5E is WotC's last attempt at D&D. If they can't dethrone Paizo and get the numbers they want, then they will stop development and just release reprints of older editions.
Actually - in the last year or two WotC has released delux reprints of 1st, 2nd, 3.5, and a replica of OD&D. Rules Cyclopedia is on D&D Classics. And they have modules sourcebooks and whatnot from every edition there as well in PDF.
The DMG is said to have advice on what options and rules modules to use to make 5E feel like "your favorite eidition" and guides to run older edition adventures in 5E.
The really have changed the business. They've stated that the game itself is like Marvel Comics - the IP creator for books, games and other things.
I fully expect to see 5E D&D around for a while.
Personally while I like what they are doing, and appreciate the inclusiveness, I still think Pathfinder is a better game.
I think that Unchained is actually a way to keep from having to release a 2nd edition. There are some pain points for a number of players - and that books will (may) fix those pain points... so those calling for a new edition can be happy with those changes in their home games.
I expect 5E will be around a while. I don't expect it to change the time line Paizo has in terms of a new edition, though it might influence the final content included. Unchained is coming at a perfect time; they have had enough time to process both the effects of the changes made in the core book and the books that followed on it's heels, so they can target the areas that still need major changes in an optional format while maintaining the current baseline until they have a better idea of the best way to adapt it.
5e really needs a PRD equivalent. If they don't do something like that, I don't expect 5e to take off.
Lots of my friends got CRBs after playing Pathfinder for a year. They wouldn't have done that if they could only access the "Basic Rules" from their computer.
Lines from the product description like "a fresh look at the system itself, altering some of the fundamentals of the game" and "a new system for resolving player actions" sound like potentially major changes to the core rules, whether you want to call the Unchained system 2e or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A reaction to another company's release(s) is not good business for said reactionary company. Paizo is doing fine the way they are. To be successful, Paizo should keep doing what they're doing and not be concerned with any other company.
On the other hand, being caught flat-footed because you ignored the competition isn't fantastic, either.
Probably. An OGL and SRD can probably make a huge difference. Its not exactly direct evidence but considering that Pathfinder is popular, 3.X is the most successful edition of D&D, so I'd want to do whatever that edition did, although preferably not practically create a competitor that feeds off the game I left behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's already its own thing, since APG. And there's nothing wrong with keeping a game for 3.5 players alive, forever.
The organization of the core rule book sucks. Sorry, but it does. It comes from essentially taking the 3.5 PHB and gluing the 3.5 DMG to the end of it.
In my opinion, Pathfinder needs to be completely re-written in the vein of the Beginner Box. Not with an eye toward simplicity, but with an eye toward clarity, consistency, and usability.
It's already its own thing, since APG. And there's nothing wrong with keeping a game for 3.5 players alive, forever.The organization of the core rule book sucks. Sorry, but it does. It comes from essentially taking the 3.5 PHB and gluing the 3.5 DMG to the end of it.
In my opinion, Pathfinder needs to be completely re-written in the vein of the Beginner Box. Not with an eye toward simplicity, but with an eye toward clarity, consistency, and usability.
That part I agree with. 90% of the headaches I've had with 3.x/PF have nothing to do with the rules themselves, but rather finding the parts I need quickly. I suspect that is part of why the PRD and SRD get used so often; the formatting doesn't skew to the 3.5 presentation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lines from the product description like "a fresh look at the system itself, altering some of the fundamentals of the game" and "a new system for resolving player actions" sound like potentially major changes to the core rules, whether you want to call the Unchained system 2e or not.
It's closer to Unearthed Arcana than a new edition. A book of optional rules that the designers are throwing out to see how far players are interested in going away from the initial design and what players are looking for in terms of adapting the system going forward.
A reaction to another company's release(s) is not good business for said reactionary company. Paizo is doing fine the way they are. To be successful, Paizo should keep doing what they're doing and not be concerned with any other company.On the other hand, being caught flat-footed because you ignored the competition isn't fantastic, either.
I doubt that Paizo is unaware of their competition; we have seen, and will continue to see, them incorporating stuff from other publishers that work with PF. I do not see them radically changing their plans, time lines, or overall strategies in reaction to others though. They have set themselves up so that they really don't have to, even as they are clearly watching everybody else and seeing what new trends/ideas emerge over time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The organization doesn't bother me half as much as the fact that 2/3 of what I'm trying to look up isn't in the index.
Ok, I'm adding "better index" to our list of 2nd edition demands! ;-)
Ok, I'm adding "better index" to our list of 2nd edition demands! ;-)The organization doesn't bother me half as much as the fact that 2/3 of what I'm trying to look up isn't in the index.
I'll back that one up.
I have nothing against a Pathfinder 2E as long as it is like the difference between AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E and not like going from D&D 3.5 to D&D 4E. I.E. a clean up of the rules with minor changes and not a completely new game unrecognizable from the previous.
While I doubt a PF2nd is anywhere close to coming out... I can only hope it, or Unchained, will settle the silly semantics of "hands" and weapons attached to your body, such as the boulder helmet, tail blade, etc.
Unless I missed something, since I only just recently came across that nonsensical stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What, Voldemort?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the same time keeping PF unchanged may not sell as well either. Already some in the hobby refuse to buy it because they find it similar to 3.5. Releasing the same rules a second time with little or no changes beyond organization and art means no reason to upgrade from PF 1E. Not unless their is significant changes imo. Myself and my gaming circle will not be buying a PF that offers nothing new. Why buy the same thing twice. It's a catch 22. Damned if thewy do and damned if they don't.
It sounds like the Strategy Guide might actually be a testing ground for simplified presentation of the rules, at least concerning layout and such.
|
In my opinion, Pathfinder needs to be completely re-written in the vein of the Beginner Box. Not with an eye toward simplicity, but with an eye toward clarity, consistency, and usability.
I agree.
In theory, it needn't be called a new edition if that is all they did. However, I suspect the urge to tinker with things would prove very hard to resist. (My understanding of 3.5 is that it suffered from "project creep" and ended up changing a fair bit more than was originally envisioned.)
|
|
Chris, I have done that particular more than once.
The mentions of brokeness is all well and good, but my main point is that a caster (by they a Wizard, Cleric, Druid or such) should not forget his spells after one casting. There should never be an instance where one would need to "prepare" a spell more than once to enable the casting of it multiple times.
This is what I want to see change, to have all spell slots be "known spells" with Wizards and the like using spellbooks to change spells and Sorcerers using other class abilities (that they do not have currently) to augment or tweak their limited cast of spells they can't swap themselves.
It would mean pairing down the classes and using the combined mechanics of the magic system to better build the (what is now) Spontaneous casters.
Just to point out, Pool points, not Mana/Power Points,ect...
This would go with the overall revamp of Martial character also. We are talking a new edition here, not a clerical clean up of rules for a cleaner, thinner book.
In doing this, spells may change to reflect the spam potential that all casters will have now, though I like what I have heard of how spells level up in the new iteration of the other Brand's new edition.
Keeping Vancian Casting as it is currently, and how it basically has been since the inception of the game as a mini's battle set, just isn't in step with what the possibilities are if the severe limitation is tempered and modernized.
I for one would welcome the next edition of PF. I suspect PF unchained is a testing ground for the 2nd edition.
I for one feel PF is already on that steep power curve that happened at the end of 3.5. The last few splat books I've seen have had ridiculous feats and abilities in them that are obviously only there to be better than what already exists so you buy the book. My list of stuff that's banned in my home games has grown exponentially in the last year.
Not only that, I fall into the camp that they are errating and breaking certain things so that their new things hold more appeal. When that starts to happen your growing too bloated.
There are also several things that PF fixed that are now breaking. Getting rid of Save or Dies was one of the greatest things Paizo did, then the witch came out. Someone designs firearms (for an ALTERNATE RULE SYSTEM!!) and tells the devs not to include it but they do anyway. The list goes on, but they've been slowly breaking their own game, and many of the things that made PF superior to 3.5
Paizo generally does a good job on everything in the beginning, so I think they'd do a great job on a PF that was more their own version! I'm sure it would break eventually (seems all systems do) but I'd be excited to see it and think it'd probably come out great.
And as others have said, adjusting your business strategies to deal with your competition IS a good idea. I don't think its time yet, but the next 2-3 years I'd like to see the next edition.
Chris, I have done that particular more than once.
The mentions of brokeness is all well and good, but my main point is that a caster (by they a Wizard, Cleric, Druid or such) should not forget his spells after one casting. There should never be an instance where one would need to "prepare" a spell more than once to enable the casting of it multiple times.
This is what I want to see change, to have all spell slots be "known spells" with Wizards and the like using spellbooks to change spells and Sorcerers using other class abilities (that they do not have currently) to augment or tweak their limited cast of spells they can't swap themselves.
It would mean pairing down the classes and using the combined mechanics of the magic system to better build the (what is now) Spontaneous casters.
Just to point out, Pool points, not Mana/Power Points,ect...
This would go with the overall revamp of Martial character also. We are talking a new edition here, not a clerical clean up of rules for a cleaner, thinner book.
In doing this, spells may change to reflect the spam potential that all casters will have now, though I like what I have heard of how spells level up in the new iteration of the other Brand's new edition.
Keeping Vancian Casting as it is currently, and how it basically has been since the inception of the game as a mini's battle set, just isn't in step with what the possibilities are if the severe limitation is tempered and modernized.
Personally, I look at it like in the Amber universe. They don't forget the spell. They have to prepare the spell for a desired effect ahead of time, and the casting action is just a trigger they built in. The spell is a giant rube goldberg machine they have to take time to set up properly, and that takes energy.
Personally, I look at it like in the Amber universe. They don't forget the spell. They have to prepare the spell for a desired effect ahead of time, and the casting action is just a trigger they built in. The spell is a giant rube goldberg machine they have to take time to set up properly, and that takes energy.
In Amber the most martial of martials can shadow walk at will, finding whatever dimension they want at whatever timeline, and has an apparently indefinite life span.
Personally, I look at it like in the Amber universe. They don't forget the spell. They have to prepare the spell for a desired effect ahead of time, and the casting action is just a trigger they built in. The spell is a giant rube goldberg machine they have to take time to set up properly, and that takes energy.In Amber the most martial of martials can shadow walk at will, finding whatever dimension they want at whatever timeline, and has an apparently indefinite life span.
This, I approve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chris, I have done that particular more than once.
The mentions of brokeness is all well and good, but my main point is that a caster (by they a Wizard, Cleric, Druid or such) should not forget his spells after one casting. There should never be an instance where one would need to "prepare" a spell more than once to enable the casting of it multiple times.
This is what I want to see change, to have all spell slots be "known spells" with Wizards and the like using spellbooks to change spells and Sorcerers using other class abilities (that they do not have currently) to augment or tweak their limited cast of spells they can't swap themselves.
It would mean pairing down the classes and using the combined mechanics of the magic system to better build the (what is now) Spontaneous casters.
Just to point out, Pool points, not Mana/Power Points,ect...
This would go with the overall revamp of Martial character also. We are talking a new edition here, not a clerical clean up of rules for a cleaner, thinner book.
In doing this, spells may change to reflect the spam potential that all casters will have now, though I like what I have heard of how spells level up in the new iteration of the other Brand's new edition.
Keeping Vancian Casting as it is currently, and how it basically has been since the inception of the game as a mini's battle set, just isn't in step with what the possibilities are if the severe limitation is tempered and modernized.
To be fair, you've typed a lot of text but offered nothing but assertions backing your personal preference along with an easily-countered anecdote about wizard popularity. Frankly, I have my beeves with Vancian, but overall I like it better than pretty much any MP system I've seen so far in a pencil-and-paper. The need for careful preparation has been very fruitful from a narrative perspective and goes a long way to prevent Schrödinger's Wizard scenarios.
Also, using PFS as your point of reference will heavily skew your results. PFS is not a typical pencil-and-paper experience--it's its own beast with its own dynamic.
Personally, I look at it like in the Amber universe. They don't forget the spell. They have to prepare the spell for a desired effect ahead of time, and the casting action is just a trigger they built in. The spell is a giant rube goldberg machine they have to take time to set up properly, and that takes energy.
When I first read the Merlin books and he talks about "hanging" his spells my first thought was "That's D&D Spells!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for the continued derail but I thought I'd chime in: Vancian spellcasting isn't 'memorizing and forgetting'. It's more like crafting a set of specialized arrows and sticking them in your quiver. Your quiver can only hold so many arrows, and once you shoot that arrow, it's gone until you can sit down and make some more arrows.
|
|
It isn't a derail as it is a more focused detail of the overall subject.
Vancian Casting was a mechanic that was done in the first pages of the Brand, where it was the only way to cast and learn magic. (Wizard and Cleric)
Right now, there is better mechanics out there, but they have to be pulled back and hampered to make the long toothed mechanic be able to keep up. I simply want to adjust the whole magic system and give the Wizard a reason to be played again.
As far as the mentioned MP (Magic Points/mana, I assume?), I think that Pool points, such as Ki points or the Arcanist pool, would be better than a Power Point/Mana system that uses points just to cast magic. Have the Bonded Object be a pool power, use Pool points to interact with and use your familiar with spells or powers and so on. The possibilities, as I said before, is astounding if the "fire and forgetful" concept is put to rest.
Keep the spellbook, prepare the Known spells, and have castings equal to how many spells you have (including your stat bonuses and school bonus spells).
That is what I would like to see in PF Edition 2
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting as originally designed still works fine for the wizard and cleric. I would like to see an alternate system that gives more flexibility to fewer base capabilities for the spontaneous casters, though, to give each it's own niche. Vancian for prepared casters to give them greater flexibility up front, but less adaptability in the heat of the moment, and something else for spontaneous casters that gives less overall base options, but more flexibility in the actual encounters. This allows for each type of caster to shine at different times without being constrained by the other type.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't a derail as it is a more focused detail of the overall subject.
Vancian Casting was a mechanic that was done in the first pages of the Brand, where it was the only way to cast and learn magic. (Wizard and Cleric)
Right now, there is better mechanics out there, but they have to be pulled back and hampered to make the long toothed mechanic be able to keep up. I simply want to adjust the whole magic system and give the Wizard a reason to be played again.
As far as the mentioned MP (Magic Points/mana, I assume?), I think that Pool points, such as Ki points or the Arcanist pool, would be better than a Power Point/Mana system that uses points just to cast magic. Have the Bonded Object be a pool power, use Pool points to interact with and use your familiar with spells or powers and so on. The possibilities, as I said before, is astounding if the "fire and forgetful" concept is put to rest.
Keep the spellbook, prepare the Known spells, and have castings equal to how many spells you have (including your stat bonuses and school bonus spells).
That is what I would like to see in PF Edition 2
Fair. That is what the thread is about, after all.
I would prefer not to see this and to stick with the spell preparation system. But then, I'd prefer not to see any attempt at a 2E any time soon--if for no other reason than that I really, really don't want my current books to obsolesce.
|
|
I think it is at least 5 years from now if not longer, but the need for a new revision/update will come up at some point.
My overall feeling is that the new D&D is not going to fall flat like the previous outing, so there will be some interest.
I also wonder if Paizo would want to go into having a second setting at some point, perhaps one more like FF VII instead of Kitchen Sink. They could release a new ruleset with the new setting, and then put out the updated PF in the new ruleset a couple years later. Ofcourse, that could be dependant on how well the new setting does and is recieved.
I liken the possibility of a PF 2nd edition to When, not If.