Yup, It's time for Pathfinder 2.0


Product Discussion

251 to 300 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pan wrote:
You are right. I think Paizo should take their fan's opinions seriously. As long as those pinons are not "rewrite the system from the ground up or you will go bankrupt".

Don't get me wrong -- I do understand that some of the changes I would personally like to see would probably be unpopular. And I would guess that the safest course of action for Paizo, at least for the time being, is to keep doing what they've been doing, and so that's what I fully expect. I'd still like to see a re-write of the core to make it look a lot more like the beginner box, but I'm not holding my breath. :)

Sovereign Court

I don't like changes. Nor updates. Usually.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Pan wrote:
You are right. I think Paizo should take their fan's opinions seriously. As long as those pinons are not "rewrite the system from the ground up or you will go bankrupt".

Don't get me wrong -- I do understand that some of the changes I would personally like to see would probably be unpopular. And I would guess that the safest course of action for Paizo, at least for the time being, is to keep doing what they've been doing, and so that's what I fully expect. I'd still like to see a re-write of the core to make it look a lot more like the beginner box, but I'm not holding my breath. :)

I have read your posts and understand where you are coming from. Ive also seen some of the replies you have recieved so it makes sense you have certain viewpoints of the forum-base. Its great to express opinions and discuss them. It sucks when people try and shut you down or dogpile when they disagree. However, folks from all viewpoints sometimes rely on hyperbole or try and add anecdotal weight to make their opinon seem right. Both how folks express their opinons and how they recieve others should be tempered with reasonable expectations and sincerity. Im probably asking for way too much (:


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

I think it depends on what side of the fence you are on. Personally, I don't find criticism of Pathfinder to be stymied, or the forum to be full of "fanboys". If anything, certain sections of the forum tend towards the overly negative, to the point I usually don't post in them or pay attention to them.

Also, human psychology, at least as far as playtest suggestions. I have heard people in some of the recent threads say things along the lines of "No one ever wanted this class and it is a waste of space", while earlier on the same thread people raved about the class. People are more likely to remember the people that agreed with them and disregard playtests comments that didn't


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Odraude wrote:


On the other hand, we got the Slayer and Investigator as actual good skill classes that can contribute more than most martials can.

All any of this proves is that there are examples of good mechanics and bad mechanics that are in Paizo books. Though it's my opinion that editing aside, ACG has a great deal of good options, with a few that admittedly boggle the mind.

Don't get me wrong there are good things. Though with the Investigator we might as well just have a tombstone with the heading Rogue RIP 2014 IMO. No reason to take a Rogue anymore. Slayer is good as well. I just think that in the end feedback is useless IMO. As for better or worse the devs will do their own thing.

I'll keep this in mind as I start playing my new rogue this weekend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thalin wrote:

I agree sadly; too many splatbooks eventually kill a system.

All of the books are very well-written standalone, but you grab one thing that snuck by from one book and one thing from another, and suddenly you have melee-types doing 300+ damage and 150 point fireball oracles and other nonsense that are really starting to crop up. The arms race has fallen apart.

They can also make skills more interesting than 3.5 ever allowed for; and maybe shore up the caster vs melee weakness (which isn't bad anymore, they've done great; but, say, give more power to the skill-based classes that are still "lacking"). I don't think it has to change a lot, but I do think it is time for a reset. Much as I love the Advanced Class Guide :).

Yes, there isn't "patching" for balance, there is just more and more piled in. This creates confusion and bewilderment in dms.

For example, I was saying this is a problem for a PF gm for a while. Last year too much had finally came out for a dm I knew, and he felt he can no longer stay on top of it all. Now he is uncertain about the meta and doesn't fully understand all the options now. He is quite disheartened about that. It is turning him against PF slowly.

Another newer PF dm I know manages it quite well. Core, a couple of books and everything else has to be approved, a lot how I ran 3.5 for ages. Course, the amount he is restricting now is enormous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I shudder at a competitive gaming word like "the meta" being used to describe PF.


The meta is strong in pf, very strong. Whole lot of builds, options, classes and races. Optimizers bask in it. Some dms can't keep up.

Compare it to the meta in Dark Souls 2, which isn't nearly as strong but its there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I disagree with the usage on principle. PF is a cooperative game, not competitive and if you are playing it as such I can understand why you would feel the need to throw everything away.

But that's not what the game is designed to do. It's not about DMs trying to beat their players, or one player trying to beat the guy sitting next to him.

Its about a DM and players working together to all have a good time.

If you feel you need to worry about the "meta" in PF, might I suggest League of Legends or Magic the Gathering-- games where "the meta" is a real thing because they are competitive.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

I disagree with the usage on principle. PF is a cooperative game, not competitive and if you are playing it as such I can understand why you would feel the need to throw everything away.

But that's not what the game is designed to do. It's not about DMs trying to beat their players, or one player trying to beat the guy sitting next to him.

Its about a DM and players working together to all have a good time.

If you feel you need to worry about the "meta" in PF, might I suggest League of Legends or Magic the Gathering-- games where "the meta" is a real thing because they are competitive.

"The meta" exists with every game, and is even more present in cooperative roleplaying games. The meta in competitive games is just abilities and shifting player strategies. Meta in cooperative games is the above with the addition of character dynamics and priorities that must be made compatible with the campaign for the game to function.

Every time a party has had a discussion about whether or not there are going to be any evil characters/Paladin? They were talking the meta of character dynamics.

Every time a mostly good party has decided to simply brush off another party member's evil action because they don't want to deal with it, or would rather get to the next part of the story? They were observing the meta of the narrative.

Every time someone talks about how characters need access to flight in some way by level 10? They're talking the metagame.

Every time players talk about the concept of an "action economy?" They're talking about the metagame.

A DM modifying/improving monsters or running encounters at CRs of ECL+1 because his players have started to build his characters in different, more powerful ways? He's reacting to the meta.

A DM purposefully choosing to not throw certain monsters at the party because they would get squashed, would make boring encounters, or the certain party members wouldn't be able to contribute in an interesting or significant way? The metagame.

Respect the metagame. It's what makes TTRPGs work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

.

There is a poll --> POLL:Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder. You can vote now.

.


Nathanael Love wrote:

I disagree with the usage on principle. PF is a cooperative game, not competitive and if you are playing it as such I can understand why you would feel the need to throw everything away.

But that's not what the game is designed to do. It's not about DMs trying to beat their players, or one player trying to beat the guy sitting next to him.

Its about a DM and players working together to all have a good time.

If you feel you need to worry about the "meta" in PF, might I suggest League of Legends or Magic the Gathering-- games where "the meta" is a real thing because they are competitive.

See Squirrel dude for how I see meta. It isn't just about competition or solely for competitive games.

The problem with bloat, is that the meta can become too big. Big is subject to taste, time, volume and investment. A heavily invested dm can eventually be overwhelmed by the volume and the time involved in even understanding the meta as it now stands.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Is this like 'wrought'?


Quite different. You still can't wrap your head around wrought? Think cheese, or "that's cheesy" or deliciously cheesy (when you come up with it) while eating cheetos.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

I disagree with the usage on principle. PF is a cooperative game, not competitive and if you are playing it as such I can understand why you would feel the need to throw everything away.

But that's not what the game is designed to do. It's not about DMs trying to beat their players, or one player trying to beat the guy sitting next to him.

Its about a DM and players working together to all have a good time.

If you feel you need to worry about the "meta" in PF, might I suggest League of Legends or Magic the Gathering-- games where "the meta" is a real thing because they are competitive.

"The meta" exists with every game, and is even more present in cooperative roleplaying games. The meta in competitive games is just abilities and shifting player strategies. Meta in cooperative games is the above with the addition of character dynamics and priorities that must be made compatible with the campaign for the game to function.

Every time a party has had a discussion about whether or not there are going to be any evil characters/Paladin? They were talking the meta of character dynamics.

Every time a mostly good party has decided to simply brush off another party member's evil action because they don't want to deal with it, or would rather get to the next part of the story? They were observing the meta of the narrative.

Every time someone talks about how characters need access to flight in some way by level 10? They're talking the metagame.

Every time players talk about the concept of an "action economy?" They're talking about the metagame.

A DM modifying/improving monsters or running encounters at CRs of ECL+1 because his players have started to build his characters in different, more powerful ways? He's reacting to the meta.

A DM purposefully choosing to not throw certain monsters at the party because they would get squashed, would make boring encounters, or the certain party members wouldn't be able to contribute in an interesting or significant...

I disagree. . .

Building your characters for a group together isn't metagaming. Its just gaming.

Brushing off "evil" or questionable actions of your close associates isn't metagaming-- in fact its a much more realistic position than fearlessly calling them out and common in human society.

Every time someone says that a party "has" to have flight by level 10 they are simply wrong.

Talking about action economy is simply talking about the mechanics of the game.

A DM modifying/improving monsters to generate challenging encounters for their players is simply being a DM.

Again, a DM choosing not to use encounters that won't be challenging, would be boring, or would be unfun for part of the group is just being a DM.

Do you truly believe that the only way to not be "meta-gaming" is to have 10th level characters fight 1st level Orcs three times a session en route to fighting a CR 15 creature they have no means to engaging, while banning talk of the mechanics of the game, and portraying only characters who unfailingly adhere to the two digit alignment they wrote down then role playing inter party strife if those alignments contradict one another and portraying characters utterly free of flaws?


Nathanael Love wrote:

I disagree. . .

Building your characters for a group together isn't metagaming. Its just gaming.

Quote:
Brushing off "evil" or questionable actions of your close associates isn't metagaming-- in fact its a much more realistic position than fearlessly calling them out and common in human society.

Don't alter the scenario. It was an evil action, and good characters chose to ignore it. To avoid the alignment/morality debate: I expect good characters to have a reaction or challenge evil actions when they see it, and hold them to a higher standard than neutral characters. You might run it differently. That's fine.

For the purpose making a more generic/clear example: It's players and DM choosing to ignore actions that are completely out of character for the party simply for the sake of progressing the story faster, either for time constraints or a lack of progress in recent sessions. If there wasn't any metagame going on there the whole story might be stopped down for the sake of dealing with that one action in character.

Quote:

Every time someone says that a party "has" to have flight by level 10 they are simply wrong.

Talking about action economy is simply talking about the mechanics of the game.

1. Well, that sounds like something that would require an analysis of the rules and a large collection of player and DM anecdotes to really decide. It would probably have to take into account table variation, and how differences in player and DM styles. Almost like a discussion of the game's meta or something...

2. That is the definition of metagame. A discussion and analysis of the unstated mechanics that underpin the game's design. "Action Economy" isn't exactly a phrase used anywhere in a Pathinder rulebook that I remember. It's one that exists purely in discussions about the game.

Quote:

A DM modifying/improving monsters to generate challenging encounters for their players is simply being a DM.

Again, a DM choosing not to use encounters that won't be challenging, would be boring, or would be unfun for part of the group is just being a DM.

You're right, they are just being a DM. Part of being a DM means that you must have (ideally) developed an instinct for how rule changes, monsters, and encounters will interact with the party. If you care about having a balanced party, or want an imbalanced party, or what a new player to have a good time while an experienced player is bored, or need to keep a party on a railroad without them noticing, you are playing the game.

And, I guess that might be a way to avoid "metagaming." I don't think it's something you can totally avoid in a game where you are cooperating to tell a story, and on a DM can't avoid at all. While certainly the classic use of "metagaming" (Player situation/plot knowledge influence In Character situation/plot-driving actions) should be discouraged, it's not hard to avoid talking the meta of a game when a discussion of how game mechanics interact is the meta.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Those things aren't a metagame. A metagame inherently implies competition. The DM doesn't design game sessions thinking "which characters will my player's bring tonight and what can I do to counter/kill them" the way a magic player designs decks thinking "which decks will I face tonight and how can I counter/kill them."

As to the morality debate-- you can run it how you like, but I tend to think of most characters as you know people, not pure bots of good and law. To say anything more about that would require specifics of the situation to discuss.

Unless the party member in question slit the throats of babies and sacrificed them to an evil deity in front of the other party member "evil" is always relative.

Keep in mind most societies described in game worlds tolerate evil deities in their pantheons, and not everyone lives in a crusader nation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Those things aren't a metagame. A metagame inherently implies competition. The DM doesn't design game sessions thinking "which characters will my player's bring tonight and what can I do to counter/kill them" the way a magic player designs decks thinking "which decks will I face tonight and how can I counter/kill them."

So, is (purely hypothetically) made up entirely of characters that rely on sneak attack to do damage, he will never think twice about having them fight elementals, oozes, or any other enemy that are immune to precision damage?

To use a classic D&D morality test as an example when a GM needs to know the metagame to know whether or not it won't destroy his game. Do you kill the Orc babies? Or, perhaps the real questions, "How much will my players argue over whether or not they should kill the Orc babies?"


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Those things aren't a metagame. A metagame inherently implies competition. The DM doesn't design game sessions thinking "which characters will my player's bring tonight and what can I do to counter/kill them" the way a magic player designs decks thinking "which decks will I face tonight and how can I counter/kill them."

So, is (purely hypothetically) made up entirely of characters that rely on sneak attack to do damage, he will never think twice about having them fight elementals, oozes, or any other enemy that are immune to precision damage?

He might, or he might choose to specifically avoid using those things. Most likely they will exist in the game in about the same number that they usually exist in a game.

But that's what DMing is. That's not a met-game, that's the game. Every session every DM has to choose to use some particular adversary or other and its not somehow "metagaming" to consider all the factors when making that choice.

If the game were competitive and truly something where there was a metagame the DM would win every time. . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always thought of "metagaming" as using player knowledge to change what was going in game (such as ignoring evil actions"

I've always thought of "The Meta" as the large picture that exists in things like CCG where you worry about deckbuilding, and what your opponents would be doing, and the drift of what is being played.

About the only "The Meta" think I see for RPGs is the char-op or build guides for characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Those things aren't a metagame. A metagame inherently implies competition. The DM doesn't design game sessions thinking "which characters will my player's bring tonight and what can I do to counter/kill them" the way a magic player designs decks thinking "which decks will I face tonight and how can I counter/kill them."

So, is (purely hypothetically) made up entirely of characters that rely on sneak attack to do damage, he will never think twice about having them fight elementals, oozes, or any other enemy that are immune to precision damage?

He might, or he might choose to specifically avoid using those things. Most likely they will exist in the game in about the same number that they usually exist in a game.

But that's what DMing is. That's not a met-game, that's the game. Every session every DM has to choose to use some particular adversary or other and its not somehow "metagaming" to consider all the factors when making that choice.

If the game were competitive and truly something where there was a metagame the DM would win every time. . .

That you define metagame as something that is intrinsically and solely linked to competitive games is the heart of our disagreement. I feel we both have a solid understanding of the others position and thoughts on the issue. Either I can not convince you otherwise, am wrong, or you are unwilling to alter your stance on the issue. Regardless, there isn't a reason to continue the discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.


Nathanael Love wrote:

Those things aren't a metagame. A metagame inherently implies competition. The DM doesn't design game sessions thinking "which characters will my player's bring tonight and what can I do to counter/kill them" the way a magic player designs decks thinking "which decks will I face tonight and how can I counter/kill them."

As to the morality debate-- you can run it how you like, but I tend to think of most characters as you know people, not pure bots of good and law. To say anything more about that would require specifics of the situation to discuss.

Unless the party member in question slit the throats of babies and sacrificed them to an evil deity in front of the other party member "evil" is always relative.

Keep in mind most societies described in game worlds tolerate evil deities in their pantheons, and not everyone lives in a crusader nation.

Alas I will counter my players a bit, so that I may challenge them.

If everything can easily be taken down by the arrow spam ranger, how will I challenge them? Increase CR until something makes them explode? There are better ways of going about this.

If you don't provide some counters, strong characters can walk over the enemies you have prepared. Seen this happen many years ago. In fact adjusting the enemies to give the players a run for their money is part of what I consider being prepared for a game. Negative comparisons to other games are unnecessary, because this is how I make the combat of my games memorable - no one's character can easily kill all opponents they come across, as I have made preparations.

Cheers.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope that a 2 edition is a LONG way off. Backwards compatibility never really works, anything 100% backwards compatible is be default reselling you basically the same game. So a 2nd edition of Pathfinder will make some of the splat books not really useable 'off the shelf'. I don't mind the complexity of PF, with a I want a more rules light system than there is alway 5e D&D.

I am REALLY unlikely to buy PF books I already own just because they changed a few rules and added some new art. I like the sideways thinking of Paizo, the Occult book will be a nice addition for me.

S.

Shadow Lodge

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Quite different. You still can't wrap your head around wrought?

Where did I say that? I just asked a question.


I'm fine with Pathfinder progressing through low decimal point revisions, as long as they don't have the load of errors that the ACG has -- see this thread about numerous errors (pointed to the first of the by-chapter compiled lists of errors). But if Paizo WAS going to do a 2.0, I would like for them to team up with Green Ronin and do it as a hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds. Make sure that everything that currently exists can be easily built to work just the same way (and ease of building includes organization to facilitate this) using the new rules, and give fully fleshed out examples of how to generate all of the existing the Base Classes and the most commonly used archetypes and Prestige Classes. It would be a huge initial investment of work, but once it was done, it would save the need to keep releasing a ton of Classes, Archetypes, and Prestige Classes that take up huge volumes of printed spaces and provide fertile ground for errors such as those in the above-mentioned ACG.

Nothing would be made obsolete, but opportunity would be made to do things in combinations that were previously not practical or even possible.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I just dislike when a thread starts with "I think the game is too big, lets reset".

I'm not sure how I feel about the Advanced Class guide tbh- it seems too much. But the solution isn't "ban everything but core". If anything, it would be "ban the ACG".

More importantly, I'm SICK of games that press the reset button. Such a cash grab. Oh look, we lose the ninja. Again. Super.

Screw all that noise. If you like those games, play them. If you like this game, play this. But don't try to burn the rest of us.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
cfalcon wrote:

I just dislike when a thread starts with "I think the game is too big, lets reset".

I'm not sure how I feel about the Advanced Class guide tbh- it seems too much. But the solution isn't "ban everything but core". If anything, it would be "ban the ACG".

More importantly, I'm SICK of games that press the reset button. Such a cash grab. Oh look, we lose the ninja. Again. Super.

Screw all that noise. If you like those games, play them. If you like this game, play this. But don't try to burn the rest of us.

Don't worry man, you get the ninja back next year when your fork over an extra $40!


You worry too much. Unless there's already a secret project for 2nd edition, we are at least two years away - consider that the hit for the next GenCon is to be the Occult Adventurers... or something like that.

On the other hand, being vocal now about changes needed is good as it helps Paizo to learn, and hopefully manage your expectations.

Personally, I feel there's strong need for parallel Pathfinder product that would allow for more narrative style of gaming. Modern systems focus on making GM's side of screen have more to do with building a story than statblocks.

Regards,
Ruemere


Thinking about it more, the transition from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder (core of what it is today) obviously worked (or we wouldn't be in these forums talking about this). Arguably, the transition from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition D&D was similar in scope, and by the results, it also worked (although then TSR managed to shoot themselves in the foot later -- not saying that they didn't already have some problems which led to that happening eventually). So as long as a new edition of Pathfinder doesn't make a more radical change than those transitions, it should be fine, as long as it is making good change, with first priority going to quality of use of existing material, and avoiding some of the organizational pitfalls that have crept in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not a fan of the base of 5e because it abandons the whole point of the 20 level system imo.

Scaling skill ranks/CL/BAB from 1-20 represents the different sides of a d20, the die that drives the engine of the game, as such, the closer you get to 20, the better off the roll is.

If a second edition came out, I would not want to see them abandon this format as 5e has done in favor of their proficiency bonus.

Pathfinder has legs left in its lifetime, and I would like to see it last a bit longer, though I do have the inkling to see the sourcebooks completed so we can have a 'complete edition' to play without thinking there should be more material to work with.

The Unchained Release hopefully will rectify some mistakes that were part of the original release, mainly in attempting to maintain backwards compatibility which is something most players don't even bother with anymore now that there is sufficient material from this edition to use.

If Unchained ends up being a backdoor 2.0 that abandons 3.5 compatibility, and corrects some design flaws from PFRPG, while maintaining compatibility with current products, then I think we will have as close to a second edition as we will ever need.

Liberty's Edge

If a new edition means a whole new set of rules and changing the rules paradigm, then no, there is not a need for second edition.

If Paizo is willing to abandon its current requirement to maintain page references in order to allow for a reorganization of the rules, clarifications, while also including some tweaks to classes and/or feats and skill descriptions,I'm not entirely opposed to this.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a few baiting posts. Guys, this one is starting the unravel at the seams. Please be aware that all kinds of gamers come to paizo.com, that edition warring is ultimately unproductive, and remember to be civil to each other. Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Its almost like they can read the history of TSR and not make similar mistakes.

I absolutely agree. Paizo are some seriously bright and intuitive people, I trust them not to make the same mistakes as TSR and WotC.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.

I think if they did a 3.0->3.5 level transition, and focused on the presentation and organization, they could produce a rule-set that would work with the existing material with very little adjustment...roughly like running one of the OGL adventure paths using Pathfinder. Though admittedly, there would still be some work involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.
I think if they did a 3.0->3.5 level transition, and focused on teh presentation and organization, they could produce a rule-set that would work with the existing material with very little adjustment...roughly like running one of the OGL adventure paths using Pathfinder.

Pathfinder 1.5 would be better than a full second edition for sure.

People are describing Unchained as more of an Unearthed Arcana release, rather than a 1.5 edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few baiting posts. Guys, this one is starting the unravel at the seams. Please be aware that all kinds of gamers come to paizo.com, that edition warring is ultimately unproductive, and remember to be civil to each other. Thanks!

Hey! Edition warriors are people, too!

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

ikarinokami wrote:
as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.

I disagree to an extent. I don't think a new edition would necessarily have to invalidate previous adventure paths. Pathfinder as a system works fine with the 3.5 adventure paths, for example, and it's not that hard to run 3.0 adventures using the rules, either. There are ways that the rules can be cleaned up without making it a whole new game.

That said, I think I'd rather see what other cool things can be added to the system before the game gets a new edition.


Threeshades wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Those who think 5th Edition D&D simplifies things: That may be true right now, but wait a couple of years, and it will bloat right up -- just like 3.5 (in the last couple of years, Wizards of the Coast seemed to have been in a hurry to drive bloat).

Again the simplicity in 5e DnD has nothing to do with the volume of rules available. The gameplay itself has been simplified, much less math, almost all temporary modifiers result in you maybe rolling an extra die here or there and that's it, on the off chance someone has resistance or weakness to some form of damage you might actually multiply someting by two or halve it. In PF you start adding subtracting, multiplying and doing all sorts of other things to your nbumbers before you roll.

And also again, all additional rules to be released will be just as optional as they are with pathfinder.

I don't have problems in PF with attack numbers. I create a sheet with all the bonus and work it out for that level. So when I'm power attacking with Rage I have line for that. I'm not sure if this something they put in the strategy guide but sure is helpful and speeds the game up a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:
I don't have problems in PF with attack numbers. I create a sheet with all the bonus and work it out for that level. So when I'm power attacking with Rage I have line for that. I'm not sure if this something they put in the strategy guide but sure is helpful and speeds the game up a lot.

"You only need two character sheets" is not what I'd call a ringing endorsement of a system's or class' ease of play.


I typically have enough attacks listed that covers all combinations of bonuses from class abilities and such.
It is always recommended to have scrap paper nearby to list current and conditional modifiers from buffs.


I also encourage pwople to have their different varieties of attacks listed somewhere to keept the on-the-fly-math to a minimum, and combats flowing, but that doesn't change the fact, that 5e is still a lot simpler. Either you roll your attack with your regular modifiers, or you roll your attack twice with the regular modifiers and choose the higher/lower result. With very few exceptions in between, like barbarian rage and druid wild shape (the latter of one i found particularly surprising, it's easily the most complicated rule ive seen in the whole book)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
lots of sensible things

I can perfectly understand the OP.

I discovered pathfinder at the end of beta test and then bought the CRB straight away.

I loved Pathfinder back then. No more 3.5 zillions splat books, a new start, I loved the way they changed 3.5 for the best. Easy for reference and so on.

Specially as now I'm working, I have kids, my time is extremely precious and I have very little time for out of game PF.

I loved the AP I read (ROTRL) and I thought it corresponded rather well to my style. Nice graphics, good ideas, good forum for new ideas and mature content and a rather simple ruleset.

Again I play once every 2 weeks and my time is precious.

We started playing RotRL and stopped at the end of book 5 a bit fed up.
I realised It was much much too heavy. Combats were not so much fun as it ended up with iterative attacks, too much maths and finally combat lasted one or even 2 hours for some.
That's what made us stop.

Too much roll play, too many rules and some flaws in PF are really core flaws (iterative attacks, too many bonuses of too many types take too long)...

At low level it's quite easy but the power is quite dull, at high level you're god like but it's hardly manageable unless you have plenty of time and rule lawyers.
That's why so many people talk about the sweet spot (say between lvl 5
and 10) where things arn't too complicated but can do real cool things.

Now don't tell me I can house rule the lot. It would require too much time to do so. and again as a profesionnal my time is precious.

I understand that we all have different opinions on that. Some don't want to throw all in the bin again...

Now I'm really in the same mood as the author of the OP (I think ...).

I love Pathfinder as a company, I love the way they do a lot of things (specially their AP), but I'm fed up with all these splat books again. Same as 3.5, probably better but still same flaws ... due to backward compatibility probably.

Is it too hard to keep the same level of complexity with more simple combats?


Turick wrote:

Much agreed Captain ...

But picking and choosing what you want to incorporate in your homebrew of Pathfinder maybe the most expeditious way to reach your gaming nirvana.

By creating product, they pay their bills... So curbing their output is not going to happen. A "rules light" version is an interesting premise as well. Pathfinder is a fine system, and could very well benefit from such an iteration!

I love Pathfinder. I just bought the Numeria guide, People of the Stars, and the Technology Book. I own nine hardbacks and a slew of soft backs. That said, I don't play Pathfinder.

For my feeble mind and limited time, the fact that Pathfinder was *so* close to 3rd edition, but not quite the same, put me behind the eight-ball. The subtle, yet countless rule changes and tweaks for a "compatible" system were something I wanted to understand, but was told not to worry about. Ok, I tried.

Then came the Summoner, Alchemist, and Gunslinger. Wow. The thought of play groups using all the rules, bells, and whistles that come with those classes gives me an inferiority complex: I must not be that smart.

So, why do I keep buying books? Idea mines. The soft back books seem to offer more malleable material (although I loathe the fact that Paizo produces 6.3 million per year). Out of those millions produced each year, I pick up maybe two or three (this year being an exception due to Iron Gods).

So, yay Paizo! Keep them coming! I just don't have enough time and intellect to use your system.

I know I'm firmly in the minority here, but that doesn't mean we of similar mindset don't exist.


Looks like this guys can see what i watch here too!!

The rules are so broken right now with the most of the new books.
Mythic Rules, even the monsters can´t stand the challenge.
Advanced Class Guide: We kill a chimera at 2nd level in 3 rounds (the gm is a hard mode gm, thats all the monster can offer)

I realize that paizo has something to say, maybe PFRPG 2 or something else, or maybe we are playing the game with a bunch of munchkin making the rules... High HD for classes, Action Points, Pool of something, and their own classes get the game to higher levels.

Jacobs has already says that paizo is not making neither epic level nor pathginder 2. Actually i like that (keep buying the same rules based books) but with the ACG i don´t know what´s next. I will wait until monster are rebalanced and re tested. I will buy the 4 bestiaries again if it cand offer more rules.

With the ACG and all of their Archetypes, we can easily create a Build which stands against the tarrasque at solo mode at level ten with the rules as they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are a fair amount of people who buy paizo adventures and setting products but dont play pathfinder itself, either with 3.x or 4.0 or something more exotic. Its a good setting with rich ideas. And their adventures are excellent. Not sure why you loath the volume they put out each year, seems like then its more likely they would touch on a product you like. If they only produced 1 adventure path per year for instance, it would still probably be a long time before iron gods came out.


I'd really like a detailed breakdown here, Juda.

251 to 300 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.