Let's have a positive thread.
Whether you want it sooner or later, or never, it's eventually going to happen: Pathfinder, The Second! Unless some cataclysmic tragedy strikes Paizo, in which case we would all be very sad pandas. :(
Sorry, this is supposed to be a positive thread! I'm sure that even the most contented PF fan has a detail here and there that just doesn't sit quite right, so what's yours? I'll start:
I hope that 2e formalizes the very low levels (1-3ish) as the apprentice levels. I don't want to play or GM apprentice PCs, but I do believe that designing the low levels as apprentice levels is the first, and possibly most important lesson to be learned from 3.x's a la carte multiclassing system. And the a la carte system is something that I really like, and would like to see simplified and balanced.
The idea that makes a la carte MCing [theoretically] work is that a level is a level is a level. And thinking of 1st level characters as competent heroes was the first mistake that the 3e team made with MCing. The result is that the first level of any martial class is better than the later levels; the PF has patched the problem with the favored class carrot, but I'd rather see a more elegant rewrite. Besides, 1st level PCs already more-or-less have the grimly comical competence of apprentices! A lucky crit can kill pretty much anyone, rogues can't stab the broadside of a barn because they're trying to muscle their rapiers around, knights can't afford their shining armor, and casters...well, at-will cantrips have done a lot to make 1st level look semi-competent.
If the PF 2e team manages to write an elegant and satisfying MC system, they will have done something that D&D has never done. Early edition MCing is a joke*, 3.x MCing is a good idea with poor execution, I'm not sure that 5e will execute anything well, and as much as I love 4e, its MC rules leave something to be desired. Yes, as a self-professed 4e fanboy, I would probably buy PF 2e on the basis of a good a la carte multiclassing system alone!
Just saying. ;)
*The 2e team obviously hated the idea of humans with multiple classes, so I'm not sure why they even bothered to write the draconian dual-classing system that made it into the rules. Meanwhile, I've heard 2e vets say that "Multiclassing is half the point of playing a demihuman!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want trade-off options, replaceable class features that could be swapped out, instead of the archetype system currently used.
Easier Monster building, Terrain enhancements, interactive traps instead of the "hp tax for walking down said hallway", easy-mode rules like the beginners boxset in this edition, online stat adjustments for NPC's in the adventure paths, where you could adjust them easily without having to remake them in a 3rd party generator.
| 55 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Do You Hope to See in PF 2e?
A 2045 release date.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
1st level characters are perfectly competent. the key to understanding this is to understand that "IRL" humans basically level cap at 6th.
For example the way I think about the game, a karate black belt is a 1st level commoner (or expert, or whatever) with improved unarmed strike and probably has a good dex score to boot (i.e. 12 to 13). An olympic level Judo-ka gold medalist probably has 2 to 3 levels of fighter and a very impressive array of physical stats (15 to 16). a legendary duelist and swordsman like Musashi was probably a 6th level fighter, one with an impressive ability array.
Player characters are routinely spectacular.
My opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1st level characters are perfectly competent. the key to understanding this is to understand that "IRL" humans basically level cap at 6th.
For example the way I think about the game, a karate black belt is a 1st level commoner (or expert, or whatever) with improved unarmed strike and probably has a good dex score to boot (i.e. 12 to 13). An olympic level Judo-ka gold medalist probably has 2 to 3 levels of fighter and a very impressive array of physical stats (15 to 16). a legendary duelist and swordsman like Musashi was probably a 6th level fighter, one with an impressive ability array.
Player characters are routinely spectacular.
My opinion.
Totally agree. BTW epic handle, I lol'd after reading the name.
Totally agree. BTW epic handle, I lol'd after reading the name.1st level characters are perfectly competent. the key to understanding this is to understand that "IRL" humans basically level cap at 6th.
For example the way I think about the game, a karate black belt is a 1st level commoner (or expert, or whatever) with improved unarmed strike and probably has a good dex score to boot (i.e. 12 to 13). An olympic level Judo-ka gold medalist probably has 2 to 3 levels of fighter and a very impressive array of physical stats (15 to 16). a legendary duelist and swordsman like Musashi was probably a 6th level fighter, one with an impressive ability array.
Player characters are routinely spectacular.
My opinion.
Thanks. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that 2e formalizes the very low levels (1-3ish) as the apprentice levels. I don't want to play or GM apprentice PCs, but I do believe that designing the low levels as apprentice levels is the first, and possibly most important lesson to be learned from 3.x's a la carte multiclassing system. And the a la carte system is something that I really like, and would like to see simplified and balanced.
The idea that makes a la carte MCing [theoretically] work is that a level is a level is a level. And thinking of 1st level characters as competent heroes was the first mistake that the 3e team made with MCing. The result is that the first level of any martial class is better than the later levels; the PF has patched the problem with the favored class carrot, but I'd rather see a more elegant rewrite. Besides, 1st level PCs already more-or-less have the grimly comical competence of apprentices! A lucky crit can kill pretty much anyone, rogues can't stab the broadside of a barn because they're trying to muscle their rapiers around, knights can't afford their shining armor, and casters...well, at-will cantrips have done a lot to make 1st level look semi-competent.
This is something that I would rather see go than stay. I don't know of any fantasy tropes that include a barbarian/paladin/wizard/rogue (maybe that should read barbarianpaladinwizardrogue), but maybe I just haven't read enough. Capstone abilities are one way to encourage staying one class, but it obviously isn't enough if people are willing to dip one level into a different class and lose the capstone just for some other gain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another rehaul of the maneuver systems. This one requires far too much investment and gets shut down too easily by any classical DnD threat like dragons, demons and the like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the whole, "martials can't nice things" tip, I would like increased relevance of the mundane or "non-magical". If they can't be magic, at least they can be super-human.
Obviously, some skills remain useful at high level, while others becomes situational or moot. I would like new skill uses that kick in at a certain number of skill ranks, such as 5, 10, 15 and 20, or 6, 11, 16. A dozen people could spend a year brainstorming these things, so I won't bother right now.
In folklore we hear stories of the mightiest warriors defeating hordes of enemies, or dragons and demons. In the spirit of "martials get magic at level 4", such as paladin and rangers spell use, or the monk and ninja ki pool, I suggest that all martials get something at 4th level. It could spells, or a pool of points, but it could also be a selection of auras, or feats of superhuman physical activity, or miscellaneous immunities.
These add ons don't need to put a warrior on par with some one who casts 7th - 9th level spells, but I would like to see more abilities in paragraph form, rather than stacked up piles of +1s and +2s.
Oh, and what Scavion said. PF did a fine job improving combat maneuvers, but they need another boost to keep them relevant at high level. You get an unlucky roll, and a wizard can ruin your life with a single standard action. Why shouldn't a fighter?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
Ah...the perennial "what do you want in the next edition of Pathfinder" thread topic
Personally, I want the next edition (which I think will someday happen, but probably not for another 3-4 years at the earliest) to be a relatively minor update of the rules. Revise the fighter, monk, and rogue classes, do a few tweaks of rules here and there. but mostly keep it so that it is compatible and "balanced" with the current ruleset. I have 4 bestiaries, several other hardcovers and more campaign setting books than I can count...I don't want them useless.
Biggest change though would be just to revamp the layout and formatting of the core book. It's dense and kind of a chore to read. I think you could simplify the presentation of the rules without simplifying the rules themselves. Maybe if the do decide to revise the rules, it might be time to consider splitting out the GM and player material.
I do like the bloodied ability in 4e giving monsters abilities that come online at 1/2 hp. I use it in my game thematically for important fights now but why should I be the only one to have fun hijacking good stuff from other systems?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 2045 release date. Book of Nine Swords style options for fighty classes to make combat more interesting than "I attack" "I trip" "I grapple" *d20 roll*. (I don't want them to have supernatural abilities, but varied exceptional abilities are not a sin for a superior fighter.)
Clearer and more varied options for classes along the lines of Archetypes but written into the core book.
Weapon Finesse shouldn't be a feat, it should be an available option for everyone.
Fix the monk. (In a variety of ways.)
Fix the rogue. (In a variety of ways.)
Ummm, dat's it.
Oh and I vote for it to be called "Pathfinder: Revised and Expanded" not 2e. ;)
Oh and I vote for it to be called "Pathfinder: Revised and Expanded" not 2e. ;)
Totally agreed. I just want a revised core book with a power creep for some classes and replaceable swap-outs for everyone, being able to swap small features as opposed to archetypes, akthough archetypes are still welcome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing-- I will never buy Pathfinder 2e and if there is a new edition I will never again buy pathfinder books.
If I wanted new editions every 5 years I'd have gone to 4th ed and I'd be going to Next now-- if there's PF 2.0 they should send a free copy of the core book to everyone whose invested in PF or else its just another shameless money grab, which I won't support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and don't pass around class features that are the draw of playing a certain class to everyone at the party, such as trapfinding and sneak attack to every other class, and cleric's channel to full BAB pally's; these should be replaced with other abilities to keep the original classes as the sole beneficiary's of their abilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing-- I will never buy Pathfinder 2e and if there is a new edition I will never again buy pathfinder books.
If I wanted new editions every 5 years I'd have gone to 4th ed and I'd be going to Next now-- if there's PF 2.0 they should send a free copy of the core book to everyone whose invested in PF or else its just another shameless money grab, which I won't support.
Ya new operating systems, cars, and new technology in general are like.. a scam man. Seriously though, improvements can be made and there's nothing wrong with paying for an improved version. If you don't want to spend money to RP there's always Magical Tea Party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing-- I will never buy Pathfinder 2e and if there is a new edition I will never again buy pathfinder books.
If I wanted new editions every 5 years I'd have gone to 4th ed and I'd be going to Next now-- if there's PF 2.0 they should send a free copy of the core book to everyone whose invested in PF or else its just another shameless money grab, which I won't support.
No one said it would happen that soon at all.
Also, do you think the second and third edition of D&D were shameless money grabs where they should have sent a free copy of the core book to everyone who invested in D&D? Because from what I've heard (wasn't playing RPGs then), they seemed like legitimate attempts to update and improve the system. They couldn't have done that without knowing it would be profitable and free copies of the core book would have made that pretty hard I believe. I could be wrong on multiple counts, but your position seems unnecessarily absolutist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing-- I will never buy Pathfinder 2e and if there is a new edition I will never again buy pathfinder books.
If I wanted new editions every 5 years I'd have gone to 4th ed and I'd be going to Next now-- if there's PF 2.0 they should send a free copy of the core book to everyone whose invested in PF or else its just another shameless money grab, which I won't support.
No one said it would happen that soon at all.
Also, do you think the second and third edition of D&D were shameless money grabs where they should have sent a free copy of the core book to everyone who invested in D&D? Because from what I've heard (wasn't playing RPGs then), they seemed like legitimate attempts to update and improve the system. They couldn't have done that without knowing it would be profitable and free copies of the core book would have made that pretty hard I believe. I could be wrong on multiple counts, but your position seems unnecessarily absolutist.
I don't care how much they fix-- I like the rules we have now. I don't need a new edition now, next year, 5 years from now, ect.
Do I think that the turaround between 3.0/3.5/4th edition were entirely money related?
Yes. Yes I do.
Did I come to Pathfinder because it is a continuation of 3.5 without needing an entire new edition?
Yes. Yes I did.
Does pathfinder 2.0 make that choice irrelevant and force me to buy yet another core rulebook?
If so, I'm out. . . I want new content for my money not just revisions and another copy of much of the same material for my money, so no, I'm not ever (or in the foreseeable future-- lets say 15-20 years) buying a new edition of this game, I just don't believe it needs constant updating like an operating system-- which by the way, I have never purchased only gotten new ones when they come installed on new machines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and I vote for it to be called "Pathfinder: Revised and Expanded" not 2e. ;)
So what is the edition after that to be called? Advanced Pathfinder: Revised and Expanded Again? ;)
Easier Monster building, Terrain enhancements, interactive traps instead of the "hp tax for walking down said hallway", easy-mode rules like the beginners boxset in this edition, online stat adjustments for NPC's in the adventure paths, where you could adjust them easily without having to remake them in a 3rd party generator.
What's a terrain enhancement?
This is something that I would rather see go than stay. I don't know of any fantasy tropes that include a barbarian/paladin/wizard/rogue (maybe that should read barbarianpaladinwizardrogue), but maybe I just haven't read enough. Capstone abilities are one way to encourage staying one class, but it obviously isn't enough if people are willing to dip one level into a different class and lose the capstone just for some other gain.
You've never read Conan (fighter/rogue), Lord of the Rings (wizard/fighter), The Wheel of Time (many multi-talented characters), or...well, lots of other fantasy books? Oh well, anyway, there's nothing wrong with strict class boundaries, but MCing definitely has appeal for many gamers. What's your ideal MC system, if not the a la carte style?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya new operating systems, cars, and new technology in general are like.. a scam man. Seriously though, improvements can be made and there's nothing wrong with paying for an improved version. If you don't want to spend money to RP there's always Magical Tea Party.Nothing-- I will never buy Pathfinder 2e and if there is a new edition I will never again buy pathfinder books.
If I wanted new editions every 5 years I'd have gone to 4th ed and I'd be going to Next now-- if there's PF 2.0 they should send a free copy of the core book to everyone whose invested in PF or else its just another shameless money grab, which I won't support.
Ummm they are?
Cars and especially new cars are definitely a scam-- that's why they lose so much value the second you drive them off the lot.
I've already spent a lot of money to RP. . I have most of the 2nd Edition AD&D books, most of the 3.5 books, the core rulebook, ultimate magic, advance race guide, advanced players guide, mythic adventures, several smaller books that I found interesting, I plan to buy the advanced class guide when it comes out, ect--
I just don't want to drop ANOTHER 30-50 dollars on another players handbook and to then have to start over as Ultimate Magic 2.0, Advanced Players Guide 2.0, Advanced Race Guide 2.0 with just enough different that you can't use the one you already bought come out.
I want PF/Paizo to keep going NEW directions not to retread everything with a reset button and start over again.
Do I think that the turaround between 3.0/3.5/4th edition were entirely money related?
I don't. It revitalized a dying frasnchise. The brand new content introduced a whole new generation to role playing games, and the content was great and well supported and well supplemented. I thought the investment was well worth the money every time they did it, especially for the new supported content.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing-- I will never buy Pathfinder 2e and if there is a new edition I will never again buy pathfinder books.
If I wanted new editions every 5 years I'd have gone to 4th ed and I'd be going to Next now-- if there's PF 2.0 they should send a free copy of the core book to everyone whose invested in PF or else its just another shameless money grab, which I won't support.
No one said it would happen that soon at all.
Also, do you think the second and third edition of D&D were shameless money grabs where they should have sent a free copy of the core book to everyone who invested in D&D? Because from what I've heard (wasn't playing RPGs then), they seemed like legitimate attempts to update and improve the system. They couldn't have done that without knowing it would be profitable and free copies of the core book would have made that pretty hard I believe. I could be wrong on multiple counts, but your position seems unnecessarily absolutist.
I don't care how much they fix-- I like the rules we have now. I don't need a new edition now, next year, 5 years from now, ect.
Do I think that the turaround between 3.0/3.5/4th edition were entirely money related?
Yes. Yes I do.
Did I come to Pathfinder because it is a continuation of 3.5 without needing an entire new edition?
Yes. Yes I did.
Does pathfinder 2.0 make that choice irrelevant and force me to buy yet another core rulebook?
If so, I'm out. . . I want new content for my money not just revisions and another copy of much of the same material for my money, so no, I'm not ever (or in the foreseeable future-- lets say 15-20 years) buying a new edition of this game, I just don't believe it needs constant updating like an operating system-- which by the way, I have never purchased only gotten new ones when they come installed on new machines.
I agree with much of the sentiment here. If there is a PF2 I would want a complete tear down rewrite. None of this "we inherited this problem, but have no intentions of fixing it" garbage.
The entire book could use less and tighter rules. The key to getting a seamless ruleset is not expounding on the specific minutiae and clarifying corner cases. The key is writing fewer words better. Make the adjudication process inherent to the system. Instead of having 6 rules that work the same way, have one rule that manages a blanket of options.
ie. instead of having improvised weapon rules, non-lethal damage rules, lethal damage with non-lethal weapons rules, non proficiency rules, what ever other rule that says "do your thing, just take a -4" rules, ect.. Just have a simple rule "If you use an object in combat that you shouldn't or in a way that you shouldn't; it's cool. Take a -4 to your attack roll."
You've never read Conan (fighter/rogue), Lord of the Rings (wizard/fighter), The Wheel of Time (many multi-talented characters), or...well, lots of other fantasy books? Oh well, anyway, there's nothing wrong with strict class boundaries, but MCing definitely has appeal for many gamers. What's your ideal MC system, if not the a la carte style?
Conan could have easily been built using 2nd Ed multi-class rules. I have not read any of the books, but I can't imagine he went fighter/rogue/fighter/rogue/barbarian/fighter/barbarian/rogue. But maybe I'm wrong there.
In LOTR, the elves were elves, that's where the 1st Ed "class" came from. Same with dwarves and halflings.
In the WOT books, I don't recall there being any multi-class characters. Maybe Mat when he got lynched and woke up with new memories, but that's about it. Channelers were channelers, warriors were warriors. If I were to assign classes to channelers, I'd say men had magus levels and women had oracle levels. I'd grudgingly say that the Aiel women multi-classed from fighter to channeler, but they generally did their best to stop even trying to be fighters once they became channelers.
As to my ideal multi-class system, I don't know that I have one. I don't begrudge people wanting to take one level of everything over 20 levels. I've made a bunch of multi-class characters just to try out different class ability synergies. What might be an interesting, albeit completely new and different, way would be to have a fighting system and a magic system and let the players mix and match as they like to design their own concepts. The divine/arcane split in magic would need to be dropped for that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Faster combats.
Oh and I vote for it to be called "Pathfinder: Revised and Expanded" not 2e. ;)So what is the edition after that to be called? Advanced Pathfinder: Revised and Expanded Again? ;)
Easier Monster building, Terrain enhancements, interactive traps instead of the "hp tax for walking down said hallway", easy-mode rules like the beginners boxset in this edition, online stat adjustments for NPC's in the adventure paths, where you could adjust them easily without having to remake them in a 3rd party generator.What's a terrain enhancement? [END QUOTE]
Here's an example from the 4e DMG:
Blood Rock
The site of ceremonial sacrifices, a great slaughter, or
some other calamity, the spirit of death hovers over
blood rock. A creature standing in a square of blood
rock can score a critical hit on a natural die roll of 19
or 20.
Lol, I tried but am still trying to figure out how to get the quotes working right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do I think that the turaround between 3.0/3.5/4th edition were entirely money related?
I don't. It revitalized a dying frasnchise. The brand new content introduced a whole new generation to role playing games, and the content was great and well supported and well supplemented. I thought the investment was well worth the money every time they did it, especially for the new supported content.
In all honesty, the biggest problem with 4E was the marketing, which seemed to be aimed directly at making anyone who liked features of 3E extremely upset. Seriously. Those mini-commercial things left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. Tack on the massive changes and incredible silliness of the rules ("Warforged to not to drink, eat or breath, but this does not render them immune to any effects." still makes me eyeroll at sheer stupidity of the statement, and don't get me started on 4E's massive hate for moving vertically.) and they basically had a tactical nuke aimed at alienating all 3.5 players of the game.
So what is the edition after that to be called? Advanced Pathfinder: Revised and Expanded Again? ;)
I prefer Ultimate Pathfinder Core Rule Book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, I tried but am still trying to figure out how to get the quotes working right.
You want "/quote" in place of "end quote"
Do I think that the turaround between 3.0/3.5/4th edition were entirely money related?
I don't. It revitalized a dying frasnchise. The brand new content introduced a whole new generation to role playing games, and the content was great and well supported and well supplemented. I thought the investment was well worth the money every time they did it, especially for the new supported content.
In all honesty, the biggest problem with 4E was the marketing, which seemed to be aimed directly at making anyone who liked features of 3E extremely upset. Seriously. Those mini-commercial things left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. Tack on the massive changes and incredible silliness of the rules ("Warforged to not to drink, eat or breath, but this does not render them immune to any effects." still makes me eyeroll at sheer stupidity of the statement, and don't get me started on 4E's massive hate for moving vertically.) and they basically had a tactical nuke aimed at alienating all 3.5 players of the game.
But the turn around between 3.0 and 3.5 frustrated me and the groups I was playing in just as much as 4.0 tbh-- I personnaly skipped 3.0 and used others books so I bought 3.5 so they didn't have to, but having just bought 3 core books + splat books for classes to in 5 years or less have 3 core books + new )albeit hardcover) splatbooks featuring some of the same content again is just a frustrating cycle/business model.
Do I think that the turaround between 3.0/3.5/4th edition were entirely money related?
I don't. It revitalized a dying frasnchise. The brand new content introduced a whole new generation to role playing games, and the content was great and well supported and well supplemented. I thought the investment was well worth the money every time they did it, especially for the new supported content.
In all honesty, the biggest problem with 4E was the marketing, which seemed to be aimed directly at making anyone who liked features of 3E extremely upset. Seriously. Those mini-commercial things left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. Tack on the massive changes and incredible silliness of the rules ("Warforged to not to drink, eat or breath, but this does not render them immune to any effects." still makes me eyeroll at sheer stupidity of the statement, and don't get me started on 4E's massive hate for moving vertically.) and they basically had a tactical nuke aimed at alienating all 3.5 players of the game.
I was actually referring to the into of 3rd edition, not 4e, sorry. I will say though, although I've never played it, I do rigorously steal it's good ideas for my PF games, enough so that when a player actually ran a game of his own, he started asking me where he could find the rules for stuff like bloodied, fantastic terrain, etc; he had no clue that I stole them from 4e lol, he thought they were in the Gamemastery Guide or somewhere PF :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I loved the 3.5 upgrade and was very happy to pick up the reworked 3.0 rules. There were really some extremely massive changes that really justified it (Particularly the Druid!) and I much preferred the general layout of the 3.5 DMG. Honestly, the new splatbooks were also quite solid, even though they had content that was in one of the soft cover 3.0 splats I had (though for the life of me I can't find my copy of Tome and Blood), they also had a lot of new content to go with it. So sure I got to see "Oh look The Master of Shrouds PRC... again", but even then the 3.5 revision of the class had changes that were generally for the better. And I'm totally ok with paying for improved content.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the turn around between 3.0 and 3.5 frustrated me and the groups I was playing in just as much as 4.0 tbh-- I personnaly skipped 3.0 and used others books so I bought 3.5 so they didn't have to, but having just bought 3 core books + splat books for classes to in 5 years or less have 3 core books + new )albeit hardcover) splatbooks featuring some of the same content again is just a frustrating cycle/business model.
Was the transition between 3.5 and PF okay for you?
I don't really understand the difference in happily upgrading from 3.5 to PF but being unhappy to upgrade to PF:Next.
What do you hope to see in PF 2e?
Hope to see it released just in time for Halley's comet.
But the turn around between 3.0 and 3.5 frustrated me and the groups I was playing in just as much as 4.0 tbh-- I personnaly skipped 3.0 and used others books so I bought 3.5 so they didn't have to, but having just bought 3 core books + splat books for classes to in 5 years or less have 3 core books + new )albeit hardcover) splatbooks featuring some of the same content again is just a frustrating cycle/business model.
The easiest way to avoid that is to not buy every splat book, or even every book, that comes out. I know what you're saying, really I do. The group that I play with only had access to so many 3.x book because one of the guys in the group blew his cash on every book as soon as it came out. We had a communal DMG and MM, then personal PHBs. "Shameless money grabs" are how companies stay in business.
The group that I play with only had access to so many 3.x book because one of the guys in the group blew his cash on every book as soon as it came out. We had a communal DMG and MM, then personal PHBs. "Shameless money grabs" are how companies stay in business.
I wonder how common this is. (It's certainly how our group has always operated),
Of course my thoughtful twenty minute-to-make gentle rebuttal didn't get posted because my hardline jiggled out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like—no offense guys—most of the "Pathfinder 2.0" wishlist are things that either take 5 seconds to houserule and don't warrant a new book, or are asking Paizo to make a very different game for no real, objective reason.
We can all gripe all we want about how much we do/don't like 4e, but WotC made design choices for 4e aimed at widening their audience and creating the game they felt people were looking for (in this instance I think the claim that 4e is more "MMO-like" is legitimate).
The only thing, the ONLY THING about Pathfinder that I think needs so major a revision as to warrant a re-publishing of something they've already made is the Rogue. The class is a hot mess, completely outdone by every other unless you ignore 90% of it's alleged options and go with one of several archetypes and a handful of decent talents.
I know my group was genuinely excited for PF's core beta and switched to it immediately, we all bought copies before they were released and nary a groan about the business model amongst my group. We didn't even switch because it was 3.5 backwards, it was because we liked paizo more than wotc, content-wise; not saying the other guys stuff was bad, just that dungeon mag was my s@*t and they won my patronage. I was never one to get mad over the business model of producing more content, 1) because that's how they stay around, 2) because we all wanted new content. I understand the frustration with feeling like you have to keep up with all the books, but that's entirely not true, you can invest up to your comfort level and let the rest slide; get off at whatever stop you wish. Some of my friends only have the core, some have that and the APG. I really haven't seen an AP mod that ever INSISTED you have anything past the core and bestiary, although I could be wrong. I have seen them say "if not using Ultimate Campaign for massive battles etc, then do X", the key is to do X if you didn't have the extra, and I don't see another way around it because the people who did buy X want to see it supported by the games. Most times in a mod, they assume you might not have access to a book and will briefly explain how to work something like a haunt or a chase.
I feel like—no offense guys—most of the "Pathfinder 2.0" wishlist are things that either take 5 seconds to houserule and don't warrant a new book, or are asking Paizo to make a very different game for no real, objective reason.
We can all gripe all we want about how much we do/don't like 4e, but WotC made design choices for 4e aimed at widening their audience and creating the game they felt people were looking for (in this instance I think the claim that 4e is more "MMO-like" is legitimate).
The only thing, the ONLY THING about Pathfinder that I think needs so major a revision as to warrant a re-publishing of something they've already made is the Rogue. The class is a hot mess, completely outdone by every other unless you ignore 90% of it's alleged options and go with one of several archetypes and a handful of decent talents.
I also think that sneak attack and trap finding shouldn't be the everyone's bag, that would make rogue viable even if under-powered. I feel the same way about channel. Make new abilities that don't step on other classes toes. The problem isn't (arguably) rogue, its everyone getting his schtick.
For Paizo to cease publication of their own system, and publish Golarion sourcebooks, modules, and Adventure Paths...for Swords & Wizardry.
IDK what that even is
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Non-evil Undead, NEA working like it says, and spells working off caster's casting stat instead being hard set into Int, Wis, etc. so Oracles can use CHA instead of WIS when using things like Spiritual Weapon, etc.