And again, if it's too much content to handle, or splatbooks seem to pose blance issues, why don't you just use less? What's stopping you from just using CRB and bestiaries for example?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, if it's too much content to handle, or splatbooks seem to pose balance issues, why don't you just use less? What's stopping you from just using CRB and bestiaries for example?
Core only won't solve the problem because:
A) Many character concepts simply can not be effectively recreated with only the Core Rulebook. I can't think of any way to do a one hand+free hand fighter that's effective, for example.
B) The game's CR system is simply not designed for a more optimized party, using any splats, and honestly isn't all that accurate. There are far too many enemies that just get one attack per round, or enemies that require spending rounds buffing themselves, or work best in certain environments, etc.
C) Limiting a game to the Core Rulebook does nothing to limit bonus type bloat/math bloat. We've got: Morale, deflection, dodge, armor, luck, sacred, profane, untyped, alchemical, competance, circumstance, insight, precision damage, racial, resistance, shield, size, trait, and enhancement and probably a few more that I'm forgetting.
Keeping track of all of those bonuses is easy math, but it's time consuming and can drain the excitement out of a combat. God forbid you have a player who isn't sure what stacks and what doesn't stack, or a player who needs someone else to check their math for them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as it's basically the same I wouldn't mind a cleaned up edition of Pathfinder someday. Like what 3.5 was to 3.0. I don't think we're at that point yet though.
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 frequent RPGnet, and there is either on the D20 forums, or the "RPG Open" a thread on "using Pathfinder APs with X game" - I've seen it for 4E, OSR type games and others. Right now of course 5th is all the rage.
Personally it would be really interesting to know how much of the AP volumes are sold to non PF players.
And again, if it's too much content to handle, or splatbooks seem to pose balance issues, why don't you just use less? What's stopping you from just using CRB and bestiaries for example?Core only won't solve the problem because:
A) Many character concepts simply can not be effectively recreated with only the Core Rulebook. I can't think of any way to do a one hand+free hand fighter that's effective, for example.
B) The game's CR system is simply not designed for a more optimized party, using any splats, and honestly isn't all that accurate. There are far too many enemies that just get one attack per round, or enemies that require spending rounds buffing themselves, or work best in certain environments, etc.
C) Limiting a game to the Core Rulebook does nothing to limit bonus type bloat/math bloat. We've got: Morale, deflection, dodge, armor, luck, sacred, profane, untyped, alchemical, competance, circumstance, insight, precision damage, racial, resistance, shield, size, trait, and enhancement and probably a few more that I'm forgetting.
Keeping track of all of those bonuses is easy math, but it's time consuming and can drain the excitement out of a combat. God forbid you have a player who isn't sure what stacks and what doesn't stack, or a player who needs someone else to check their math for them.
A) A new edition would cause the exact same problem. Initially it will not have the options to make many different specific builds until it gets splatbooks.
B) That doesn't really seem to be a problem of rules bloat but a balance issue.C) That's also not an issue of content volume.
I'm adressing the people who find they have too many books to carry around/be aware of. I haven't even touched on game balance and as with time consuming math i completely agree with you. That's what i said 5e's strength is in that regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/not signed
With the PRD and age of the interent I will never be ready for PF2. I hope they never make one and just keep doing what they are doing. At this point all I needs me is some AP goodness.
+1.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only if you believe a poll will actually determine the real problems with the system and not the most popular problems...
Or just the problems that a small % of posters think are the problems.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am extremely happy with the current system. I'd be content if they NEVER got around to a 2nd edition. Really the only reason I even switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder was BECAUSE they were basing it off of the former, and the former wasn't going to be supported anymore (and WotC kind of let the system get a little out of hand with many of their later splatbooks).
|
Only if you believe a poll will actually determine the real problems with the system and not the most popular problems...Or just the problems that a small % of posters think are the problems.
Really? So you think there are no issues in pathfinder? Or that only a few people are troubled by them?
I've played in and GMed many games, and I've seen many players being unhappy with the pathfinder system. I've seen it before at the end of 3.5DD.
It is true that a DM can remove or change anything about the game, that why a buy games and splat book so I don't have to. I don't have the time to change everything that bothers me. Nor do the other DM's. I've cut back buying Pathfinder material and may stop it completely.
Of the people I know all have stop buy dead tree copies, and all but one has stopped PDF.
If I'm one of the very few people who sees problems perhaps, then I should just stop supporting Pathfinder...
I would hate to think of that...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? So you think there are no issues in pathfinder? Or that only a few people are troubled by them?Only if you believe a poll will actually determine the real problems with the system and not the most popular problems...Or just the problems that a small % of posters think are the problems.
No, he means that such a poll will not necessarily get the actual problems with the system. It will get what a vocal minority thinks are the problems with the system.
And there is no guarantee that those problems with be the actual problems with the system.Which is what I also said. Let me know if I misread you DrD.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd accept a patch or fix like Pathfinder Unchained or PF 1.5. I'll even accept a sister game like the Beginner Box getting beefed up a notch. But I'm not too keen on a Pathfinder 2.0. I've only been playing Pathfinder for less than three years and almost all problems I see on the forums have never been experienced at my tables. If I wanted to play with a different system I have a ton of options either on my shelf or literally one block away from where I'm sitting now. I can play Fate, 5e, True20, Savage Worlds, Dungeonworld, Anima or Dogs in the Vineyard. I like all those games, but I'm spending my time with Pathfinder because I like it and want to play it. I have plenty of people around that do not play Pathfinder that I could play with (I work at a game store) but I chose Pathfinder.
|
|
Really? So you think there are no issues in pathfinder? Or that only a few people are troubled by them?Only if you believe a poll will actually determine the real problems with the system and not the most popular problems...Or just the problems that a small % of posters think are the problems.No, he means that such a poll will not necessarily get the actual problems with the system.
It will get what a vocal minority thinks are the problems with the system.
And there is no guarantee that those problems with be the actual problems with the system.Which is what I also said. Let me know if I misread you DrD.
So how would you determine if there are problems?
I think a poll could be useful.I guess we could just wait until people stop playing...
I not saying a poll would be perfect but it can be used as a tool.
Vocal minority being a problem?
yes that can happen. But many times in history the vocal minorities were right.
And your right the is no guarantees in anything. the only guarantee is doing nothing will result in nothing...
|
|
Personally I'd accept a patch or fix like Pathfinder Unchained or PF 1.5. I'll even accept a sister game like the Beginner Box getting beefed up a notch. But I'm not too keen on a Pathfinder 2.0. I've only been playing Pathfinder for less than three years and almost all problems I see on the forums have never been experienced at my tables. If I wanted to play with a different system I have a ton of options either on my shelf or literally one block away from where I'm sitting now. I can play Fate, 5e, True20, Savage Worlds, Dungeonworld, Anima or Dogs in the Vineyard. I like all those games, but I'm spending my time with Pathfinder because I like it and want to play it. I have plenty of people around that do not play Pathfinder that I could play with (I work at a game store) but I chose Pathfinder. [/QUOTE
I agree there are games, I don't why we can't try to improve the one I like best.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how would you determine if there are problems?
Discussion. Play testing. Study. The same things we have been doing.
And polls. So long as you are aware of selection bias and the myriad other effects on the results.
But that's not what your reply was about. You were casting him as saying that there are NO problems with Pathfinder, and that simply wasn't true.
Personally I'd accept a patch or fix like Pathfinder Unchained or PF 1.5. I'll even accept a sister game like the Beginner Box getting beefed up a notch. But I'm not too keen on a Pathfinder 2.0. I've only been playing Pathfinder for less than three years and almost all problems I see on the forums have never been experienced at my tables. If I wanted to play with a different system I have a ton of options either on my shelf or literally one block away from where I'm sitting now. I can play Fate, 5e, True20, Savage Worlds, Dungeonworld, Anima or Dogs in the Vineyard. I like all those games, but I'm spending my time with Pathfinder because I like it and want to play it. I have plenty of people around that do not play Pathfinder that I could play with (I work at a game store) but I chose Pathfinder. [/QUOTE
I agree there are games, I don't why we can't try to improve the one I like best.
Improving is one thing, which is why I'd readily accept 1.5s, optional patches and sister games. But if we got a new edition and moved closer to something like 5e I would not be happy.
That said I'd really like to see how Pathfinder Unchained works out and how often books like it can happen because if they add in what it seems like they're adding then Pathfinder will be my go-to game for at least two decades as almost all of my problems with the game are resolved by 3pp and it looks like the rest are being handled by Pathfinder Unchained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? So you think there are no issues in pathfinder? Or that only a few people are troubled by them?Only if you believe a poll will actually determine the real problems with the system and not the most popular problems...Or just the problems that a small % of posters think are the problems.No, he means that such a poll will not necessarily get the actual problems with the system. It will get what a vocal minority thinks are the problems with the system.
And there is no guarantee that those problems with be the actual problems with the system.Which is what I also said. Let me know if I misread you DrD.
Yep. Oh sure, some of the most "loud" issues on this board are issues- the Fighter would be more fun with more skill points, the rogue does need more cool new talents, martials are obsoleted by spellcasters at the very highest levels... but in many games these are not serious problems.
So far, I have not seen any SERIOUS issues with PF (that have not been fixed).
There are many minor issues- but opinions vary on how important and whether or not these are "Bugs' or "features". For example, we have two fighter players who really want a plain vanilla melee monster _they "just wanna kill something". I dont like the lack of non-combat usefulness. Feature or Bug? Well, since there are 30 other classes, I guess they can have their plain vanilla melee monster, as long as I get the choices of Paladin, Ranger, Magus, etc. To each their own. Not a problem, to me, then.
I dont care for the corner reach exception for pole arm in PF- we just ignore it. Problem? Sure, but hardly serious.
There are a number of poorly worded spells- these cause issues like the "Sno-cone wish machine, "scry & fry" and of course Blood Money when used to get free wishes. I have even started FAQ threads for a couple of these- yes, they are problems. Serious? Not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont care for the corner reach exception for pole arm in PF- we just ignore it. Problem? Sure, but hardly serious.
As an aside, I believe this has been stealth-errataed, or whatever you want to call it, with the Rules Reference Flash Cards -- at least if you're referring to what I think you're referring to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont care for the corner reach exception for pole arm in PF- we just ignore it. Problem? Sure, but hardly serious.As an aside, I believe this has been stealth-errataed, or whatever you want to call it, with the Rules Reference Flash Cards -- at least if you're referring to what I think you're referring to.
Nice!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sanity prevails. :)
Also: How could anyone not want a Core Rulebook that looks more like those cards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I DO think it would be nice for a rules-patch, but I don't think Pathfinder needs a 2.0.
I'd fully support ceasing print on the original Core Rulebook and replacing it with an Expanded Core Rulebook - an update of the Core Rulebook with those aforementioned errata/patches (like the Fighter being upgraded to a 4+Int skill class, etc.), plus all the various Combat Maneuvers originally printed in other books, a list of Traits, the Fame rules, Favored Class abilities, etc. - all things that're, by now, considered integral to the system and inseparable from the Pathfinder name.
In other words, something new players would probably want to get, and older players don't absolutely NEED to get, since they'll already have that data in books that have been printed thus far, barring a handful of errata that they can print out online.
I would like to see that. If they did a Player's Core Sourcebook and a DM's Core Sourcebook as separate releases.
So, random question:
If there was going to be a second edition of the game, should the base assumption of the combat field be squares, hexes, or theatre of the mind?
Probably Theatre of the mind with a brief hex/square translation and most map-based products being squares. Everything seems to use imperial measurements that can easily be translated to squares if you want to but not required so there shouldn't be too much of a change. Hexes are tactically applauded but I think from a product standpoint squares work better for the type of maps you need to buy maps for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, random question:
If there was going to be a second edition of the game, should the base assumption of the combat field be squares, hexes, or theatre of the mind?
Keep it as it is.
As it stands, one of the strengths of the 3rd Edition rules was that everything was written in measurements of 5ft segments, but never said you had to physically display combat in one way or another.
5ft can either be 5ft imagined, 1-inch distance increments (ala Warhammer and other miniatures games where you use a tape measure and have 360 degrees of movement over terrain), 1-inch squares, or 1-inch-diamter Hexes. You can even do it other ways - it's just the above are the easiest to manage, and you'll find more minis with 1-inch/25mm bases than you will anything else; by the nature of the market, it's generally accepted that minis work on a 1in=5ft scale.
They have templates for both the Squares and Hexes for line, cone, and area effects in the Core Rulebook; and obviously physically measuring or printing out similar minis-wargames templates are easily done. Paizo's kept with the design of providing the narrative design of combat (5ft areas), and allow the players to decide how they handle combat maneuvering and tactics themselves.
I personally favor either hexes or minis-games-style 360-degree measured movement, but I will agree that squares are the simplest method, especially since grids are the most-readily-available blank canvases. Then again, I'm never gonna fault people for using their imaginations, since that's by far the cheapest (potentially also the messiest, however).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how would you determine if there are problems?Discussion. Play testing. Study. The same things we have been doing.
And polls. So long as you are aware of selection bias and the myriad other effects on the results.
But that's not what your reply was about. You were casting him as saying that there are NO problems with Pathfinder, and that simply wasn't true.
Well that was not what my reply was about. I was saying is that the current state of play is not working for myself and at least 2 dozen people I regularly play with. Perhaps its just different styles of play. I have to say I think there a number large holes in the system that should be looked into by somebody, either them or a three party. It's hard to find anyone who thought the last book was at all useful. In the last year or so the quality for pathfinder products has been on the decline. Perhaps everything is just find and my groups are just abnormal.
I hope pathfinder lives forever and perhaps I just nit-picking. I just thought someone by now had considered this.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps everything is just find and my groups are just abnormal.
Nope, my group is exactly the same. But I bet if we lined up your groups gripes and my groups gripes there would be some notable disagreements. Add the rest of the player base and you'll find consensus on what to fix very difficult to achieve.
In the last year or so the quality for pathfinder products has been on the decline. Perhaps everything is just find and my groups are just abnormal.
How do you figure that?
If you are talking about the pathfinder RPG line yes i agree, but APs, tales, player companion, campaign setting seem as good as ever, i don't know about PFS scenarios (since i don't play PFS).There is also the PF modules line, well that's tricky because they kinda changed the line in the last year, only one of the new format modules is a dud (wardens of the reborn forge) and the rest of them are better than the latest modules of the previous format, but then again the modules of the previous format were very hit or miss, so all in all i can't really tell anything about pathfinder modules other than that the current format seems better suited for modules than the previous format.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as it's basically the same I wouldn't mind a cleaned up edition of Pathfinder someday.
I'd love a cleaned up version. The Beginner Box has shown what Paizo can do when they put their minds to it.
Like what 3.5 was to 3.0.
Lots of tiny changes, some for good reason, some for no apparent reason, some that actually made things worse, whilst some major issues completely ignored. No thanks!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Revised Edition. Something I've been asking for for years, but understanding that Paizo should be hesitant to do.
No need for a drastic change of the rules, just pare things down. Cut a lot of dungeon-focused info from the Core Rulebook, drop a lot of the tables that are found (and belong) in more specialized books like the GMG and Ultimate Equipment. Focus on gameplay procedures and make the information as accessible as possible.
It's all a big publishing and information architecture nightmare, but if handled with the same aplomb as the beginner box it would be the ideal product.
But -- I've said this every time it's come up. Sure we're in a slightly different market right now, but that doesn't mean a knee-jerk edition drop is the right move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, random question:
If there was going to be a second edition of the game, should the base assumption of the combat field be squares, hexes, or theatre of the mind?
Hexes are better but that'll never happen, we lost that during 3.0.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I agree, It's not time for Pathfinder 2.0 but maybe It's time for Pathfinder Revised AKA: Republish the Game Guide and split it in two, player's guide and gm's guide make the player's guide more newplayer-friendly and put all the "harder" stuff in the gm's guide.
The fanbase would revolt. Pathfinder isn't really an RPG, it's a character-building game that happens to have an ancillary RPG sloppily duct-taped to one of the sides. Pathfinder fans don't care anywhere near as much about the RPG as the character-building game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fanbase would revolt. Pathfinder isn't really an RPG, it's a character-building game that happens to have an ancillary RPG sloppily duct-taped to one of the sides. Pathfinder fans don't care anywhere near as much about the RPG as the character-building game.
Haha... this is very accurate, if a touch negative.
Doesn't matter though, any RPG can be great if run and played properly, even if it is a footnote on an intimidatingly complex character-builder.
And as far as character-building playgrounds, Pathfinder is one of the all-time best.
|
Hexes are better but that'll never happen, we lost that during 3.0.So, random question:
If there was going to be a second edition of the game, should the base assumption of the combat field be squares, hexes, or theatre of the mind?
Hexes are different. For an open field - I'd agree with you. Squares are just so much easier to draw out when there are buldings/walls etc. (like most Pathfinder games)
Hexes are different. For an open field - I'd agree with you. Squares are just so much easier to draw out when there are buldings/walls etc. (like most Pathfinder games)Hexes are better but that'll never happen, we lost that during 3.0.So, random question:
If there was going to be a second edition of the game, should the base assumption of the combat field be squares, hexes, or theatre of the mind?
Yeah, I'm torn with it. Hexes are much easier to run IMO, but a bit harder to set up because more buildings are squares than are hexes.
In any case you should be able to offset the hexes so that things line up okay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, scale terrain and measuring tape are superior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, that's way too much thinking. One rule for everything!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All maps will now be transposed to that three dimensional chess board from star trek.
