|
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.
Got news for you, friend. Paizos already done quite a not of rules changes. Download a copy of the errata for the first printing of the core Rulebook. Quite a few of the things in there aren't errata, they are full-on file changes.
The more I read this thread, the more I want to read Pathfinder Unchained. I did not even know it existed before now!
The people at Paizo are dead set against a parallel rule structure for the same reason they're against a separate campaign setting: It splits their customer base.
To an extent, but there's another possibility: it draws more market share from the competition.
When TSR ran into trouble in the 80s, there were not a lot of options. The only way to gain customers for one product (D&D) was to cannibalize market share from itself (AD&D/OD&D).
That is not the case today. There are many competitors for fantasy RP, the primary being the known name, D&D. If Paizo were to build a different
product designed to directly compete with (new) D&D while still maintaining the normal PF line, it wouldn't NECESSARILY cannibalize more market than it would gain from other sources. Just becomes something happened one way in the past doesn't follow that it will happen the same way under different circumstances.
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.
I would love to see a revised core rulebook that does a little of both. I'm in total agreement that better organization and consolidation of the existing rules would go a long way, and would also make the CRB much more appealing to new players. The strategy guide HC will help this issue a bit with it's step-by-step character creation sections, but that should really be in the core rulebook, so that you can tell a new player "buy this one book, which will walk you through how to play, and is all you need to keep playing forever."
One think that 5E has done that I really like is to make many of the complex features like feats and multiclassing optional, and also building in tradeoffs, like forcing a decision between a powerful feat or a straight ability score bump. If paizo were to emulate this in the next CRB, this would go a long way toward making both camps happy. The first third of the book could be a very streamlined core ruleset that has all the core classes and races but which is only a bit more complex than the BB ruleset. The middle section would include all the other optional features that could be swapped out for different levels of complexity, building toward the classic ruleset of the original CRB.
I like the idea of simply reorganizing the CRB in a future printing. Make a subset of the core rules be in the first chapters and the rest in some kind of appendix.
That way those who want a light (kind of DnD 5) game will just focus on well written few small chapters but the rest of the rules will still be there for those who want more options. That will keep all the current material still being compatible and at the same time we can go back to the basics if we want to.
|
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).
Being someone who doesnt really buy these rule splats but does buy setting and adventure material this sounds reasonable. Though I wonder if it would be very off putting to Golarion fans to have it unsupported going forward?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion on a "revised" rulebook: I thought that's what Pathfinder (and 3.5 for that matter) was supposed to be. Revisions on a ruleset that was considered flawed or in need of fine tuning and cleaning up.
I don't know, but maybe after two revisions, and two different companies attempting to make things work, it's fair to ask if 3.0 has core flaws that will have to change for it to be what you want. Core flaws that, when changed, will stop the game from continuing to be compatible with older editions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, but maybe after two revisions, and two different companies attempting to make things work, it's fair to ask if 3.0 has core flaws that will have to change for it to be what you want. Core flaws that, when changed, will stop the game from continuing to be compatible with older editions.
If you think that changing the game so much to fix perceived issues will change the game to make it unrecognizable from what it was before (thus making it incompatible with older editions)?
Why not just play another game?
let me clarify something here: I'm not telling you to beat it and go play another game. I'm saying that, I love supers games. There are supers rules that do it for me (HERO System, Old Mayfair DC HEROES and M&M) and systems that absolutely DO NOT (the latest iteration of Marvel, Villains and Vigilantes, FASERIP Marvel).
The games that don't work for me? I don't play those. Nor do I go to their forums and say that they don't work for me and should change TO work for me. There are people who love those games, for whatever reasons, just the way that they are.
HERO System has gone through a bunch of revisions since it's iteration but at it's core it's pretty much close to the same game. So much so that I can take a source book from 4th Edition (around 1989 or so) and convert the stats to 5th or 6th edition with relative ease.
M&M 3rd Ed is different enough from 2nd edition but not so different that I cant convert things between the two.
The same goes for 3.5 and Pathfinder. I'm running COTCT using Pathfinder rules and have been for the past few years or so. are there hiccups? sure but I sort those out. Our game isn't broken or slow and if there's something that doesn't make sense or work for our table we change it so that it does. But I don't write to Paizo of come on their message boards insisting that it might be time for a new edition. That's just me though.
There ARE problems with the game breaking down at higher levels but that problem has been around at least since 2nd edition.
If people want a more balance FRPG? Try a skill bases system like HERO or Rolemaster. It's more work at the outset but in the end you get exactly what you put into it.
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else here about what to do. I'm asking questions and clarifying my own positions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi folks -
A couple of thoughts.
First, yes - I could have "my" version of PF by "slicing away" stuff I don't like. The same can be said for people who want sci-fi or Egypt or guns or psionics or epic level play. Anyone can home-mod anything.
I want a variant that Paizo brings to the entire gaming community that makes us all cross-compatible. I like the idea of a store or a DM or a convention saying, "Come play PF. We'll be using the Lite-Narrative rules at some tables, we'll be playing card games at some tables and we'll be using the Core Rules at most tables."
Pathfinder isnt a rules lite narrative game. If paizo made a game that was, it wouldnt be pathfinder rpg, it would be something else. They certainly could do that, but they would then be competing with themselves. Every product would either have to spend page count catering to both rules, upseting fans of both systems, or divide the audience to which it is sold by only catering to one. After her experiences with the end of tsr I KNOW Lisa Stevens doesnt want that, and will do her best to avoid it.
I am sure pathfinder will continue to expand itself as a brand, but I dont think they will ever make a different rpg system. And rest assured that is what you are asking for.
Second, the problem isn't that Pathfinder has grown to have a big math component. This isn't eggheads vs. math-illiterates. The problem is that the math (and the endless book referencing) is slowing down the action to a near-crawl that a lot of us are really chafing at.
The latest Adventure Path basically demands that you have a couple of additional books (or PDFs) open at all times to explain what a crapload of new material does. Check out how many superscript letters pointing to various books there are in any given stat block.
Want an illustration of how this looks in real-time?
It demands nothing of the kind. The only thing you have to be aware of at a given time is what is in use. Is there new material? Ofcourse, but the slowdown is exclusively a matter of familiarity. If you were unfamiliar with the core rules, there would be the same slowdown in a core only game.
If you have to constantly reference a book during the game you havent done the prep work you should have to familiarize yourself with the material. THe same way I had to (and still need to) print out spell cards, and reference class/magic item abilities on my character sheet, I have to do that with something new I have in my game.
Again this isnt a rules light narrative game. There are rules, you have to know them if you want to use them. And in many cases you have to keep references around to those that pertain to specific characters. There is nothing different between my character using an inferno gun (from the new Iron Gods AP) and using a unique magic item from any number of previous APs. There was a unique magic items in the first adventure path (Council of thieves) that my players had to write down the rules for in order to use it. And thats what they did. Lazer guns arent any different. You shouldnt have to go back and reference books after the rule is introduced, you should have created a reference for yourself that is easily accessible until you have learned and understand the rules.
I just watched a video of some really great gamers (Dice Stormers - check them out) play through one room in ROTRL where they took down a handful of goblins, including Rip Nugget. With four players and a DM it took 30 minutes to get through a few fairly unexciting rounds of play with low level characters. And before you dismiss them as inexperienced or as having bad table discipline, watch their video on Youtube. It really is worth thinking about -- check out all that book juggling on the part of a really experienced DM. I've been there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWl28lKSsPo
This doesnt help your point. You are saying that the issue is the 'weight' of new rules. But RoTRL is literally the first adventure. It doesnt have all sorts of new rules. And if its the players that are struggling with their characters, again that is their own fault for not familiarizing themselves with the small section of the rules they have to deal with. A class is a handfull of pages. Its the same number of pages whether its in the core rules or in the advanced class guide.
You need to learn and understand your character, the dm needs to learn and understand the ability of the monsters he is using that day. Having more options doesnt change that, nor does it increase the scope of what needs to be understood for any specific game, or even campaign. You just have to know what you use.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that Paizo will now be competing with at least one extremely well marketed and distributed game (D&D 5) that has the potential to be more streamlined, more narrative, more intuitive and less crunchy than full-iteration PF.
(I'm not sure Numenera will ever achieve wide enough distribution to be a meaningful competitor.)
So...it's just true that gaming climate has now changed. We're not in the 4.0 era anymore when WOTC had basically left the field to Paizo. Going forward, it's not a terrible idea from a community OR a business perspective for Paizo to have a variant product that competes with that kind of product.
-Marsh
It will change the climate, but its hardly smart for paizo to compete with another company by imitating it. If 5E is a good narrative rules light game great, I hope those who want that use it and enjoy it. And in fact, paizo also wants that. This isnt a zero sum game where wizards having customers means paizo wont have customers. By remaining a different game, pathfinder presents and alternative to 5E, without directly competing with it. Like all the people who failed to beat wow by being wow, pathfinder shouldnt compete with dnd by being what 5E is. They should do their own thing, what they have been doing for years now, and those that like it will be there.
In the end it is in fact a bad business idea to have competing systems. Paizo doesnt even want competing worlds because it divides their audience (a big part of why tsr failed). Having competing systems under their own roof would be far worse. If you had pathfinder and pathfinder lite, some fans would play one and some would play the other, but paizo would have to support both. Which means twice the work (companion, setting and adventure products would have to be developed for both systems), but not twice the sales. That is literally asking for disaster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many good things to quote
I have to say I agree with everything said in Kolokotroni's post. D&D5 and Pathfinder and hosts of other games can and will co-exist without issue. There are rules light, rules medium and rules heavy games out there that all manage to get a share of the market and there are players of multiple systems that enjoy them all at the same time for different reasons.
A small sub point, and one that exists for any game system really: your familiarity with it speeds you up and you don't have to always check every book every round. Make cheat sheets, improvise modifiers (if your table isn't a stickler for such), and so on.
Even before most everyone had a tech object they could look things up on we'd have cheat sheets and notes and so on to speed things up. And while I've had people get irritated with the suggestion in the past, part of the game is work -- enjoyable work, don't get me wrong -- but work nonetheless. For the GM, for the players. Know your character and what it can do. Know what is going on, pay attention, keep notes, get bookmarks or tabs, use phones/computers for the online resources and so on.
Even with "rules lite" games there is still some responsibility for the players and GM to know their stuff and work together to keep things moving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being someone who doesnt really buy these rule splats but does buy setting and adventure material this sounds reasonable. Though I wonder if it would be very off putting to Golarion fans to have it unsupported going forward?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).
Why not just make the PF 2.0 campaign setting focus on the continent of Arcadia instead of the Inner Sea? The old regions wouldn't go anywhere, and ideally the old books would still work pretty well with 2.0. You could spend years fleshing out the new continent before getting around to the 2.0 updates for the classic regions.
Arcadia: a magical land where feats are optional, fighters aren't broken, and grappling and op attacks are slightly less complicated :)
I think this is a horrible idea. I love American settings and have been clamoring for Arcadia for awhile now. I would hate to have to be forced to learn a new system just to finally play a setting j want.
I hope they never do this.
Too many good things to quoteI have to say I agree with everything said in Kolokotroni's post. D&D5 and Pathfinder and hosts of other games can and will co-exist without issue. There are rules light, rules medium and rules heavy games out there that all manage to get a share of the market and there are players of multiple systems that enjoy them all at the same time for different reasons.
A small sub point, and one that exists for any game system really: your familiarity with it speeds you up and you don't have to always check every book every round. Make cheat sheets, improvise modifiers (if your table isn't a stickler for such), and so on.
Even before most everyone had a tech object they could look things up on we'd have cheat sheets and notes and so on to speed things up. And while I've had people get irritated with the suggestion in the past, part of the game is work -- enjoyable work, don't get me wrong -- but work nonetheless. For the GM, for the players. Know your character and what it can do. Know what is going on, pay attention, keep notes, get bookmarks or tabs, use phones/computers for the online resources and so on.
Even with "rules lite" games there is still some responsibility for the players and GM to know their stuff and work together to keep things moving.
This is very true. I have seen people take over thirty minutes to run a Fate Accelerated combat eencounter because no one bothered to read what their characters did. Watching that video, I got the same realization from them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being someone who doesnt really buy these rule splats but does buy setting and adventure material this sounds reasonable. Though I wonder if it would be very off putting to Golarion fans to have it unsupported going forward?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).
Why not just make the PF 2.0 campaign setting focus on the continent of Arcadia instead of the Inner Sea? The old regions wouldn't go anywhere, and ideally the old books would still work pretty well with 2.0. You could spend years fleshing out the new continent before getting around to the 2.0 updates for the classic regions.
Arcadia: a magical land where feats are optional, fighters aren't broken, and grappling and op attacks are slightly less complicated :)
I think this is a horrible idea. I love American settings and have been clamoring for Arcadia for awhile now. I would hate to have to be forced to learn a new system just to finally play a setting j want.
I hope they never do this.
Dont worry, they wont. Seriously, this will NEVER happen. End of story. It would literally be stupid to create not just another system, but another setting to go with it. When they explore arcadia, it will be with an AP for pathfinder rpg. Its possible when this happens pf rpg will be different, revised, reprinted, whatever, but I guarantee you there will never be a seperate set of rules to govern arcadia as those that govern the inner sea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, but maybe after two revisions, and two different companies attempting to make things work, it's fair to ask if 3.0 has core flaws that will have to change for it to be what you want. Core flaws that, when changed, will stop the game from continuing to be compatible with older editions.If you think that changing the game so much to fix perceived issues will change the game to make it unrecognizable from what it was before (thus making it incompatible with older editions)?
Why not just play another game?
let me clarify something here: I'm not telling you to beat it and go play another game. I'm saying that, I love supers games. There are supers rules that do it for me (HERO System, Old Mayfair DC HEROES and M&M) and systems that absolutely DO NOT (the latest iteration of Marvel, Villains and Vigilantes, FASERIP Marvel).
The games that don't work for me? I don't play those. Nor do I go to their forums and say that they don't work for me and should change TO work for me. There are people who love those games, for whatever reasons, just the way that they are.
HERO System has gone through a bunch of revisions since it's iteration but at it's core it's pretty much close to the same game. So much so that I can take a source book from 4th Edition (around 1989 or so) and convert the stats to 5th or 6th edition with relative ease.
M&M 3rd Ed is different enough from 2nd edition but not so different that I cant convert things between the two.
The same goes for 3.5 and Pathfinder. I'm running COTCT using Pathfinder rules and have been for the past few years or so. are there hiccups? sure but I sort those out. Our game isn't broken or slow and if there's something that doesn't make sense or work for our table we change it so that it does. But I don't write to Paizo of come on their message boards insisting that it might be time for a new edition. That's just me though.
There ARE problems with the game breaking down at higher levels but that...
As I said before:
1. Pathfinder 1e won't disappear if they make a new edition. You've been playing Curse of Crimson Throne for years now? Sounds like there are still decades worth of content available to you. There aren't going to be armies of "NEWEIDTIONFTW!" raiders coming down from the mountains to take away your copies of the game.2. Why would it be unreasonable to go a game company, that you like, and say "hey, I want to give you more of my money. I'll give you more of my money if you make your game like this."
Maybe it will be more profitable for them to release a revision, and continue catering to the audience that wanted a second revision in the first place. I'm just not convinced that another revision of the rules will have a lasting fix on the game.
Being someone who doesnt really buy these rule splats but does buy setting and adventure material this sounds reasonable. Though I wonder if it would be very off putting to Golarion fans to have it unsupported going forward?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).
It might. But then again, I don't think there's going to be a transition which keeps everyone happy.
I guess I was suggesting (or hoping) that they wait to release PF2 until interest in golarion starts to wane as well as interest in PF. Perhaps a fresh campaign setting launched together with a fresh rule set would have a better chance of carrying more fans along with them.
I don't want that for several years though. I'd like at least a glimpse of other continents first. Plus there's many more sparsely developed spaces in the inner sea to flesh out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion on a "revised" rulebook: I thought that's what Pathfinder (and 3.5 for that matter) was supposed to be. Revisions on a ruleset that was considered flawed or in need of fine tuning and cleaning up.
I don't know, but maybe after two revisions, and two different companies attempting to make things work, it's fair to ask if 3.0 has core flaws that will have to change for it to be what you want. Core flaws that, when changed, will stop the game from continuing to be compatible with older editions.
Irrespective of whether such flaws exist, the Core Rulebook has presentation and organization issues that could be addressed without actually changing any rules.
...
A great deal of the "juggling" there is the DM reading the descriptions with him going back & forth in the module to find out where various items & sounds are, joking around, and so forth.
Sounds like a fun group, and I have no problems with those ecnounters taking that much time if they are having that much fun with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A great deal of the "juggling" there is the DM reading the descriptions with him going back & forth in the module to find out where various items & sounds are, joking around, and so forth.
Oh, hey I've played with Benjamin before at PaizoCon in 2013. He certainly had a grasp of the Pathfinder rules back then and after watching about 10 minutes of the video jumping around, I don't think it's the rules slowing them down.
It is something else that I have a legitimate complaint about with the Runelords Anniversary Edition though, and that's when the monster stat blocks are all over the place. You're in a fight in area B-17 and you need to flip back to A-1 to find the "goblin warrior" and then flip to A-15 to find the "goblin warchanter" stat block. I see he's using a bunch of bookmarks to try to navigate. To be honest, he has a lot going on with the sounds, the overhead map, etc. We tried using the projected map at our table as well, but it simply took longer than having the maps drawn in advance and having "fog of war" to mask it via little tiles covering it.
For Runelords and a lot of Paizo adventures these days, I find myself needing to make "cheat sheets" with the stat blocks. When combat begins, I literally close the adventure book and run off the 1-page cheat sheet which has everything duplicated on it that I need. Sadly, this takes extra GM prep time, which is a precious resource.
Older adventures, like Crypt of the Everflame, were formatted really well, where you could run every combat off the page it was presented on. There were no references to NPC Codex or Bestiary 4. Even the stat blocks of skeletons were reproduced in full in the adventure, which made it easily run without having to have a cheat sheet. More recent adventures seem to have traded convenience for page count, which is a bit disappointing.
That said, when I argue for a "simplification" of Pathfinder in a revised or 2nd edition, I'm not looking for Basic Rules or a Beginner Box... I'm looking for some of the dead weight of the system to be jettisoned since it adds zero value to the game.
Examples of "dead weight" in the system:
1) Someone is playing a magus at a low level table. They will typically already be rolling 5-6 dice at 2nd level. A concentration check. Attack and damage rolls for their weapon. Attack and damage rolls for their touch spell. I'd prefer a system where it was balanced so that the magus doesn't need to roll concentration checks. Eliminate the extra work for a magus player to consume play time doing this. It's generally not fun, and all it does it serve as a balancing mechanism for the magus. Know what balances it? Simply ban magic lineage/wayang spell hunter and house rule your magus player auto-succeeds every concentration check.
2) Iterative attacks. Most of my players struggle with math on iterative attacks for some reason. I see this all the time running PFS at higher tiers, too. Literally, the iterative attacks are just at -5 and -10 respectively (barring complexity like Furious Focus which adjusts the first attack but not later ones). I'd prefer if the system simply added additional attacks without the penalties. Perhaps going back to 2E where you get an extra attack every other round. This would eliminate the dazed look I see on players when I see them look at their second dice roll and try to sort out it's total value. I like when players simply know they are facing a monster, and need to roll a 9 to hit, regardless of which attack it is.
3) Dispel checks. I mentioned this before, but at mid to high levels, my games tend to have a lot of Dispel Magic thrown around to strip buffs. This ends up being a series of rolls fishing to beat the caster level. Sometimes we get through 6-7 rolls before an effect is removed. 5E is great. Dispel Magic simply removes a buff between 1st-3rd level. Pick the spell you want gone on the target. It's gone. Resolve and move on.
I could probably print a House Rules cheat sheet with 150-200 house rules on it to "streamline" the game. It's not dumbing down the game, but rather finding some of the rougher edges and trying to smooth them out. I'd actually likely go through the game and change a lot of spells/abilities and their "bonus types" so less things stack. That right there would avoid a lot of the math as folks try to stack bonuses. I can't tell you how many times I've found a player with multiple resistance bonuses or armor bonuses or deflection bonuses adding them all up, instead of taking the highest. I think the game could do with eliminating and consolidating several bonus categories and making this clearer to players and GMs which would save a lot of adding and mistakes.
Honestly what I want is for Paizo to keep making great adventures, just to use a system where making a character doesn't take so long. This game wastes space on trifles.
Reduce the number of stacking things. Make a single elegant spell per level progression that each spell aster uses, so multiclassing is smoother. Stop making the default assumption be You Suck Unless You Take This Three-Feat Chain.
Basically I like 5th edition D&D. Wizards just isn't as good at adventures as Paizo.
A great deal of the "juggling" there is the DM reading the descriptions with him going back & forth in the module to find out where various items & sounds are, joking around, and so forth.Oh, hey I've played with Benjamin before at PaizoCon in 2013. He certainly had a grasp of the Pathfinder rules back then and after watching about 10 minutes of the video jumping around, I don't think it's the rules slowing them down.
It is something else that I have a legitimate complaint about with the Runelords Anniversary Edition though, and that's when the monster stat blocks are all over the place. You're in a fight in area B-17 and you need to flip back to A-1 to find the "goblin warrior" and then flip to A-15 to find the "goblin warchanter" stat block. I see he's using a bunch of bookmarks to try to navigate. To be honest, he has a lot going on with the sounds, the overhead map, etc. We tried using the projected map at our table as well, but it simply took longer than having the maps drawn in advance and having "fog of war" to mask it via little tiles covering it.
Right, we seem to be in agreement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason pathfinder still ives and STILL sells better then the newest 5th edition stuff is that the Rules crunch bloat, despite what your DM-fatigue is telling you, is sometimes nessessary to keep the system strong.
Ive played some Numinera, its a really cool system, but after seing the rules for character creations I see like 5 different characters I can make before completely exhausting the options available outside custom rules.
Ive seen the 5th edition rules, and trust me, this time next year there will be 2 or even 3 extra splat books with names STILL based on books they developed for 3.5 (Complete arcane, Complete divine, so on) as they fight to produce enough new material to keep players interested before they slowly exhaust their character options to extinction.
Im genuinely sorry if I sound offencive with my arguments above.
Remember, if the rule-bloat is counter-inituitive to your GM-style then tell your players "EVERYTHING non-core requires approval!" and use the PFS method "Own the book and bring the hardcopy to the session, otherwise youre not allowed to use Trait X from softcover splatbook ZY".
I generally love new crunch, and I collect 3rd party stuff when the thirst for new stuff becomes too great, but everything outside paizo hardcover books requires approoval, even if it comes from books like "Blood of X".
Then dont be afraid to make excessive use of the rules you set, if youre not comfortable with Summoners in your game just declare them nonexistent.
On the supportive note, I also want Pathfinder 2.0. But I dont want a rehashed rule system that is again, backwards compatible, I want a rebalance. An update to the classic classes that modernises them without changing them, small things like granting Fighters 4 skillpints per level, nerfing or rebalancing power attack so that Two-handed weapons dont dominate the scene anymore, possibly modifying the way critical hits work.
|
A group I used to play in used Hero Lab. That seemed to help the rules issues some--and the math issues. Less page flipping, fewer electronic devices, and character sheets always visible on one large screen.
That helped a lot with the "I don't remember what X does".
Most of the groups I've played with have been heavy into looking rules up in the books. This does slow things down. But sometimes we need things to slow down a bit in our current game. We're just flying through the first book of Iron Gods.
Truly I wouldn't mind seeing more of the quality APs. Paizo's pre-written campaigns are strong, and they can be easily modified to include more personal touches. There was a time that I was anti-module, but the Adventure Paths have caused that opinion to change.
|
|
The reason pathfinder still ives and STILL sells better then the newest 5th edition stuff is that the Rules crunch bloat, despite what your DM-fatigue is telling you, is sometimes nessessary to keep the system strong.Well, that plus the fact that 5e just hit the regular book and game stores today.
Nonsense. If 5e was a decent system, it's sales for today would already have exceeded Pathfinder's since Pathfinder began.
|
With 5E still being new there is no way to know how well it wil do yet imo. Agree about HeroLab it's very helpful dare I say needed to buil;d characters. Nothing slows a session donw more than the player who even after ten sessions of gaming still has not learned what his character can or cannot do.
The reason pathfinder still ives and STILL sells better then the newest 5th edition stuff is that the Rules crunch bloat, despite what your DM-fatigue is telling you, is sometimes nessessary to keep the system strong.Well, that plus the fact that 5e just hit the regular book and game stores today.
This hasnt stopped the WOTC & D&D proponents from declaring it a success. Technically the Starter Box has been out for about a month. So 5E has been in the hands of the public for at least that long.
D&D is going to overtake the top spot again simply because of brand recognition. Even as a Paizo fan that much is bloody clear. It's going to be like that for at least a year or so.
Doesnt mean that it's a great game (It might be). Doesnt mean it's the best game. It's just the BEST KNOWN game. And on the strength of that it's going to 'win'.
Then again 4E started very, very strong too with everyone loving it and those who didnt were wrong, didnt like change and would be playing it eventually. The real test will be if people are still excited and playing it 2 - 3 years from now with the same passion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... if I want to run a simpler game, dropping Pathfinder down to CRB only is not the way I'm going to do it. I'll just run 5e Basic rules only. Both sets of rules are available online for free and don't come with monsters/enemies, so the workload on prep will be about equal save for knowing 5e basics simpler rules.
Sidenote: I think that a lot of people, when talking about how 5e is goign to be simpler than Pathfinder, are conflating the Basic rules with what the whole game is going to be like. While I suspect some of the core mechanics (kits, advantage/disadvantage) will make the game simpler, I'm sure the system is going to have plenty of rules bloat, too.
Nonsense. If 5e was a decent system, it's sales for today would already have exceeded Pathfinder's since Pathfinder began.The reason pathfinder still ives and STILL sells better then the newest 5th edition stuff is that the Rules crunch bloat, despite what your DM-fatigue is telling you, is sometimes nessessary to keep the system strong.Well, that plus the fact that 5e just hit the regular book and game stores today.
Having talked to 5e fans, most already believe this. If I didn't know any better I'd think that 5e was the second coming of Christ :p
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
one persons "rules bloat" is another person's "rules expansion" i myself look atit as rules expansion, and i think Paizo has actually been fairly restrained in this regard, i don't think a 2nd edition is necessary or even wanted by the general populace right now, most people i know just got pathfinder in the last two years, it'll drive them off if you do a new edition now.
my half cent (f$@!ing taxes!)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the concept of rules bloat. If it's too much for you don't use everything, it's really that simple. I can't see a game getting rules bloated over time, unless every new book is somehow indispensible for actual functional gameplay. But in reality everythign that came out since the Bestiary was purely optional.
5e doesn't have rules bloat because it only consists of the PHB?
If you want the same effect with Pathfinder simply play core only.
By the way ive had a fewdays to dig into the 5e PHB now (I might have already stated that earlier) and I find it intriguing, i would actually like to play it even, but it is a completely different beast from Pathfinder. The only things the two games really still have on common are a couple of class and spell names.
DnD is now a game for simple, fast roll-play (pretty much everything is rolled on Ability mod + proficiency or no proficiency; instead of circumstantial bonuses and penalties, you simply have advantage/disadvantage; extra damage is expressed with additional dice etc.), while in Pathfinder it might be a little more involved in math but is a lot deeper (with BABs, different skill ranks, class- and non-class skills, bonuses and penalties from tools, spells, conditions and so on, you can have much more nuanced differences in how good somebody is at something as compared to somebody else);
Also pathfinder has a certain amount of consistency that is missing in 5e DnD. As an example off the top of my head: Enlarge Person in Pathfinder actually modifies the target with the rules for a larger size creature as well as appropriate modifications to your ability scores, while in 5e you get advantage on Strength checks, and an additional d4 for weapon damage among a few other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with the "rules expansion" side. I have all the Paizo stuff and probably more pages in 3PP rules than Paizo and I still want more - 10 years of more rules, and I still would be happy for more, all on the same chassis we have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with the "rules expansion" side. I have all the Paizo stuff and probably more pages in 3PP rules than Paizo and I still want more - 100 years of more rules, and I still would be happy for more, all on the same chassis we have.
I fixed that for you ;)
To be fair, the OP doesn't actually say it's bad. In fact, he does say that this is great for other people. What he wants is a separate ruleset for Pathfinder that is simplified.
Other people in this thread, however, have said that.
Luckily, he will get his wish (somewhat) with Pathfinder Unchained, which will have modular add ons that simplify things such as crafting, action economy, and monster creation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, the OP doesn't actually say it's bad. In fact, he does say that this is great for other people. What he wants is a separate ruleset for Pathfinder that is simplified.
Other people in this thread, however, have said that.
Luckily, he will get his wish (somewhat) with Pathfinder Unchained, which will have modular add ons that simplify things such as crafting, action economy, and monster creation.
Im not sure why people keep saying PF uncahined is going to be a simplified version of PF. I dont get that at all from what I have read about it. Can someone tell me how exactly PF uncahined is going to provide a separate and simplified versin of PF?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest example of rules bloat that I can remember experiencing was near the end of AD&D 2nd edition where the introduction of kits and the Player's Option rules meant that I was hauling around half a dozen or more rulebooks that needed to be referenced every session.
The problem there (speaking only from personal experience - I realize this scenario is a perk to some) was that I couldn't pare things down to the core because I felt the rules were too limiting for what I wanted.
Pathfinder has the advantage of having a very flexible core, so most of the stuff we've seen are just extra options rather than an overhaul of the rules. Sure, there are some things that represent sweeping changes, such as the words of power system and Mythic Adventures, but those aren't widespread enough to make me sweat. The rest of the stuff is just extra add-ins that I can copy and paste from the PRD if I want. And if I don't like the slayer class or a feat from Ultimate Combat, it's easy to just exclude that - nothing in the game experience requires that those options get used.
Admittedly, the Core Rulebook can use some better formatting and certain rules (combat maneuvers, attacks of opportunity, crafting) could use some simplification, but I don't think these needs are so pressing that they need to be addressed right now. From all accounts, Pathfinder is still growing as a game - it would be foolish from a business perspective to force a change when what they already have is working very well for them. I'd rather see more options (which I may or may not use) rather than setting the game back to zero and reintroducing the stuff that I already have.
(And yeah, 5th edition may jump ahead of Pathfinder in sales, but I'm not entirely sure that this makes an impact on Paizo. Their goal is to meet their profit expectations, not to hold a spot on the ICV2 rankings. Who's to say that D&D's success can't be a good thing for Paizo?)
Basically, if the decision comes down to having cool new stuff like Occult Adventures or an overhaul of the system that means we're going to be waiting on 2nd edition versions of the alchemist, inquisitor, et al for the next few years, I'd rather see the cool new stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR version:
Paizo released a book which included lots of cool options which are not mandatory to play the game, and this is bad because of reasons.
Way to marginalize all viewpoints that aren't yours! >:(
Im not sure why people keep saying PF uncahined is going to be a simplified version of PF. I dont get that at all from what I have read about it. Can someone tell me how exactly PF uncahined is going to provide a separate and simplified versin of PF?To be fair, the OP doesn't actually say it's bad. In fact, he does say that this is great for other people. What he wants is a separate ruleset for Pathfinder that is simplified.
Other people in this thread, however, have said that.
Luckily, he will get his wish (somewhat) with Pathfinder Unchained, which will have modular add ons that simplify things such as crafting, action economy, and monster creation.
In the product description it mentions a simplified action econom, monster creation, and crafting.
|
|
I dont mind more rules. Nor more sourcebooks. Its how most if not all rpg companies make their money. I does bother me that because its new people comne across as forcing to use it. No one is bein forced to use anything. My main complaint of the new stuff is lots of interesting fluff but the crunch is severy lacking imo. Or they release badly designed feats or worse classes that are better than what is in th core.
In the product description it mentions a simplified action econom, monster creation, and crafting.
I read that as well. While my interest is high Im nto holding my breath either.