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.
It's not Pathfinder for Dummies, but they do have a beginner box that starts you off a bit easier than just jumping right into the current. From what I understand, it narrows the focus a bit, presenting the info you'd need to run a game without as many variables.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. ^^
I really have trouble with this idea. I mean I get that some people like a lower degree of options and that certain combinations of abilities will have unforseen consequences. But why is it inevitable that the only solution to this issue is a new edition of the game.
Cant you and your group simply play with a subset of the available rules? Is the ONLY way that the game can continue to function in your comfort zone for it to be replaced by a new edition with less 'weight' in options?
I generally allow just about anything in my games with the caveat if its outside a specific subset, we have to talk it over first, look at the desired options and desired outcome and make sure both I and my player think it will both be fun to play and not disruptive to the game.
But I did this from the first gun of pathfinder (the advanced players guide which is where I feel pathfinder actually became its own game). Its not a new process, and nor do I think it provides any additional effort on my part as a dm to deal with the wider range of options. I still only have to deal with what my players decide to use and what my npcs and monsters use. Regardless of my campaign that is still a smaller number of options then existed even in just the core rulebook.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only one part of why I want a new edition. Aside from the "too many plates spinning" problem Pathfinder is beginning to have, there is the additional factor of a new edition having a chance to tighten up many of the core design problems this edition of Pathfinder was supposed to fix already, but did not.
High-level gaming remains as daunting as ever (and was one of the things the developers told us they were trying to fix back during the alpha and beta period), magic item creation rules and the whole christmas tree effect are problematic and have actually gotten worse (IMO) with this edition. Some classes need fixes to get viable again (Pathfinder Unchained may take care of that problem, except for the poor Fighter).
Y'know, the stuff the we've been griping about forever on the boards. We know that they won't really fix those things in this edition, since that would mean heavily rewriting the CRB and other splatbooks. So that is another factor why I am not dreading a new edition as much as others do. Hell, some of my players are asking me if we don't want to play something else which does not have all those glaring problems which happen every time we get into the second 50% of an adventure path.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some things. First the "Christmas Tree Effect " is something you have a problem with. Not everyone thinks it is bad for the game. I certainly don't think it's bad and I love characters decked out in magic gear.
Also, according to the GenCon Pathfinder seminar, the fighter is getting some options in Pathfinder Unchained. Here is the link.
It's not Pathfinder for Dummies, but they do have a beginner box that starts you off a bit easier than just jumping right into the current. From what I understand, it narrows the focus a bit, presenting the info you'd need to run a game without as many variables.
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.
Haha yeah I bought that one :P good maps and pawns and easy explanation of the game dynamics but my players quickly shifted to a full Half elf group with 5 different classes so I had a lot of rule reading to do.
Which I do not mind, I like the hours spend figuring it out. I just get that not everyone has the patience for it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only one part of why I want a new edition. Aside from the "too many plates spinning" problem Pathfinder is beginning to have, there is the additional factor of a new edition having a chance to tighten up many of the core design problems this edition of Pathfinder was supposed to fix already, but did not.
High-level gaming remains as daunting as ever (and was one of the things the developers told us they were trying to fix back during the alpha and beta period), magic item creation rules and the whole christmas tree effect are problematic and have actually gotten worse (IMO) with this edition. Some classes need fixes to get viable again (Pathfinder Unchained may take care of that problem, except for the poor Fighter).
Y'know, the stuff the we've been griping about forever on the boards. We know that they won't really fix those things in this edition, since that would mean heavily rewriting the CRB and other splatbooks. So that is another factor why I am not dreading a new edition as much as others do. Hell, some of my players are asking me if we don't want to play something else which does not have all those glaring problems which happen every time we get into the second 50% of an adventure path.
A lot of problems have been there since the beta, and are largely connected with the intention to stay compatible with 3.5. Personally I am not a big fan of some of the old mechanics (like sneak attack - the precise strike ability of the swashbuckler is far better), and pathfinder unchained may just be the way to fix some of these.
And of course a new edition should require quite an extensive playtest (and frankly after mythic adventures, I think the process needs some changes).
Realistically I don't see it happen for quite a long time, as long enough players buy the current edition ( and I know from years of experience that some players just buy every new product, even if they don’t have the time to actually use/read most of it).
|
| 2 people 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).
You mean to tell me that you buy more Pathfinder products than I do? Talk about irony.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a new edition. I want a evolution to the current rules set. The Ultimate classes and upcoming PF unchained seems to be doing just that. This is something I like compared to ceasing all that is PF today and started over with 2.0. I hate it when new editions come out. First you invested so much in the current edition and then you are moving to new version of the same game where content has yet to be released so you have to wait for years to get to where you were with current edition and repeat.
It's not so much the money but the lack of rules content that comes with new editions. Like take the 3.5 to PF change. You multiple monster manuals and now you have 1 bestiary which over the years became 4 and NPC guide. A new edition brings us back to 1. Sure you can convert content but that's a lot work. That's just what small changes do. Say a entirely new direction, like what D&D did. Well conversion isn't even option really. So while I can buy it all again I just hate having to wait 5-6 years for it all to come out again in different version.
Pretty sure I'm going to stay Core-only for my 5E campaign.
If you're referring to the game I'm running, I'm completely sure that you are correct. :)
I do not understand the current rules-light fad. Completely not to my taste. I hate going back to square one, and I love the complexity. That's why I play Pathfinder.
Out of curiosity, how old are you? Do you have kids?
When 3E was released I thought it was brilliant. Now? Ain't nobody got time for that. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only one part of why I want a new edition. Aside from the "too many plates spinning" problem Pathfinder is beginning to have, there is the additional factor of a new edition having a chance to tighten up many of the core design problems this edition of Pathfinder was supposed to fix already, but did not.
High-level gaming remains as daunting as ever (and was one of the things the developers told us they were trying to fix back during the alpha and beta period), magic item creation rules and the whole christmas tree effect are problematic and have actually gotten worse (IMO) with this edition. Some classes need fixes to get viable again (Pathfinder Unchained may take care of that problem, except for the poor Fighter).
Y'know, the stuff the we've been griping about forever on the boards. We know that they won't really fix those things in this edition, since that would mean heavily rewriting the CRB and other splatbooks. So that is another factor why I am not dreading a new edition as much as others do. Hell, some of my players are asking me if we don't want to play something else which does not have all those glaring problems which happen every time we get into the second 50% of an adventure path.
I will grant that there are a bunch of things I'd like to see changed in the game, but many of them dont require an actual new addition. Something like unchained can easily offer a set of alternate rules to accomplish that.
I'd rather see more stuff like unchained then a new edition of the rules. I am getting comfortable with the pathfinder ruleset and I find it easier to play, run and mess with(house rule) the game. I'd rather see toolsets for the game I know well and have invested in, then a new one that i'd have to relearn (even if its similar to what I already know) and one that I'd have to do work(conversion) to use what I've bought and created for pathfinder.
Improvement by addition rather then edition was sort of pathfinders founding idea, I hope to see that come through again with the changes I want to see in game.
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.
Agreed for the most part. I generally use just the core rules, but wind up incorporating other stuff based on a few specific situations:
1) The player asks for a new option that fits their character concept better. ("Can I play somebody who smites like a paladin but isn't lawful good?" "How's an inquisitor sound?")
2) The player asks for a specific option to be incorporated. ("I'd like to take some cavalier levels for my bard.")
3) An adventure I'm using utilizes other options, in which case I only need to know those things as it is relevant to a single encounter.
I would definitely complain about the latter, but since everything introduced in Paizo's adventures is either in the PRD or reproduced in the adventure text, it goes much easier than it would have before the days of the Internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With D&D 5e out, there is less reason than ever to create a parallel game, as Basic D&D already nudges in the simplified direction.
If you want a simpler play experience, stick with the APG and core book only and limit your campaign to level 10. I think you will find that the game is, at its roots, simpler than one might imagine.
If you want a much simpler game, someone is probably writing one even as we speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want a new edition with all the errata and FAQ included- but pretty much after the FAQ queue is cleared out- they revise Tport and Simulacrum, etc.
Sort of a 1.5.
Not time for any major changes, not for another five years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With D&D 5e out, there is less reason than ever to create a parallel game, as Basic D&D already nudges in the simplified direction.
If you want a simpler play experience, stick with the APG and core book only and limit your campaign to level 10. I think you will find that the game is, at its roots, simpler than one might imagine.
If you want a much simpler game, someone is probably writing one even as we speak.
Just going to address this post (because, frankly, we've all been having this discussion last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.). But it is not that I want a simpler game in term of the mechanics... if that had been the case, I'm sure I'd have loved 4E. I want a complex game which doesn't break after you reach level ten to twelve. That is quite a different thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, the original post (and many other threads) are about how simple 5ed is and how Pathfinder needs to emulate it or be doomed to failure.
To be fair, the original post (and many other threads) are about how simple 5ed is and how Pathfinder needs to emulate it or be doomed to failure.
Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was trained on Usenet, I was trained to reply to the original post if the conversation drifted. I realize now it may not have been clear exactly to what I was replying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue then comes back to...supporting and developing two separate pathfinder systems is not something that really is feasible for Paizo based on profit/development reasons. So then the conservation drifts to supporting a rules light system versus the current Pathfinder.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why cant you streamline PF yourself? Why do you need a book with "PF Streamline" on the cover? I'm sorry I answered your question with a question. There are two reasons why folks don't agree with a side by side streamlined product. The first as I mentioned is done really easily without much effort on your own. The second, if you have PF and PF lite then products need to be made for two separate product lines. That means splitting resources which also means less products for both types of customer. Finally, a split of fan base is like suicide in this industry presently and were not sure that Paizo can navigate those treacherous waters.
Would you be happy with a single book of PF streamlined? I could see this happening but I'm not sure I can see a separate product line. Adventures could start with a streamline base and then pile on the options for others. This approach though eats up word count and I think adventure product would suffer. Not sure Paizo can feed two similar yet different RPG product lines. Could you live with a one and done? That's all I see in the future. I could certainly be wrong.
Or what MMCJawa said.
|
The thing is if your going to get interest in a new edition it had to have something new to offer. Which is something those who want nothing change forget. If you think all it takes is some new cover and interior art with little to no rule changes. All I'm going to say is good luck. Some in the hobby refuse to play it because they think the cite is too similar to 3.5. My gaming group and myself are not going to fish out another 100+ dollars. Even with the online srd we have little interest in rereading the same rules twice. Even Call of Cthulhu with its latest 7E has some major changes from what I hear.
I understand and respect people who have invested and not wanting to either purchase more material or have older material go obsolete. New editions seem to be a standard in the hobby. White Wolf announced a new edition of the World of Darkness at Gencon. Complete with a release of a new core book and rerelease of the core WOD line. From the looks of it chances are good the new edition will not be backwards computable. I would not mind a simplified version of the rules. Not rules light not that I have anything against it. The rules could use some streamlining. I played a Bard on the last game. I needed to write a cheat sheet just to keep track of the bonuses from spells, feats and class abilities.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Pathfinder can have every single conceivable game-experience option -- psionics, mythic level play, outer space rules, rules for WWI, Asian themed play, on and on -- why not a compatible system that is more streamlined?
It can. All it takes is for you to slice away what you find superfluous.
-If you think multiple attacks are complicated/needless, then eliminate iterative attacks. Everybody gets one attack per round, unless using a (2) natural attack or dual wielding, and natural and manufactured attacks cannot be used together.
-If perhaps you find CMB/D overly complex, just declare that an attempt to trip, shove, disarm, so on, will be resolved with a normal attack roll.
-If the vast number of spells is too many in your estimation, then create a smaller list of spells you find acceptable.
You can make a game that uses as few of the rules and systems as you like.
If, on the other hand, you expect Paizo to do it for you, there's a major obstacle to that: it would essentially double all their costs for far less than an expected doubling of returns.
You say you'd like to be able to switch regular to light depending on AP. The only way that would work is if every AP is written twice, once for each rule style set. You couldn't play a regular rules AP with the light system, the light system is inherently limited for simplicity. You certainly couldn't run an AP written for the light system in a regular game, you'd be missing half the stat blocks and feats. So, every AP would need to be duplicated. This would be exceedingly cost prohibitive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the "one and done" stream-lined system already exists...it's the Beginner Box. I suppose they could expand the rules for that into its own hardcover. Although you still run into the issue that WoTC already is released a more simplified set of rules, so presumably a good chunk of the potential audience is investing in that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If, on the other hand, you expect Paizo to do it for you, there's a major obstacle to that: it would essentially double all their costs for far less than an expected doubling of returns.
Thats assuming they don't loose a large portion of their clientele base. With the multitude of things going on (awfulness of ACG, release of 5E and Numenera, some people getting up in arms over tech, etc) they may loose a lot of their customer base coming up here and/or the core base may stop purchasing new content. After the last year of products I'm highly considering calling everything post ACG(maybe even the acg as its gonna take a LOT of work to go through) as off limits in my games because it takes too much work to go through every new sourcebook, especially as, IMO, the last year they have really degraded badly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats assuming they don't loose a large portion of their clientele base. With the multitude of things going on (awfulness of ACG, release of 5E and Numenera, some people getting up in arms over tech, etc) they may loose a lot of their customer base coming up here and/or the core base may stop purchasing new content. After the last year of products I'm highly considering calling everything post ACG(maybe even the acg as its gonna take a LOT of work to go through) as off limits in my games because it takes too much work to go through every new sourcebook, especially as, IMO, the last year they have really degraded badly.
I think you are exaggerating the problems here. A lot of people like the ACG, or at least like enough of it that it's not "awful". And people have been clamoring for tech for years.
And you don't have to know every in and out of the book. You just have to know what players are using, or what you are using. Again, I think you are exaggerating the problems here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's definitely value in having a fantasy RPG that's more complex than 5e D&D, but in Pathfinder now there are some common fantasy character archetypes that can only be achieved if you either have comprehensive system knowledge or use a search engine for a while. Or, more precisely, you can achieve them otherwise, but you end up getting penalized.
Use the core rules to make a 'swashbuckler.' You can do it, but you end up doing less damage than a heavy armor fighter, and probably with a lower AC. If you know the right feats and multiclassing tricks, though, your swashbuckler gets ridiculously powerful compared to 'Bob the classic fighter.'
The system is just not as _elegant_ as it could be. It slows play down, and makes game sessions provide less value. It slows prep down, and distracts GMs from focusing their attention on storytelling. And for god's sake it slows design down, because I've written adventures for both 4e and PF, and 4e monsters get the same job done with a lot less mental energy.
Revise the rules, and you'll get more stuff done in your game, your GM will run _better_ games, and the Paizo staff and freelancers will be able to write more adventures so you can have MORE games.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This idea sucked when WoTC had it, which is the whole reason we even have Pathfinder. Speeding up gameplay would he great, but not if it costs all our options.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's definitely value in having a fantasy RPG that's more complex than 5e D&D, but in Pathfinder now there are some common fantasy character archetypes that can only be achieved if you either have comprehensive system knowledge or use a search engine for a while. Or, more precisely, you can achieve them otherwise, but you end up getting penalized.
Use the core rules to make a 'swashbuckler.' You can do it, but you end up doing less damage than a heavy armor fighter, and probably with a lower AC. If you know the right feats and multiclassing tricks, though, your swashbuckler gets ridiculously powerful compared to 'Bob the classic fighter.'
The system is just not as _elegant_ as it could be. It slows play down, and makes game sessions provide less value. It slows prep down, and distracts GMs from focusing their attention on storytelling. And for god's sake it slows design down, because I've written adventures for both 4e and PF, and 4e monsters get the same job done with a lot less mental energy.
Revise the rules, and you'll get more stuff done in your game, your GM will run _better_ games, and the Paizo staff and freelancers will be able to write more adventures so you can have MORE games.
I think there's a value in a game which rewards the fact that your abilities at math and gaming the system are better than Average Joe's.
If you want a swashbuckler and the core concept doesn't suit you, you take one of the million 3PP solutions. Or now, you take the official one.
"Rules shouldn't be getting in the way of storytelling" is about as valid as "Theatrics shouldn't distract you from the game". There are people who value the former more, and there are people who prefer the latter.
I actually feel slightly irked by the notion that I'll run better game if the system will be easier. I can run great games with PF. I can run great games with Call of Cthulhu or WoD or GURPS or Cats in the Shrubbery. I can handle math. I can handle story. If I can, anyone can.
I think that we will never have a pathfinder 2.0 but instead it will evolve slowly with the errata as have happened before.
However I like the idea of pathfinder unchained. I hope it includes rules to make the game simpler for those who want a streamlined gameplay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want for Pathfinder 2.0 is this:
Step 1- Release Pathfinder Unchained
Step 2- Release Pathfinder Core Rulebook 2: Revised, which will just be updated Core Rule Book with the core classes only with Unchained Version of rogue/fighter/monk etc, maybe some fixed up bloodlines, errata, just fixed up. Nothing you'd NEED to buy a new book for, but you'd probably WANT too just to have it all in one place.
Step 3- Release Supreme Combat, Supreme Magic, and Supreme Skills; which will just contain current material for that type of character, only fixed up, edited, errata'd. Nothing you'd NEED to buy a new book for, but you'd probably WANT too just to have it all in one place.
In other words, all I want for Pathfinder 2 is a smoother, simpler game- made so because you only need a couple books, not twelve, to make your character. :s
... Yeah, I know, this probably won't happen. But I can dream.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really care when it happens - i think 2014 or 2015 would have been silly times, but other than that I'm not terribly fussed. My gut feel is that its a long way (as in several years) off, but I'm reasonably confident it will happen eventually.
What I'd like them to do, when the time for PF2 comes around, is to close off golarion and begin a fresh campaign world. I don't mind buying new rule sets, but buying the updated guide to cheliax, varisia, absalom, etcetera would bug me. Plus, the enthusiasm of a new setting would probably spill over to enthusiasm for a new system (at least in my case).
For example, spells. I love the concept of magic, but the classes drive me nuts, because, a lot of people, even if they can play any other class just fine, and don't bog down combat with a fighter, barbarian, or other magic free or magic light class, will take forever digging through spells, trying to figure...
I'm looking into replacing PF spells in my game with spells from another system for this very reason, and because I need a spell system that is more inherently interesting. I find myself skipping new spell sections when reading through new PF books.
Simplification by cutting and pasting between systems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If, on the other hand, you expect Paizo to do it for you, there's a major obstacle to that: it would essentially double all their costs for far less than an expected doubling of returns.Thats assuming they don't loose a large portion of their clientele base. With the multitude of things going on (awfulness of ACG, release of 5E and Numenera, some people getting up in arms over tech, etc) they may loose a lot of their customer base coming up here and/or the core base may stop purchasing new content. After the last year of products I'm highly considering calling everything post ACG(maybe even the acg as its gonna take a LOT of work to go through) as off limits in my games because it takes too much work to go through every new sourcebook, especially as, IMO, the last year they have really degraded badly.
Honestly the biggest gripe people have with the ACG isn't the content but the typos. The content is actually really good, with really only a couple of options here or there that are troubling. Haven't had typos like this since Ultimate Combat.
Also there are a lot more people loving the tech than there are people up in arms about it. So your entire argument really doesn't hold weight.
It really sounds to me like people either actually want other games and not Pathfinder. It also sounds like the same old thing that happened during the tail end of 3.5 just before 4E came.
People wanted this whole other thing. But instead of either customizing the game to what THEY wanted at their table they were content to push to get the entire game changed to what they wanted.
Those of us who are either fine with things the way that they are or would like a revised version of Pathfinder get to keep playing the game we like while everyone else goes to play something else or makes the present game their own.
I dont play Pathfinder as it is right out of the box, so to speak. I have house rules just like I assume most people do but you dont see me saying that my house rules should be CORE. I dont know what's right for everyone.I dont presume that much.
All these people saying that they want a smoother simpler game and feel that Pathfinder isnt that should in fact go find a smoother simpler game to play and make everyone happy.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a value in a game which rewards the fact that your abilities at math and gaming the system are better than Average Joe's.
While I partly agree with this, I don't think Pathfinder does this. It doesn't reward you for your ability to math out the best solution, or any natural gaming instincts. More than anything, it rewards you investing large amounts of time to delving through books and keeping up with developments within the metagame. New Feats, Archetypes, Errata, FAQ rulings invalidating/improving previous builds, Spells, etc.
Directed at the Thread in general.
My favorite type of argument against a second edition is the "Just find another game instead of forcing Pathfinder to change, so we can all be happy." As if there being a second edition of Pathfinder, or a revised edition would suddenly make the 1e stop existing. Even if Paizo did stop producing new content for Pathfinder, it would probably take me another 5 years to get through half of what they've published so far.
My second favorite argument: "Why should Paizo change the game for you, when you can do that yourself?" I don't know, maybe because the people requesting that change want to give Paizo their money. Now, I'm not going to argue that it will be profitable, and that they wouldn't risk splitting the fanbase. However, berating people for saying "Paizo, could you let us pay your for this service," is baffling to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a value in a game which rewards the fact that your abilities at math and gaming the system are better than Average Joe's.While I partly agree with this, I don't think Pathfinder does this. It doesn't reward you for your ability to math out the best solution, or any natural gaming instincts. More than anything, it rewards you investing large amounts of time to delving through books and keeping up with developments within the metagame. New Feats, Archetypes, Errata, FAQ rulings invalidating/improving previous builds, Spells, etc.
Directed at the Thread in general.
My favorite type of argument against a second edition is the "Just find another game instead of forcing Pathfinder to change, so we can all be happy." As if there being a second edition of Pathfinder, or a revised edition would suddenly make the 1e stop existing. Even if Paizo did stop producing new content for Pathfinder, it would probably take me another 5 years to get through half of what they've published so far.My second favorite argument: "Why should Paizo change the game for you, when you can do that yourself?" I don't know, maybe because the people requesting that change want to give Paizo their money. Now, I'm not going to argue that it will be profitable, and that they wouldn't risk splitting the fanbase. However, berating people for saying "Paizo, could you let us pay your for this service," is baffling to me.
I can agree to this. Those arguments do little for the debate at handle, instead just being highly dismissing. These same arguments are used when people ask for psionics or Asian settings or firearms. I hated them then and I hate these arguments now.
|
|
What would be the major selling point of a edition that changes nothing or very little.
Backwards compability. We would have PF 1E. So no need to upgrade.
Supporting Paizo. Already did with a purchase of PF 1E. To be blunt it would take myself my gaming group and other like minded players in the hobby something more to upgrade.
Better production values. Again not worth getting the new edition not unless it offers something new. It's going to require more than better organization and new art to get to buy the same material twice.
Agreed and seconded on all points Squirrel_Dude. Sure we can play another rpg. Nothing wrong with trying to improve the current version of PF. It will not suddenly make all current books of Paizo obsolete. I don't get the fear of change from gamers sometimes. Also spare me the 4E fallacy. Not in the mood to hear about it.
I can agree to this. Those arguments do little for the debate at handle, instead just being highly dismissing. These same arguments are used when people ask for psionics or Asian settings or firearms. I bated them then and I hate these arguments now.
Again agreed and seconded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't want a second edition though. Happy with Pathfinder Unchained making the slight upgrades I want. And it does have stuff for simplifying combat and monster creation.
|
|
I still don't want a second edition though. Happy with Pathfinder Unchained making the slight upgrades I want. And it does have stuff for simplifying combat and monster creation.
I can respect that. Though without major or at least some changes a new edition of PF will be a difficult sale to gamers imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a gamer who grew up playing D&D b/x, AD&D and eventually reluctantly AD&D 2nd Edition, it was the continual rules changes, edition updates and endless cash grabs by TSR/WoTC that drove me away from D&D forever.
It took Pathfinder to bring me back and for Paizo to repeat the actions of TSR/WoTC would only result in the same problems. There are plenty of rules-lite games out there for people wanting lighter games.
Let Pathfinder be Pathfinder and go find the other game you're looking for (ACK, Labyrinth Lord, etc.) rather than forcing a round peg to change for a square hole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can agree to this. Those arguments do little for the debate at handle, instead just being highly dismissing. These same arguments are used when people ask for psionics or Asian settings or firearms. I hated them then and I hate these arguments now.I think there's a value in a game which rewards the fact that your abilities at math and gaming the system are better than Average Joe's.While I partly agree with this, I don't think Pathfinder does this. It doesn't reward you for your ability to math out the best solution, or any natural gaming instincts. More than anything, it rewards you investing large amounts of time to delving through books and keeping up with developments within the metagame. New Feats, Archetypes, Errata, FAQ rulings invalidating/improving previous builds, Spells, etc.
Directed at the Thread in general.
My favorite type of argument against a second edition is the "Just find another game instead of forcing Pathfinder to change, so we can all be happy." As if there being a second edition of Pathfinder, or a revised edition would suddenly make the 1e stop existing. Even if Paizo did stop producing new content for Pathfinder, it would probably take me another 5 years to get through half of what they've published so far.My second favorite argument: "Why should Paizo change the game for you, when you can do that yourself?" I don't know, maybe because the people requesting that change want to give Paizo their money. Now, I'm not going to argue that it will be profitable, and that they wouldn't risk splitting the fanbase. However, berating people for saying "Paizo, could you let us pay your for this service," is baffling to me.
You know what? It may sound dismissive but the argument is not invalid. Some of the changes people are asking for WILL result in completely different game than what we have now. I'm not talking about the people who are asking for updates and clarification. I'm talking about the people who want an almost different game with the Pathfinder name on it.
It's the same thing that happened with 3.5 to 4E. And we got 4E. Not saying that 4E was even a bad game but it was very different than what we had previously and that put alot of people off D&D.
*looks around at the Paizo site*
Enough so that we're HERE. That's all I'm saying. People who want to use a hammer to fix a problem should use a hammer or some variation thereof. They shouldn't be using a chainsaw unless they're planning on destroying the project entirely and starting over.
I dont agree with the example of dismissing of Asian settings, Psionics or Firearms. Hypothetically, I may not be a huge fan of those things (in reality they ALL have their place in fantasy and in truth wouldn't completely bar them from my games) but they are things that CAN be excluded without effecting the game at present at all. These people are talking about scuttling the core game itself to make something that they'd like while telling the people who are enjoying the game at present that they can always keep playing the game as it is now.
This sort of thing sounds oddly familiar to me for some reason...Oh yeah it's exactly what the obnoxious 4E fans said to 3.5 people when 4E came out. The only other thing I'm waiting for is the classic: "Oh they'll switch over to the new system sooner or later. What choice do they have?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for clarifications sake, I'm all for a revised edition that cleans up present rules issues, re-organizes the core rule book and gives us a decent index.
I'm not for completely changing the rule system into something else entirely. Whether it be making it a rules light system and getting rid of the myriad of options that Pathfinder at present has or making it a completely different kind of game in pursuit of that goal.
|
| 2 people 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).You mean to tell me that you buy more Pathfinder products than I do? Talk about irony.
I like Golarion.
I think you are exaggerating the problems here. A lot of people like the ACG, or at least like enough of it that it's not "awful". And people have been clamoring for tech for years.
And you don't have to know every in and out of the book. You just have to know what players are using, or what you are using. Again, I think you are exaggerating the problems here.
I actually like tech, though I've spent three years writing my own rules which are pretty much the opposite directions of paizos (mine are victorian esq steampunk/clockwork tech) but I've heard a lot of people up in arms about it. I suspect most who don't like it will ignore it, but with everything else may make some people shy away.
As far as the ACG, it is a grammatical mess. The number of errors is totally unprofessional and that alone is a pretty big deal. At least 5 archetypes have "This ability replaces ." with no mention of what it replaces. And the book is full of issues that anyone whose ever played PF would know need a FAQ off the presses. I don't think I made it through a single class without going at least once "this ability is unclear", not to mention all the other issues it has. I'm not a grammar expert myself, but that's what editor are for.
I really like Paizo as a development company, but the ACG shows a total lack of professionalism on their part. Not saying there's not good stuff in there, but there is a LOT of issues, more than I've ever seen with one of their core line source books.