective channel feats, excellent for a first level cleric, but perhaps not so useful for a mystic theurge. My character's wizard levels are in necromancy, and I mistakenly chose conjuration and transmutation as opposition schools....another mistake. At the time I was tickled that I had a character (3rd level cleric/ 1st level Necromancer) whom, with the Turn Undead feat, and the Necromancer Command Undead ability, could both turn and command the undead. After a while I realized that this wasn't going to work in the long run, so I then went into the Mystic Theurge class. This was a character I built as I went, without allot of planning.
A Mystic Theurge isn't what most people would call an "min max" prestige class. Most people would say a MT sucks. But I have enjoyed playing this character, and Over the years of playing this character, I felt he had pulled his own weight and contributed to the party. My character was usually the one with the See invisibility spells, Dark vision spells, Invisibility Purge spells, Daylight spells, Gust of wind spells. One combination of spells I liked was Bless, Prayer. Haste, Slow...this was a tidy helpful combinations of spells. With a lesser rod of quicken spells, my character can crank it out in 2 rounds.
I just played him a couple of weekends ago at a convention called Council of Five Nations (in Schectady NY, Near Albany) at the "seeker" table ( Level 12+). He wasn't the big damage dealer, that job fell to the paladin and monks and evoker at the table, but I think my character did his job in supporting the other characters with buff spells, and some evocation spells, and lots of utility spells.
I have lots of other characters in PFS I think 20 at last count ranging in levels from 14 down to 1st level. I think I have a character at almost every level in between. In terms of character building I tend to stick with the core rule book, I might add a feat or two from another source book. I tend not to use Archtypes. I have found I have been able to make effective characters that are fun for me to play, and contribute to to the group.
I am also a Venture Captain, responsible for organizing and supporting PFS in Vermont and Western MA.
So I guess all I am saying, is that you don't have to worry too much about min maxing, you can make a perfectly good character with out worrying about every single thing being maxed out.
Have fun. Enjoy yourself. This is after all a game. Good luck with everything and please keep on asking questions.
While yes the Core Rule book is expensive, at roughly a little over $50, I bought my core rule book back in 2009, and I have only replaced it a few months ago. I got lots of use out of it over the past 4 years or so. There is also the less expensive Core rule book PDF at $10 option of the core rule book, and you can also while you are saving up, use the Pathfinder System Reference Document which is free.
|
|
...WNxTyr4el,
you are going to get lots of advice on how to "min max" a character.I have a 14 level Mystic Theurge in PFS (Paizo's organized play campaign: Pathfinder Society organized play). This character has now been kicking around for 4 years. Being one of my first PFS characters I made some mistakes making the character. He has the extra channel and selective channel feats, excellent for a first level cleric, but perhaps not so useful for a mystic theurge. My character's wizard levels are in necromancy, and I mistakenly chose conjuration and transmutation as opposition schools....another mistake. At the time I was tickled that I had a character (3rd level cleric/ 1st level Necromancer) whom, with the Turn Undead feat, and the Necromancer Command Undead ability, could both turn and command the undead. After a while I realized that this wasn't going to work in the long run, so I then went into the Mystic Theurge class. This was a character I built as I went, without allot of planning.
A Mystic Theurge isn't what most people would call an "min max" prestige class. Most people would say a MT sucks. But I have enjoyed playing this character, and Over the years of playing this character, I felt he had pulled his own weight and contributed to the party. My character was usually the one with the See invisibility spells, Dark vision spells, Invisibility Purge spells, Daylight spells, Gust of wind spells. One combination of spells I liked was Bless, Prayer. Haste, Slow...this was a tidy helpful combinations of spells. With a lesser rod of quicken spells, my character can crank it out in 2 rounds.
I just played him a couple of weekends ago at a convention called Council of Five Nations (in Schectady NY, Near Albany) at the "seeker" table ( Level 12+). He wasn't the big damage dealer, that job fell to the paladin and monks and evoker at the table, but I think my character did his job in supporting the other characters with buff spells, and some evocation spells, and lots
Play what you have fun playing. People keep forgetting, It isn't so much the game system (4E D&D Pathfinder West End Games Star Wars D6 Etc) but the people you are playing with that make the game fun. We all have our preferences. If you have fun playing 4E or the up coming 5E (D&D next) great. I will probably give 5 E a try to see if I like it, or if you enjoy playing Pathfinder thats great too. We can on these boards help you with Pathfinder. Good luck and have fun.
I'll definitely be giving 5e a try when it comes out (which is when?) and I definitely want to try PF as well just due to its popularity here.
I think DnD next is going to debut officially next gencon (august 2014)
I found 4E to be mechanically superior to Pathfinder, but inferior in terms of adventure support, setting material, PDFs, and plain-old completeness in the core rules. As a result of these shortcoming, 4E failed -- and many great ideals were deemed untenable.
I'm looking forward to trying 5E, but my expectations aren't high.
I found 4E to be mechanically superior to Pathfinder, but inferior in terms of adventure support, setting material, PDFs, and plain-old completeness in the core rules. As a result of these shortcoming, 4E failed -- and many great ideals were deemed untenable.
I'm looking forward to trying 5E, but my expectations aren't high.
From what I've heard, people are liking 5E a lot more than 4E for some reason. I'm not sure what it is but I think one thing people are liking is the new check system or something or another. Idk, I haven't ventured over to the playtest forums.
In other news though: I bought the beginner box and am really excited to try it. I've realized something from my other thread (4e vs PF) and it's that the systems may be different, but every person has his/her opinions on it and neither system is better nor worse. I know that isn't really like an epiphany or anything but I'm really excited to try PF considering I never played 3.5. I've heard the rules may be a little more complicated than 4e but that's okay. I learn rules pretty quickly; especially related to games and gaming.
Pretty much. I think 4E is a good game in and of itself. I am pretty sure its 'failure' is mostly a function of bad planning, bad pr moves, and a standard of 'success' that is really hard for an rpg to meet. I am honestly worried for Next if the standard of success is still the same it wont matter how good the game is, it will be ditched in a few years again. Something I sorely dont want to happen. A healthy dnd is good for the industry as a whole.
Well.... that and delivering a product that a large part of the playerbase simply didn't want.
One of the major draws of 3.0 and 3.5 was the complexity, variation and level of customization. Many of the players who were drawn to that simply were not interested in a much more streamlined, simplified and more videogame-ish system.
To many 4.0 was simply too bland and restrictive.
It's not just bad planning and bad PR. I've been a loyal WotC customer for many years in several of their games and I'd been waiting eagerly for 4.0 for a while. While there were some good points in the game and it seemed more balanced mechanically, it simply lost its 'soul' to me.
I was happily surprised a few years later when I discovered Pathfinder had preserved and improved upon that.
Anyway... getting off topic a bit.
|
I found 4E to be mechanically superior to Pathfinder, but inferior in terms of adventure support, setting material, PDFs, and plain-old completeness in the core rules. As a result of these shortcoming, 4E failed -- and many great ideals were deemed untenable.
I'm looking forward to trying 5E, but my expectations aren't high.
From what I've heard, people are liking 5E a lot more than 4E for some reason. I'm not sure what it is but I think one thing people are liking is the new check system or something or another. Idk, I haven't ventured over to the playtest forums.
In other news though: I bought the beginner box and am really excited to try it. I've realized something from my other thread (4e vs PF) and it's that the systems may be different, but every person has his/her opinions on it and neither system is better nor worse. I know that isn't really like an epiphany or anything but I'm really excited to try PF considering I never played 3.5. I've heard the rules may be a little more complicated than 4e but that's okay. I learn rules pretty quickly; especially related to games and gaming.
5E is trying to capture the feel of older versions of D&D. Something that 4E was not terribly worried about. You are a newcomer so you don't have a lot of built conceptions of what you want from D&D. Many of the players at the time 4E was released did. No right or wrong here just personal preference.
Where they went wrong in my opinion was thinking that even though 4E would be divisive at launch, eventually like past editions the player base would just migrate over. Folks have always passed on new editions and stuck with a previous version. Just not in the numbers of this particular phase of D&D's life.
Where they went wrong in my opinion was thinking that even though 4E would be divisive at launch, eventually like past editions the player base would just migrate over. Folks have always passed on new editions and stuck with a previous version. Just not in the numbers of this particular phase of D&D's life.
I can't even begin to imagine how they could have figured that players would migrate over time while they have released 3 editions in 8 years! If you count 5.0, that will be 4 in 14!
Why would players migrate to a new system a year or three after release when they figure there is already a next system on the horizon?
The fact that very many people refer to 4E and Next (I hate that name) as 4.0 and 5.0 is already a very big indication of their expectations of WotC's product schedule.
[edit]P.S.: good god, now that I think about it, going with "DnD Next" is probably the most horrible way to name a system whose player base has shown very clear signs of nostalgia towards the old school systems. Why the hell did WotC figure that a vague, X-TREEM name would be the way to go?
In other news though: I bought the beginner box and am really excited to try it. I've realized something from my other thread (4e vs PF) and it's that the systems may be different, but every person has his/her opinions on it and neither system is better nor worse. I know that isn't really like an epiphany or anything but I'm really excited to try PF considering I never played 3.5. I've heard the rules may be a little more complicated than 4e but that's okay. I learn rules pretty quickly; especially related to games and gaming.
You won't be disappointed -- the beginner box is a fantastic product.
That said, it is an introductory product, so much of the complexity of the full game has been removed. It sounds like you might consider spending $10 on a PDF of the core rules as well.
|
The 5e rules (I refuse to call it DnD Next....what do they plan to call 6e? DnD Nexter?) are decent...but so far I haven't seen anything to convince me to prefer them to Swords & Wizardry. Like them better than Pathfinder, though. The true test, and where WotC has continually dropped the ball (I'm not sure they ever even managed to pick it up in the first place), is going to be adventure support, and hopefully more than just the best-Forgotten Realms. They would almost certainly get me back as a customer if they renewed support in Greyhawk.
|
Then again who knows what could have happened if Pathfinder have never came to be either. I knew a few 2E die-hards that after awhile switched over because they could not find many players to play or run a 2E game because of 3E popularity the first few years. Since no one was really supporting 2E. It's easy to point at 4E and say "well it was too different" and say it's the main cause. There is more than one imo.
As for new editions whenever Paizo starts to see a major loss in profit. Why would they keep publishing the current version at a loss. Just to make some of the fans happy. If the current version remains profitable for them so much the better. Except it's not guarantee that it will. The main draw of backwards compitable I'm seeing is no longer the main reason that people buy PF. I barely use let alone look at my 3.5. material anymore. Unless it's for a monster that Paizo is unable to use. Or a player really wants to play a 3.5 . class. Or in my case for Bard feats since imo Paizo needs more bardic feats. Beyond that they just sit on my shelf gathering dust. I'm going to sell some today at my Lgs that takes used books. Now if the group and DM makes use of much 3.5 material that is of course another story.
As for builds I would say read the guides but don't follow them completely. I like Treantmonk guides yet no matter how I like his bard build centered around combat is. No Bard imo has any business being at the front of combat. The class is imo simply not designed for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then again who knows what could have happened if Pathfinder have never came to be either. I knew a few 2E die-hards that after awhile switched over because they could not find many players to play or run a 2E game because of 3E popularity the first few years. Since no one was really supporting 2E. It's easy to point at 4E and say "well it was too different" and say it's the main cause. There is more than one imo.
As for new editions whenever Paizo starts to see a major loss in profit. Why would they keep publishing the current version at a loss. Just to make some of the fans happy. If the current version remains profitable for them so much the better. Except it's not guarantee that it will. The main draw of backwards compitable I'm seeing is no longer the main reason that people buy PF. I barely use let alone look at my 3.5. material anymore. Unless it's for a monster that Paizo is unable to use. Or a player really wants to play a 3.5 . class. Or in my case for Bard feats since imo Paizo needs more bardic feats. Beyond that they just sit on my shelf gathering dust. I'm going to sell some today at my Lgs that takes used books. Now if the group and DM makes use of much 3.5 material that is of course another story.
At this point its less about backwards compatability with rule hardbacks, as it is with everything else, particularly their own stock. Paizo isnt a rules first company. They are an adventure and setting first company. They have a huge backstock of adventures, companions, and setting books that are slowly being sold off, that would suddenly become obsolete if they switched editions, that is going to be a big factor in deciding to make a new version of the game.
That and like i said the rulebooks arent their primary source of revenue. Its their adventures. And those dont need new editions to keep going. Just new ideas. Which presumably is an infinite resource. Thats the difference. Their profits will stay stronger longer because they release fewer rulebooks, and get more of their money from non-rules material.
Good point!
Side note: while I do like Golarion, there have been a few things that I rather dislike (androids and star trek-ish civilizations on other planets, really?) and a lot of the background is becoming rather... unwieldy for newcomers. I'm really curious if Paizo is gonna publish more settings. I loved Eberron and, while a bit before my time, I loved what I heard about Planescape, Spelljammer and Dark Sun.
|
|
Yeah I could do that I'm just debating on it. It's only PDF and I mean while I could use it to read at night just to learn I can't always have it right in front of me to flip through. What would it be useful for? I mean what would be the use of just having the PDF?
Well, if you have a tablet, it's almost as good as a dead tree book (and in some ways, better). While I generally like dead tree versions of the core book for a system I play, I find it is a lot cheaper and conserves a LOT of space if I reserve less-often referenced supplements for PDF-only purchases.
|
|
At this point its less about backwards compatability with rule hardbacks, as it is with everything else, particularly their own stock. Paizo isnt a rules first company. They are an adventure and setting first company. They have a huge backstock of adventures, companions, and setting books that are slowly being sold off, that would suddenly become obsolete if they switched editions, that is going to be a big factor in deciding to make a new version of the game.That and like i said the rulebooks arent their primary source of revenue. Its their adventures. And those dont need new editions to keep going. Just new ideas. Which presumably is an infinite resource. Thats the difference. Their profits will stay stronger longer because they release fewer...
For the moment. Who knows if in 5-10 years time even with the continued publishing of APs if remaining with Pathfinder as is will be profitable for them. They are a business. They need to keep being to pay bills and employees. If they can do keep doing so with the system as is for anoter 10-20 years kudos to them. It's not guaranteed that it will. People said the same thing about 3E failing because 3E was not as compitable with 2E. No one knows for sure what major changes or not Paizo needs to do.
|
|
Good point!
Side note: while I do like Golarion, there have been a few things that I rather dislike (androids and star trek-ish civilizations on other planets, really?) and a lot of the background is becoming rather... unwieldy for newcomers. I'm really curious if Paizo is gonna publish more settings. I loved Eberron and, while a bit before my time, I loved what I heard about Planescape, Spelljammer and Dark Sun.
Eberron has halflings that ride dinosaurs and warforged titans with lasers. You can ignore that just as easily in Golarion. Seems a little strange to bring up to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good point!
Side note: while I do like Golarion, there have been a few things that I rather dislike (androids and star trek-ish civilizations on other planets, really?) and a lot of the background is becoming rather... unwieldy for newcomers. I'm really curious if Paizo is gonna publish more settings. I loved Eberron and, while a bit before my time, I loved what I heard about Planescape, Spelljammer and Dark Sun.
Direct statements from people like Lisa Stephens make this extremely unlikely. Lisa spent alot of time at WotC figuring out what went wrong with TSR and a big part of it was splitting their audience. One of the primary ways that happened was by setting. Lisa has stated baring a specific liscense that really appeals to her (star wars) coming along, paizo material will remain in golarion exclusively for the forseable future.
Eberron has halflings that ride dinosaurs and warforged titans with lasers. You can ignore that just as easily in Golarion. Seems a little strange to bring up to me.
I liked those :p (ok, not the lasers part). I've just got some troubles mixing high tech with magic. The two are just kinda incompatible in my head. I prefer either magic (magic-based technology optional) or sci-fi high tech (psionics optional).
Might sound a bit semantic but I just can't imagine our level of technology and beyond developing in a world were it's common to generate fire from your hands.
A nice example of this is Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series. With magic at the fingertips, there is simply no drive for technological development. That's not even going into the blatant violations of the laws of thermodynamics and such. Mechanics, chemistry and physics are not even remotely comparable to our world once magic comes into play.
|
|
Where they went wrong in my opinion was thinking that even though 4E would be divisive at launch, eventually like past editions the player base would just migrate over. Folks have always passed on new editions and stuck with a previous version. Just not in the numbers of this particular phase of D&D's life.I can't even begin to imagine how they could have figured that players would migrate over time while they have released 3 editions in 8 years! If you count 5.0, that will be 4 in 14!
Why would players migrate to a new system a year or three after release when they figure there is already a next system on the horizon?
The fact that very many people refer to 4E and Next (I hate that name) as 4.0 and 5.0 is already a very big indication of their expectations of WotC's product schedule.
[edit]P.S.: good god, now that I think about it, going with "DnD Next" is probably the most horrible way to name a system whose player base has shown very clear signs of nostalgia towards the old school systems. Why the hell did WotC figure that a vague, X-TREEM name would be the way to go?
Well people paid for 2E and then 3E. They followed that up with 3.5 and then 4E. Many went 3.5E to PF. So I would say the assumption is pretty good that people will buy new editions even just a few years apart.
I do not think that 5E will be called Next. I am not 100% sure but I thought Next was just a place holder.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are edition changes (1e-->2e; 3e-->3.5; maybe 3.5-->PF) and then there are EDITION CHANGES (2e-->3e; 3.5-->4e; maybe 3.5-->PF). I wouldn't necessarily object to the former, but am not particularly interested in the later.
But, that's neither here nor there - all signs indicate that there are no plans for a new edition of Pathfinder any time in the near future. The closest they seem to come is incorporating and updating materials from the softcover supplements into the hardcover offerings, which is a trend I generally like. I have a hankering for a PF spell tome that collects, updates, and polishes the best of the spells have been released to date.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good point!
Side note: while I do like Golarion, there have been a few things that I rather dislike (androids and star trek-ish civilizations on other planets, really?) and a lot of the background is becoming rather... unwieldy for newcomers. I'm really curious if Paizo is gonna publish more settings. I loved Eberron and, while a bit before my time, I loved what I heard about Planescape, Spelljammer and Dark Sun.
One thing to keep in mind my kobold head wearing goblin friend is that Golarion used a "kitchen sink" design philosophy.
Varisia, their first area, is pretty close to a traditional fantasy setting. Around it you have variations...or options if you like. To the north is the Land of the Linorm kings= vikings. Next to that is the land of Irrisien, eternal winter white witches (Chronicles of Narnia, Russian mythology) Land of the Mammoth lords (pleistocene megafauna.....cimerian barbarians?)
Next to that you have the World Wound (Demons Demons Demons). Mendev ( crusaders against the demons). Numaria (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Thundar the barbarian Tech space robots etc) Ustalov ( gothic horror ravenloft)
Think of all of these areas as optional....if you don't like Numeria in you home campaign you dont have to use it.
I don't like guns....which means I don't like Alkenstar. When ever I run a home campaign, i tell the players that a volcano....or some fool gunsmith, blew Alkenstar up.....no guns.
The campaign world is designed for you to put in parts you want and leave out parts you don't want. But they have lots of stuff thrown in there so everyone can have something they want to play with.
I hope this helps
I wouldn't want a new system. However a new edition would be good for better balancing and formating. Once a decade seems reasonable to me. I wouldn't bother keeping up with a game that updates more often then that.