Yup, It's time for Pathfinder 2.0


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

You could make it so that the extra rule books are part of character creation.

Everyone starts with 15/20/25 points for stats plus a core set of books.

You can add a book to the campaign for 1 point (then 2,3,5 etc.).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Heh. I'd never thought of that. Somehow, I don't think it'll catch on though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Musrum wrote:

You could make it so that the extra rule books are part of character creation.

Everyone starts with 15/20/25 points for stats plus a core set of books.

You can add a book to the campaign for 1 point (then 2,3,5 etc.).

I currently have 244 Paizo pathfinder products in my downloads. This doesn't count a bunch of stuff like previews or PFS adventures, not to mention 3PP. Nor the stuff that I bought in my FLGS. If I stick to core can I have a x+243 point build? (where x=15, 20 or 25). No, didn't think so. But why not? I've been a faithful supporter over the years. Under your model all that money I spent is just wasted.

Can I feel the desire for a new edition? Yes I can. But I have more than enough pathfinder material to last me several lifetimes. Do I need to buy more? No way. Will I? Hell yea. Will I change to a new edition? Don't think so. Will I? Can't see it.

You can look at my WOD collection - 100+ books. My new WOD - 0.

I don't know Paizo's business model, but I bet it rests in on me, and a lot of others, buying a lot of stuff we don't really need.
Want to nail in a different possible end point so I can move onto something else? Go ahead.

edited for spelling

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Jem (well, minus the WoD bit =) ). Add to that the massive collection of 3.5 stuff I have that I still have players using from time to time. (Most notably Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel, Binder from Tome of Magic, the entirety of Tome of Battle, and a prestige class or feat here and there from nearly everything else.)

Paizo has pretty emphatically said they have no plans for a new edition on the horizon, so unless you consider the introduction of optional expansions/redos like Unchained to be a "stealth second edition", I think this is a lot of speculating that's going to prove to go nowhere.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget that rules-light does not improve the story, nor does rules-heavy preclude narrative impetus.

I've looked at OSR, Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, FATE. None of them excite me in the slightest.

As a card-carrying grognard (though I only started playing in 1981) I'm quite happy with Pathfinder, and the fabulous contributions of the other 3PP's.

More options are always fantastic...and optional.

Put me down as someone that actually likes combats lasting more than three or four rounds...


Pan wrote:
5E is only simple if you stick to the free PDF and to ne honest im not sure that is going to last. Trust me 5e will get more and more complex. Though it will be more sub-divided in complexity which is what WOTC is going for. In fact, I hink its exactly what the OP is asking for. Sounds like he wont jump ship though because WOTC aint got the adventures.

I hope that if Pathfinder Unchained is well received, we'll see the updated versions of the classes in the PRD and following print runs of the Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide.

That slow transition, gradually replacing what's flawed almost imperceptibly. That would be awesome.

EDIT: Oh, and if the Strategy Guide is well received, that the newer format will replace the old. I'm sure lots of people who already own a Core Rulebook would buy a new-and-improved printing.

Present company included.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pan wrote:

/not signed

With the PRD and age of the interent I will never be ready for PF2. I hope they never make one and just keep doing what they are doing. At this point all I needs me is some AP goodness.

Yet they need money to feed their families. Hence, PF2 will happen some day.

If they choose to listen to good feedback from their fans, I think they have a good shot at bringing us a better system than the one they have right now.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Pan wrote:

/not signed

With the PRD and age of the interent I will never be ready for PF2. I hope they never make one and just keep doing what they are doing. At this point all I needs me is some AP goodness.
Yet they need money to feed their families. Hence, PF2 will happen some day.

I disagree that this leads to that. Especially with Paizo's adventure-focused business plan.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pan wrote:

/not signed

With the PRD and age of the interent I will never be ready for PF2. I hope they never make one and just keep doing what they are doing. At this point all I needs me is some AP goodness.
Yet they need money to feed their families. Hence, PF2 will happen some day.
I disagree that this leads to that. Especially with Paizo's adventure-focused business plan.

It's OK. 20 years from now, PF 2.0 will happen and magnuskn will do his Dr. Strangelove routine: "A-ha! I vass righttt! Vor ze last 20 yeers I zaid zis is going zo hapfen! Mein Kanzler, I kan walk!".

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You owe me half a glass of ginger ale, bag. Pardon me while I clean off my monitor.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Are you kidding? Between you and the bag with teeth it would be a couple hundred bucks.

I was limiting it to this thread to avoid the critical mass that would occur were we to use the entire forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pan wrote:

/not signed

With the PRD and age of the interent I will never be ready for PF2. I hope they never make one and just keep doing what they are doing. At this point all I needs me is some AP goodness.
Yet they need money to feed their families. Hence, PF2 will happen some day.
I disagree that this leads to that. Especially with Paizo's adventure-focused business plan.

The cycle will continue, as it always has. And they are just as dependent on splatbooks as they are on adventure paths. You may disagree, but I don't think that the developers are so much more special than the guys at WotC were. Especially since a good number of them worked there.

But, hey, we'll see in a few years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

On the other hand, WoTC isn't necessarily the only model to follow. How long did 1E/2E last? What about other gaming systems, such as Call of Cthulhu?

Really...the radically new edition thing only started with 3E...

And based on rumors for 5E, it might be now considered an obsolete model.

We also shouldn't forget that Paizo business model actually makes it a lot harder to update than WoTC is. A radical rules revision (ala 2E -> 3E, 3E -> 4E) would result in a lot of the existing product being rendered unsaleable. Which is a problem when a main source of revenue is subscriptions and sale's through the Paizo store.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You guys seriously believe that Paizo will never do a new edition, even if they have to lay off half their staff to please you? You guys seriously believe that they can subsist on adventure related stuff alone at the level they are now?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
You guys seriously believe that Paizo will never do a new edition, even if they have to lay off half their staff to please you? You guys seriously believe that they can subsist on adventure related stuff alone at the level they are now?

Kinda; minus that bit about laying off employees.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, it doesn't have to do with pleasing customers but with maintaining their business model. Last we've heard, Paizo is based on steady and predictable monthly income, i.e., the APs, not quarterly hardbacks. If they come out with a 2.0 (vs. an Unchained or 1.5 approach which promises not to obsolete older adventures), they're likely to lose AP subscribers who are looking for shiny new 2.0-compatible adventures rather than ones written for a ruleset that will be unsupported in a year to 18 months. There's already people now that won't buy adventures written for 3.5, and they're pretty easy to convert. Plus, they'll be stuck with warehousing or heavily discounting all their previous products.

Unless and until Paizo can afford to take a playtest period off from producing and selling new products, like WotC did between 4e and Next, they have to be very cautious about people's expectations of a new edition. Frankly, I could see them discontinuing Golarion and making a new setting to produce adventures for if they run out of ideas or paint themselves into a corner before they go to a new set of rules; there's a lot more campaign setting slots to fill in a year than rule book slots.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I suspect we will get another edition...I just don't think it will be more substantial than the 3.5 -> Pathfinder, and I don't think it will be for quite a few years yet.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
but I don't think that the developers are so much more special than the guys at WotC were. Especially since a good number of them worked there.

They also seem to have taken away a number of lessons about what not to do from working there.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

I am really not ready for a new Pathfinder edition. I enjoy the growth of the system and the small amount of experimentation that is going on, I understand that with the volume of material produced all of it will not be perfect, but that is why RPGs are superior to other forms of games, the assumption that we will monitor our own rules system is part of the rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Eh, who knows. Maybe you guys are right in the end. But I will continue to stand by my serious doubts.


Personally, I like rules in my games and don't go too much for "storyteller" systems, but I completely see the OP's point about the breadth of rules in Pathfinder. I know I can never learn all of them and am daunted by the idea of my players picking unfamiliar spells or whatevers.

My happy solution was to start with the Pathfinder Basic Box and then add rules as I felt they were needed. The five classes, three races, and very limited (comparatively) spell lists make it super-easy to set ground rules for your campaign.

From there, it's not too hard to say "you know what? I DO want encumbrance rules." Or halflings, or attacks of opportunity, or whatever, and expand your game from a foundation rather than restrict the full version.

But having said that, it's worth listening to what your players want and compromising. If someone really wants to play a sorcerer, maybe offer a slimmed down list of bloodlines you think are appropriate to your campaign/AP.

So yeah. The PFBB is MY Pathfinder 2.0, and all the other rulebooks are just options I can add to it as I see the desire.


NOTE:
The opening post was not about creating a Pathfinder successor, but rather an alternative product line, to address the need for a simpler system with fewer design issues:

Captain Marsh wrote:

I want them to earn their next pile of bucks by producing a streamlined, narrative-rich version of Pathfinder.

Not just a "beginner's box," but an actual parallel rule structure that exists comfortably side-by-side with the more byzantine version of Pathfinder that's come into existence.

And my comment would be: why not go there? The time it takes to fully prepare an adventure or browse through options for NPCs or PCs grows longer with each new supplement. Judging by the design issues of mythic products, or the recent ACG, designers get lost themselves from time to time now.

The ban-hammer method, the PFS-legal restrictions, etc, can go only so far until people get tired.

----

I'll give a few examples, 13th Age and True20 based, how the game can become much, much simpler, while still retaining compatibility:

1. Make character damage, skill bonuses and saves a function of character class and level (i.e. a hero built around boxing people to death does the same damage as the one using two handed greataxe).
Note: It's already happening - just check Brawler class from ACG.

2. Ditch, or make cosmetic all spell buffs, magic item bonuses. Let the power come from within the character, not from their items.

3. Decrease class list to the two archetypes: the specialist and the caster. At each level, the archetype picks three abilities (offensive, defensive, utility) and assigns priority to each.

Do you want to play a tough warrior?
As a specialist, pick defensive stuff first, damage second, and appropriate weapon/armor/tactic/feat utilities.
Use melee, ranged and defense options.

Do you want to be a crafty, yet, backstabbing rogue?
As a specialist, pick utility first, damage second, defensive third.
Use expert and melee options.

Would you like to be a controller mage?
As a caster, pick utility first, damage second, defensive third.
Use arcane caster options.

Would you like to be a protective cleric?
As a caster, pick utility first, defensive second, damage third.
Use divine caster options.

----

This way the game would become very streamlined (picking abilities at the level-up, no need to worry about gear or specific spells, or spells). If the options would adhere to general guidelines on character power, the characters would be still compatible with d20 system, but all complicated stuff would be gone.

NOTE: It's just a proposal, a proof that such concept can be made into a working product.

Regards,
Ruemere


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

The Paizo folks have commented on options like this in the past.

Basically...they are very against splitting consumer bases, something which was a large reason for TSR nearly going out of business before 3E.

Creating a separate product line of stream-lined rules would mean that you would probably develop two lines of consumers, with a good probability that each consumer base only purchases material relevant to Pathfinder Lite or Pathfinder original. Cost of production and effort remains the same for each book, but now you could be getting half as much a product sold for each line. That's the optimal condition, assuming both lines are equally successful. If they are not, than you are subtracting the number of products from the popular line, and investing resources, time, and periods of the release schedule for something that won't make it's money back.

That's a major reason why we haven't seen more support for instance for the Beginner's Box ruleset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, you'll never know everything that your PCs could possibly do, but really... why would you want to? Wouldn't that take a lot of the fun out of it?


I have to agree with a previous post.

Classes like magus and inquisitor got a lot of attention to near perfection.

Unchained could a give a little clean up to classes like cavalier, barbarian, fighter (putting gunslinger as an archetype and giving fighters deeds to replace something like bravery)
and sorcerer.

I also think alchemist/witch/wizard should be essentially wizards with those options/archetypes.

rogues/ninja/bard/monk… same class different options

Samurai should go into fighter.

If the genres of characters worked just like magus and inquisitor did, you would have unchained versions of about 10 classes to make nearly any character you wanted using malleable rules sets inside specific frame works; picking on option and closing a door to another.

It's kinda what I hoped ACG was going to be…not hybrid classes but more of condensation.

just my 2 coppers


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
You guys seriously believe that Paizo will never do a new edition, even if they have to lay off half their staff to please you? You guys seriously believe that they can subsist on adventure related stuff alone at the level they are now?

I don't doubt there'll be a new edition at some point.

I do doubt it'll be a D&D-style reboot that invalidates all the existing material, simply to be able to re-release updated versions of every book over the following 12 months.

But a 2nd Edition Core Rulebook that drops directly into peoples existing collections, with revised versions of the core classes (possibly taking some lessons from Unchained), tweaks to the base combat rules, and an excuse to redo the entire book layout to fit in all the FAQed/errata-ed things that can't fit in right now? (And please for the love of all that's holy remove Paladin as a core class and make it a PrC instead) - I can absolutely see that happening.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Erik Mona's post speaks volumes about whether or not a 2E Pathfinder is a necessary thing or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matt Thomason wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
You guys seriously believe that Paizo will never do a new edition, even if they have to lay off half their staff to please you? You guys seriously believe that they can subsist on adventure related stuff alone at the level they are now?

I don't doubt there'll be a new edition at some point.

I do doubt it'll be a D&D-style reboot that invalidates all the existing material, simply to be able to re-release updated versions of every book over the following 12 months.

But a 2nd Edition Core Rulebook that drops directly into peoples existing collections, with revised versions of the core classes (possibly taking some lessons from Unchained), tweaks to the base combat rules, and an excuse to redo the entire book layout to fit in all the FAQed/errata-ed things that can't fit in right now? (And please for the love of all that's holy remove Paladin as a core class and make it a PrC instead) - I can absolutely see that happening.

All the things you cited will invalidate large parts of prior material, since GM's would be forced to rebuild every NPC in AP's published before that Second Edition CRB had come out. So it really makes little difference if they went the way you just described or just did a more full rebuild.

But I agree that a new edition would probably be another evolution of the 3.x D20 system, instead of a fully new system in the vein of 4E. Which is a good thing, IMO, although they absolutely need to iron out some of the prevalent problems which they already wanted to take care of when they brought out this edition of Pathfinder (high level gaming, to wit. And also other stuff, but I don't want to bog this down into too many details).

The current edition is beginning to groan under the accumulated weight of too much material already. Some deeply weird decisions (Divine Protection), synergies nobody saw before the rules were published (Paragon Surge) and just the glut of material available are going to cause the same long-term problems which plagued 3.5 at the end of its cycle. I can vividly remember the last two years where I just didn't care anymore about the new material, because I could not keep up with all the new classes, feats and spells anymore. I was so happy when Pathfinder removed all of that and started over fresh, without abandoning the core complexity and modularity of the D20 system, like 4E had done.

So, yeah, I am looking forward to a new edition. Even if my purse is not. ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Issue with 3.5 was not the number of options, but the quality (or lack thereof) of the options. Despite some typos and a couple of feats, I think the ACG has a great deal of cool options that are flavorful and fun. I'm still of the opinion that more good options are something that's good for a game.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
I think Erik Mona's post speaks volumes about whether or not a 2E Pathfinder is a necessary thing or not.

This makes my day. Couldn't have asked for more.


Also I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that the hardcovers are sold at a loss. And considering the hardcovers are all on OGL SRD for free, I'm inclined to believe that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Also I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that the hardcovers are sold at a loss. And considering the hardcovers are all on OGL SRD for free, I'm inclined to believe that.

I severely doubt that. The Core Rulebook was what pulled Paizo's butt out of the fire when WotC went to 4th Ed. If Paizo was making a loss on those, they wouldn't be in business long enough to have made the rest of their books.

Their hardcovers are priced similarly to other companies. Which means, that if Paizo is selling theirs at a loss, then everyone else is selling at a loss as well.

Your math just doesn't add up.

The only thing that I've heard that sells close to a loss (but still makes the barest of profit) is the Beginner's Box. That's because they stack as much into that box as they can and want to put it at an affordable price point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Probably right. But I do know that Adventure Paths make up the bulk of their revenue.

Grand Lodge

Captain Marsh wrote:

Sorry everyone - yes. 10 New classes. My mistake.

Most of the responses here make sense and fall into the "I like Pathfinder the way it is, thank you very much."

Which is great. I probably would have made the same argument last year.

And it may be that this is how the game world will shake out, with some of us gravitating toward more rules-light/story heavy games.

But again, I don't want to gravitate away. I love Paizo and yes, actually, I do want my playstyle to be catered to. (Duh.)

I'll check out Pathfinder Unchained -- first I've heard of it. Thanks.

Finally, to folks here who reiterate the old "I've heard this thread before so shut up" argument or the old "quite whining about your playstyle not being catered to" saw, I say - pft.

If I had a quarter for every person on this message board who told me to shut up...

Bottom line?

This is my message board as much as yours, and Paizo is my gaming source and my addiction as much as yours.

They deserve to hear my (hopefully positive, constructive) feedback as much as yours.

And if I'm repeating a concern raised before, even better.

--Marsh

Whilst I am in the opposite camp to you - very nice reply.

Maca


The last murmur on when they'd do a second edition was after 10 or 11 years. That means 3-4 years from now they'll start considering it depending on the state of the game and the industry.


Virgil Firecask wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Also I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that the hardcovers are sold at a loss. And considering the hardcovers are all on OGL SRD for free, I'm inclined to believe that.

I severely doubt that. The Core Rulebook was what pulled Paizo's butt out of the fire when WotC went to 4th Ed. If Paizo was making a loss on those, they wouldn't be in business long enough to have made the rest of their books.

Their hardcovers are priced similarly to other companies. Which means, that if Paizo is selling theirs at a loss, then everyone else is selling at a loss as well.

Your math just doesn't add up.

The only thing that I've heard that sells close to a loss (but still makes the barest of profit) is the Beginner's Box. That's because they stack as much into that box as they can and want to put it at an affordable price point.

According to Jason Nelson (who wrote several chapters in ultimate campaign and mythic adventures, and co-runs his own gaming company, so he presumably knows more about the industry that you or I), the PDFs of the hardcovers are "loss leaders" for Paizo. That's not necessarily the same as the actual printed hardcover books. The price difference between PDF and print is also larger for Paizo hardcovers than it is for other gaming companies (or even other Paizo products--the PDFs of the player companions cost almost as much as the PDFs of the hardcovers).


The PDFs are an interesting case, because you have people that will buy the $10 PDFs who normally wouldn't spend what Paizo should be charging for a product like that as well as people who buy the book from their friendly local gaming store and then come and buy the PDF from Paizo.com. That price point adds a lot of additional sales they normally wouldn't see if they did a PDF that was only 20% cheaper than the actual book.

Plus, you also run into the situation that if you take away the retail markup, the distributor markup, and the costs of printing a physical book, then Paizo is likely making as much profit on the $10 PDF as they are on the physical book.

However, you're right. There are likely a lot of people who are just cheap that buy the $10 PDF who could have bought a physical book or a higher priced PDF.

Of course, I'm talking out my butt and taking inferences based on simple economics.

edited one sentence to make it read better.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Virgil Firecask wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Also I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that the hardcovers are sold at a loss. And considering the hardcovers are all on OGL SRD for free, I'm inclined to believe that.

I severely doubt that. The Core Rulebook was what pulled Paizo's butt out of the fire when WotC went to 4th Ed. If Paizo was making a loss on those, they wouldn't be in business long enough to have made the rest of their books.

Their hardcovers are priced similarly to other companies. Which means, that if Paizo is selling theirs at a loss, then everyone else is selling at a loss as well.

Your math just doesn't add up.

The only thing that I've heard that sells close to a loss (but still makes the barest of profit) is the Beginner's Box. That's because they stack as much into that box as they can and want to put it at an affordable price point.

The core rule book did not save Paizo financially, but conceptually.

It allowed them to continue their fantastic subscription-based business.

The CRB did sell a lot, as Lisa has made clear, and I expect that Paizo are making money from it. However, Paizo did not need mad-rulebook-cash to stay afloat; they needed a popular, in-print version of 3.5 for which they could sell adventures.

Sovereign Court

Oh, and...

Version 2! Hardcore Paizonauts play with the Beta Edition #trvpathfinder

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There's still some breathing room in the current edition of Pathfinder, PF Unchained and Occult Adventures will bear that out.

I always remind GMs, you don't have to know the ins and outs of every class that exists. You just need to be passably familiar with the 4-6 classes that will be sat at your table. If something seems hinky just say: "Can you show that to me in the book/PRD?" A simple search function should answer most questions at the table fairly quickly.

I have a desire to see a more streamlined edition of Pathfinder, but I'm still enjoying the game we have (at least until level 10+). I enjoy the amount of classes we have, and I hope future editions keep the plethora of classes but simplify other aspects of the game (Ability scores, encumbrance, attacks of opportunity, stealth etc).


The first PnPRPG I ever played was the Dark Eye. As a result I consider 3e and Pathfinder very rules-light. Stuff like Numenera is almost free-form to me.

I have given in to getting myself the 5e PHB this weekend and I have to say so far I like it and I really want to play it at some point.

But Pathfinder is dear to me, I love the things they did with 3.5 and the new classes they came up with and I put way too much money into the current edition to consider switching to a new one. What I could see them doing is a Core Rulebook overhaul that is released alongside a FaQ that adjusts material from the other books where needed (either to continue being compatible with the core rules, or to fix imbalances), but all in all i would like to keep my several hundred euros worth of books.


Hey March,

As a new GM (started a group with 5 rpg rookies and thus Gm'ing will be my responsibility for this campaign) I get that Paizo can be overwhelming. As even with just the regular character creation there are a lot of rules to keep track off.

Now because there is no Pathfinder for Dummies book (I would by it if there was) I implemented the following rules for our monthly games.

- I want the players to know their own traits, feats and skills. So last time we spend a lot of time making sure they knew the dynamics of their own character. Because if you do not know how to use it properly you can not use it at the table

- Before hand I want to know what spells, or special abilities a character has. While I will not remind a player of a possible action, I do want to know before hand what they could do.

So while it doesn't change the fact that I have spend many hours with my nose in the Paizo rule books, and I still feel I have a mountain of info to process before I can even start to compare myself to the GM's I play under. (VC and VL here) That does help me not having to break up the game to much to look for rules in the many books.

While I would love to see Paizo offer a simplified version of the game. My advise would be, make sure your players help you out by not blindsiding you with the abilities of their build.


Threeshades wrote:

The first PnPRPG I ever played was the Dark Eye. As a result I consider 3e and Pathfinder very rules-light. Stuff like Numenera is almost free-form to me.

I have given in to getting myself the 5e PHB this weekend and I have to say so far I like it and I really want to play it at some point.

But Pathfinder is dear to me, I love the things they did with 3.5 and the new classes they came up with and I put way too much money into the current edition to consider switching to a new one. What I could see them doing is a Core Rulebook overhaul that is released alongside a FaQ that adjusts material from the other books where needed (either to continue being compatible with the core rules, or to fix imbalances), but all in all i would like to keep my several hundred euros worth of books.

Since its too late to edit I'll just add this as a reply to my own post:

I actually have a feeling that Pathfinder Unchained might be what I am looking for just in a different form.


Cthulhudrew wrote:
I think Erik Mona's post speaks volumes about whether or not a 2E Pathfinder is a necessary thing or not.

Can't wait to see them explore even more design space with occult characters!

*whisperwhisper*

What's this? You want your design space explored? Dirty mundane, get back into your shame corner don't you dare stop polishing my staff of wizardry!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Virgil Firecask wrote:
However, you're right. There are likely a lot of people who are just cheap that buy the $10 PDF who could have bought a physical book or a higher priced PDF.

And some of us just don't buy physical books anymore, either because of shipping issues or because PDFs are simply more convenient.


Orthos wrote:
Virgil Firecask wrote:
However, you're right. There are likely a lot of people who are just cheap that buy the $10 PDF who could have bought a physical book or a higher priced PDF.
And some of us just don't buy physical books anymore, either because of shipping issues or because PDFs are simply more convenient.

This. Also with my back problems and lack of money, I'm better off keeping all my books on a kindle. Cheaper overall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

There's still some breathing room in the current edition of Pathfinder, PF Unchained and Occult Adventures will bear that out.

I always remind GMs, you don't have to know the ins and outs of every class that exists. You just need to be passably familiar with the 4-6 classes that will be sat at your table. If something seems hinky just say: "Can you show that to me in the book/PRD?" A simple search function should answer most questions at the table fairly quickly.

I have a desire to see a more streamlined edition of Pathfinder, but I'm still enjoying the game we have (at least until level 10+). I enjoy the amount of classes we have, and I hope future editions keep the plethora of classes but simplify other aspects of the game (Ability scores, encumbrance, attacks of opportunity, stealth etc).

Pretty much this. You don't have to know all the books. Just the options your players use and most of the core. That's why I don't believe in this whole "groaning under the weight" business people keep talking about. Not only do you not have to know everything, but you don't even have to use/allow everything. I skipped out on Inner Sea Gods because i wwasnt interested in it. I still support paizo and their creation of new options, but I didn't feel the need to buy it. It's really that simple. Don't use all of the options if you don't want to. And if your players want more options, you can read their rules and allow it on a case-by-case basis or say no. And if they insist and get argumentative instead of respecting your decision, then that's a problem with the players, not the system. It happens even in simple games like Fate.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a guy who's something of a completionist, I want a new edition for completely different reasons than any that have been listed here. It would give me the nudge needed to jump off the Pathfinder train (ie, stop buying Pathfinder products).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You could just stop buying Pathfinder products.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

But then he wouldn't have caught them all.

51 to 100 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Yup, It's time for Pathfinder 2.0 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.